If you distill down what my six partners just said, I believe there’s three common things: Here’s all the great things my state has done. Here’s how hard/impossible it is to do any more. And here are all the reasons why other people should have to do more.
As long as we keep polishing those arguments and repeating them to each other, we are going nowhere.

Well… He’s right! I thought your state representative from New Mexico really said it better which was to avoid litigation at all cost… so it appears we’re gonna let the Federal Government hand down from interior the rules of the river? What I thought also was insightful was the presentation given regarding local governorships Senate races and representative races who in the 2026 upcoming election in relation to the timeline for approving new operating rules. Given how polarized politics is these days and with Arizona and Nevada as swing states let’s hope the Federal Government will not battle in water politics as we really need a strong, fair hand to understand the complexities of the Colorado river and the intricacies of the politics involved.
Like his idea of a 5 year plan. Also, Rhett’s analogy of bankruptcy. Look for more next week
Who knows! If Trump gets briefed on the Compact and how the water is distributed- Or Not- he might find a way to put some common sense into the whole thing. Especially if he sees how much water his buddy Gavin gets annually.
From Dick Allison, the Old Canadian Hydrologist!
Good man John Entsminger.
Lower Basin States have cut to about 6 MAF, so recent comments by Upper Basin States that the lower basin is taking more than its share are way, way behind the times or just a bald-faced lie. Can we see a BOR plot of total flow, flow delivered to Lee Ferry, and flow delivered to Mexico? If Upper Basin is using 4 MAF and Lower Basin is using 6 MAF, Lower Basin is going to have to cut more, but Upper Basin is going to have to cut some. Or, make them deliver 75 MAF/10 years. Is Denver Water Board building infrastructure to take more?
Water, water everywhere. Nor any drop to drink.
Tucson receives more rain in an average year, than we traditionally received from CAP. And we can harvest about 60% of the amount we consume every year, at a fraction of the cost of any of the augmented supplies that are being considered.
TUCSON doesn’t need CAP. GROWTH needs CAP. And we are being forced to pay for it.
Example: Tucson Water provides permanent access to our shared supply, for a one-time charge of $1500/unit. New development isn’t required to bring its own water, so we now have 1/2 as much water per person as 40 years ago, because we doubled population but didn’t require it bring more water, as we add people.
If we get super efficient, 1M people can proper on our rain. We don’t need outside water sources.
All the debate over water, is really a debate over how current population will subsidize the cost of bringing more water to allow more people to move here.
Empty faucets are always an impetus to water agreements. Note: “distill down”, a bit of redundancy.
/ “distill down” is a correct and commonly used phrase in written English.
It means to condense or simplify information or ideas into their most essential and important elements. It can be used in a variety of contexts, such as summarizing a complex topic, getting to the core of a problem, or simplifying instructions. Example: “In order to effectively communicate the key points of the presentation, we need to distill down the information and focus on the most important aspects.”
Thanks for the language lesson schoolmarm Peter.
As I’ve said more than once here in the comments on Inkstain, the first question one needs to ask oneself when one is venturing to “correct” another’s grammar: did you understand what they said? If the answer is “yes,” than your grammar “correction” is a meaningless, and failed, attempt to demonstrate superior intellect. It rather demonstrates the opposite. A bad look.
I have a few shot glasses left over from CRWUA if anyone is interested in other types of distillery …..