Trump administration’s Colorado River options could hit California hard

The Trump administration has released an outline of four new options for dealing with the Colorado River’s deepening water shortages, and they could dramatically cut the amount of water available for Southern California.

Several of the alternatives are “alarming” because they could mean major water cutbacks for Southern California, said Shivaji Deshmukh, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District, which distributes water in the region.

He said any of the alternatives would likely “lead to lengthy litigation.”

“The various alternatives highlight the significant risks we could face if we don’t reach an agreement,” Deshmukh said. “Our Colorado River supply cannot be randomly slashed.”

Officials from seven Western states are deadlocked over how to address the water crisis. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation report addresses water cutbacks that will have to be made after 2026, when current rules for handling water shortages expire.

The Trump administration apparently intends to “limit the pain” for the upper basin states, because the alternatives don’t clearly spell out significant cuts for those states, and instead would have California, Arizona and Nevada bear the brunt, said Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network.

He said that would mean “unprecedented pain” through substantial cutbacks under all the proposals.

Federal officials stressed the importance of quickly putting a plan in place, ideally one the seven states can agree on.

“In the face of an ongoing severe drought, inaction is not an option,” said Andrea Travnicek, assistant Interior secretary for water and science.

Representatives of California and six other states that depend on the river have been meeting regularly over the last two years to hash out a long-term plan to address shortages.

Scott Cameron, the Bureau of Reclamation’s acting commissioner, has urged state officials to negotiate an agreement by mid-February.

As the Trump administration released its draft environmental review Friday, Cameron said his agency hasn’t chosen from among the four alternatives detailed in the report, “given the importance of a consensus-based approach.” An agreement is expected to “incorporate elements or variations of these five alternatives,” he said.

One of the four alternatives is just “basic coordination,” which the federal report says could be done absent an agreement among the states. Others include different ways of apportioning water cuts, with plans blandly titled “enhanced coordination,” “maximum operational flexibility” or “supply driven,” as well as a “no action” alternative.

The Colorado River provides water for cities from Denver to San Diego, 30 Native tribes and farming communities from the Rocky Mountains to northern Mexico. It has long been overused, and its reservoirs have declined dramatically amid unrelenting dry conditions since 2000.

In the last quarter-century, the river has lost about 20% of its flow. Research has shown that the warming climate, driven largely by the use of fossil fuels, has intensified the long stretch of mostly dry years.

Lake Mead, the river’s largest reservoir, is now just 33% full. And Lake Powell, its second-largest reservoir, is at 27% of capacity.

JB Hamby, California’s lead negotiator, said the federal report “underscores the seriousness and urgency of this moment.”

Hamby said California is prepared to shoulder a portion of the necessary water cuts to help prevent reservoirs from declining to critically low levels, and participation by other states will be key.

“The river will not wait. A sustainable solution requires all seven states to contribute,” he said.

The negotiations have been mired in disagreements over how mandatory water cuts should be divided among the states. The three downstream or lower basin states — California, Arizona and Nevada — are at odds with the four states in the river’s upper basin — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico.

Becky Mitchell, lead negotiator for Colorado, said her state is committed to protecting its “significant interests in the Colorado River and continues to work towards a consensus-based, supply-driven solution.”

The impasse has raised the possibility that the states could sue each other, a path riddled with uncertainty that water managers in both camps say they hope to avoid.

The Bureau of Reclamation is accepting public comments on its draft environmental document until March 2, and plans to issue a final decision by Oct. 1.

The federal report acknowledges that the existing rules, which were adopted in 2007, have not “sufficiently reduced risk,” as reservoir levels have continued to decline despite a series of temporary water-saving deals, including one reached in 2023. It says Interior Secretary Doug Burgum intends the new rules to be in effect for 20 years, but also says he “remains open to a shorter duration or phased implementation.”

The report warns of potentially “large and unprecedented” mandatory reductions in water use. It says the Colorado River Basin is “experiencing increased aridity due to climate variability” and that “long-term drought” is expected in the future.

The report’s 63-page summary does not mention human-caused climate change, even though scientific research has long shown that warming temperatures are exacerbating drought.

“Whether the document has those words or not, the reality is that it has been warmer and drier over the last 25 years than it has in centuries,” said Sinjin Eberle, a spokesperson for the environmental group American Rivers. “And certainly the science behind warmer temperatures basically removing water from the Colorado River system overall is what’s of most concern.”

“These warmer temperatures and dry soils are really having an impact on water supplies,” he said.

This winter has been warmer than average so far in much of the West, and the snowpack that feeds the Colorado River remains far below average for this time of year.

“Ultimately, we would hope that all of the states and the federal government combined recognize that without the river being healthy and sustainable, industry is going to suffer, agriculture is going to suffer, communities are going to suffer,” Eberle said. “Hopefully the states can respond to that in a way that is comprehensive and allows for sustainability.”