The administration has shown support for a contract among states as stakeholders of the Colorado River rush to finalize long-term operational guidelines. An update delivered on Thursday from Interior Secretary Doug Burgham indicated that the department is consistently engaged with representatives from the seven basin states to work towards a joint solution.
Burgham’s senior adviser, Scott Cameron, conveyed to the Colorado River Commissioners from Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico that the secretary is eager to assist in achieving a seven-state agreement. Yet, he added a note of caution: in the unlikely event that a consensus isn’t reached, they are prepared to take necessary actions.
During a meeting focused on negotiations and immediate hydrological challenges, Cameron discussed the ongoing talks that have taken place for over a year, especially as the current guidelines set to expire in 2026 loom closer.
Significant differences persist between the upper and lower basin states, particularly affecting Arizona, Nevada, and California. Lower basin states prefer a shared cut approach, while the upper basin advocates for plans that account for changing hydrological conditions influenced by mountain snow.
The final rule, needing approval from the Department of the Interior, will oversee the conservation strategies of the Colorado River, which supplies water to about 40 million people across the U.S. and Mexico. Cameron urged ongoing collaboration among commissioners, encouraging them to forge ahead with negotiations that benefit all states involved.
In discussions about responsibilities and authority over water resources, Cameron noted the federal government’s involvement in managing numerous water storage and transport facilities within the river system. He emphasized Burgham’s commitment to ensuring that a resolution is found while acknowledging that if necessary, he is ready to take action.
As federal deadlines approach, Cameron stressed the importance of developing a thorough Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which aims to address a wide range of agreements that could emerge among the states. There’s hope for achieving a consensus by November 11, allowing for a draft EIS to be published in December, with a public comment period to follow.
If the states are able to submit their consensus proposal by February 14, 2026, Cameron indicated that the EIS would prioritize this agreement in March. He projected a final decision might be issued by mid-2026, which would facilitate new operational regimes for major reservoirs like Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
While acknowledging the need for Congressional approvals, Cameron pointed out that they can’t afford to wait until the very last moment, as some states might have their own legislative timelines to consider. He reaffirmed that if negotiations stall, Secretary Burgham is prepared to act.
Moreover, Cameron mentioned the potential availability of federal funding from recent legislation if necessary to support state agreements and negotiations. He highlighted that the administration is working closely with various tribal nations in the area to honor treaty obligations.
He acknowledged that the Colorado River system has far less water than previously estimated a century ago, underlining a need for reassessing water management strategies. Recently, it was reported that the states may have tentatively agreed on a new approach based on “natural flows.”
This proposal, aimed at allocating water more effectively, was discussed in a recent meeting. Cameron and others noted that Arizona is exploring a system that aligns water sharing with actual supply capabilities, ensuring obligations for the upper basin are still considered.
While the details remain uncertain, optimism existed after discussions, with hopes that this could prevent legal disputes. At a separate meeting, Becky Mitchell, chair of the Upper Colorado River Commission, confirmed that states are looking at explicit operational frameworks tied to natural river flows. However, she cautioned that flexibility must be built into these strategies to adapt to worsening conditions.
Mitchell characterized the proposal as a potential “divorce,” allowing states to manage their own terms independently. Yet, she stressed the importance of not imposing undue obligations on the upper basin. As discussions continue, she highlighted the urgency of their situation, noting the critical juncture they find themselves in regarding the river’s future.
Mitchell concluded by reiterating the responsibility they have to strive for better solutions collectively, emphasizing that they are at a pivotal moment that could lead to a system failure if not addressed properly.
