A group* of my Colorado River collaborators has put together what we hope can be a useful set of foundational principles as the basin states and federal leadership search for a path toward a negotiated agreement for post-2026 Colorado River management. They’re based on a number of key premises:
- The Colorado River Compact will remain the foundation of the river’s management, but we have to find a way past the deep disagreement between Upper and Lower basin states on what the Compact actually says.
- Colorado River Basin tribes must be essential partners in crafting the next set of guidelines, including through compensation for foregone water use.
- Shared pain is essential. The path toward a sustainable river system requires everyone to contribute to the solution to the problem of the river we all share.
There’s more. I encourage you to read the whole thing. (It’s short!)
* In alphabetical order: Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Jack Schmidt, Kathryn Sorensen, Katherine Tara.
Essentially, this is what the States and Feds have been doing – in one form or another since the 1920’s, che no?
Why do you think it would suddenly work now?
“The Colorado River Compact will remain the foundation of the river’s management.” The Compact/law of the river never has worked, except to support lawyers, water engineers, politicians, and such. The entrenched and self-serving disagreements between basins, states, and water users won’t disappear unless someone can toss the mess from decades of mismanagement and ineffectual protocols over their cries and start over. Justice Marshall (then Solicitor General) made the argument Interior is the rightful manager of the river. Anyone envision Reclamation settling anything by doing what’s physically required but politically onerous? Any decent hydrologist (and maybe one or two engineers) can develop a simple paradigm that will preserve the river and meet needs as much as is really possible. Any such real solution will require users to accept a completely different way of looking at and allocating the available water supply. Including environmental interests. Unless we start getting 1949 size flows regularly. More likely flows head in the drier direction.
“Colorado River Basin tribes must be essential partners in crafting the next set of guidelines, including through compensation for foregone water use.” A nation founded in part on the backs of slaves and in no small part expanded through the genocide of Native Americans would do well to make a seat at the table for native tribes. Good luck quantifying foregone water use. Are you kidding?
“Shared pain is essential. The path toward a sustainable river system requires everyone to contribute to the solution to the problem of the river we all share.” You’re going in right direction here, at last. Add in a process for first quantifying and then sharing inevitable shortages you might get somewhere useful.
I believe the proper word is “regimen” not “regime.” I was corrected on this years ago.
I think it should be explicit, not implicit, that Tribal rights are antecedent to other water rights, including the Compact. A very real result will be Tribal sale (oops, lease) of water.
Interesting to see a mention of tributaries downstream from Lee Ferry (none of which are in California).
Proportional reduction for all parties based on 90% of the mean of last 3 years of flow at the Lee’s Ferry gage (plus Paria’s contribution, there’s nothing at Lee Ferry) leaving 10% to be split between Powell and Mead as contingency storage/refilling reservoir/ reestablishing water level for power production.
Oops. That would allow playing with storage in Lake Powell. As I understand it, the streamgage immediately upstream from Lake Powell does not measure discharge but just stage. You need a gage measuring inflow to Powell as well as changes in storage of all the Upper Basin Reservoirs.
I am not quite sure what Mike C. means, not being all that technical, but BOR measures and reports inflow to Powell annually, including in the 2025 operations report. Tribal rights are present protected rights under the Compact and are thus prior to and exempt from most other CRC rights. The tough spot’s getting them recog’d on the ground. The current Indian WR settlemt. bill in Congress is drafted to give Navajo, Hopi and Paiute 73,000 AF of water while abrogating Navajo rights to 1-2 MAF. Indians favor that because the states are strangling them. Navajo and other tribes should at least get paid for their water, and have enough to live on. I agree with Craig that it is whistling Dixie to get states to cooperate while keeping an upstairs-downstairs sub-basin structure that facilitates intransigence, with no incentive to agree at all and no guardrails. CRC should be jettisoned and completely rewritten with a view to sanity not profit.
That said, I am very glad to see a modest proposal by the esteemed Ann Castle, you and others for what people should look for in finding ways out of the CRB bramble bush as we approach yet another crisis point. Getting the states to play nice with ultimately meaningless words won’t accomplish much that’s worth doing, but I appreciate your tight bind here; how does one say anything worth saying without totally alienating people one needs to convince to make any headway at all? At this point, I’ve some room left in what I’m writing, and hope to incorporate comments on the Castle-et al. modest proposal in toward the end, with quotes here and there from you all. If that seems politically sensitive, let me know and I’ll review it with Ann and/or you. Also, along the same lines, please send me Larry O’Donnell’s email addr. off-channel. Thank you sir.