LAS VEGAS (FOX5) — FOX5 has obtained letters sent by negotiators from Nevada, California, Arizona and Colorado to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, revealing where each state’s water priorities lie and what is stalling a deal on Colorado River conservation.
The states, despite their divide, have one thing in common: they all dislike the alternatives put forward in the Bureau’s Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Four states have emerged as the most vocal opponents of the strategies proposed, and Nevada us among them.
Nevada cites decades of conservation
In their communication with the Bureau, Nevada’s negotiators highlighted the water-use reductions already made by users in and around Las Vegas.
The letter states: “Since the onset of drought in 2002, they have reduced their overall Colorado River water consumption by more than 40 percent even as our population grew by more than 875,000 people. And they, unlike so many others, have not ignored the reality facing the basin by making the flimsy argument that our economy cannot prosper while water consumption decreases. Simply put, any alternative evaluated or rule set adopted by Reclamation that fails to sufficiently credit their sacrifice is not acceptable.”
“…And they, unlike so many others, have not ignored the reality facing the basin by making the flimsy argument that our economy cannot prosper while water consumption decreases. Simply put, any alternative evaluated or rule set adopted by Reclamation that fails to sufficiently credit their sacrifice is not acceptable.”
Arizona and California raise food supply concerns
Arizona’s water chief appealed to the Bureau of Reclamation to consider how cuts could impact the nation’s food supply.
“Arizona agriculture is a critical component of the nation’s food security, with the Yuma region providing 90% of the national winter leafy greens.”
Thomas Buschatzke writes: “Arizona agriculture is a critical component of the nation’s food security, with the Yuma region providing 90% of the national winter leafy greens. The state’s agricultural production centers, including Yuma, rely on water from the Colorado River to maintain their food production.”
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., expanded on Buschatzke’s food supply concerns in a conversation with FOX5’s Washington Bureau.
“You know, people all over the country, if they’re, you know, eating a certain kind of vegetable, you know, usually like leafy green stuff in the, you know, late fall, the winter, the spring. It’s coming from Arizona. And food security is national security,” Kelly said.
JB Hamby, California’s Colorado Water Commissioner, made a similar argument in his letter, while also citing his state’s conservation record.
“Agricultural producers have reduced water use by approximately 17 percent and as much as 23 percent in certain years, while continuing to supply a majority of the nation’s winter produce.”
“Over the past two decades, urban agencies in southern California have reduced demand for imported water by approximately 60 percent through aggressive conservation, recycling, desalination, and local supply development. Agricultural producers have reduced water use by approximately 17 percent and as much as 23 percent in certain years, while continuing to supply a majority of the nation’s winter produce,” Hamby said.
Colorado argues against cuts for unused allocations
Colorado’s letter addressed the impact cuts would have on its farmers, pointing out that its farmers have never used their full water allocation and should not have to cut back now.
Rebecca Mitchell, Commissioner of the Upper Colorado River Commission, said the federal proposals favor Lower Basin states at the expense of Upper Basin states.
“With respect to the law of the River, all the alternatives in the DEIS prioritize uses in the Lower Basin at the expense of the Upper Basin, thereby violating the required equitable division of the river set forth in the 1922 Colorado River Compact,” Mitchell said.
“In short, none of the proposed alternatives has the requisite combination of sufficiently robust and feasible operations consistent with currentl legal authority under the Law of the River.”
Experts say all seven states must act
John Berggren, Regional Policy Manager at Western Resource Advocates, said the upper and lower basin states remain divided over who should bear the burden of water reductions.
“One of the fundamental differences between the upper and lower basin is a disagreement on who’s going to cut, or cut water use or short water use, when, how much, and whether it’s mandatory or voluntary,” Berggren said.
Berggren said upper basin states argue they should not have to reduce usage because they have never fully developed their 1922 Colorado River allocation, while lower basin states have.
“Therefore, the burden of reducing usage should be on the lower basin states,” Berggren said. “And lower basin states say that, you know, the burden should be on everyone.”
Berggren said any solution will require all seven basin states to participate.
“I think what, one kind of universal thing when it comes to the Colorado River and climate change is everyone’s going to have to use less water or find ways to use less water, be more efficient, conserve, and so I think that’s, that’s going to be the, the, any solution is going to have all, has to have all seven states conserving water,” Berggren said.
Copyright 2026 KVVU. All rights reserved.
