Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Colorado River

The odds are sinking for groundwater legislation

Key Points:
  • Groundwater issues focus on rural needs
  • Rep. Gail Griffin is considered key opponent of reform
  • Attempting a ballot measure is believed to be too expensive

As crossover week at the Arizona Legislature concludes, it appears lawmakers will go yet another year without passing significant groundwater reform.

Gov. Katie Hobbs and rural stakeholders have been seeking reform for years, and one Democrat who has been involved in recent negotiations said he believes a deal could soon be struck at the Legislature — depending on which way the Governor’s Office swings after the 2026 general election in November. 

“There is a deal there to be had,” said Rep. Chris Mathis, D-Tucson. “I think there’s a compromise there. There’s no question in my mind about that.”

If a Republican is elected to the Ninth Floor, it would be much more difficult for legislative Democrats to get a deal done if they remain the minority party. 

Democrats did get close in 2024. A groundwater bill failed late in that session, but Mathis said lawmakers continued to negotiate over the summer before the 2024 election. At the time, there were some predictions that one of the legislative chambers could flip to Democrats, but when Republicans instead expanded their majorities, negotiations stalled. 

“The impetus, for at least some on the Republican side, to come up with a workable deal just lessened,” Mathis said. “After that happened last year, we tried to go back to the negotiating table and just basically didn’t get anywhere.”

Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, looks to the gallery from the floor of the House of Representatives at the Capitol on the opening day of the legislative session in Phoenix, Jan. 13, 2020. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

One of the main players in any water policy at the Legislature is Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford. Griffin did not respond to an interview request, but lobbyists and rural stakeholders have blamed her for years for blocking any rural groundwater policy from advancing in the Legislature. 

“As long as she is chairing the committee through which any of these bills would have to go through, I don’t think it’s possible,” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Arizona chapter. 

Griffin, the chairwoman of the House Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee, will be termed out of the House in 2026, but she is running for the state Senate in the conservative-leaning Legislative District 19.

“She’s a loyal vote to the speaker or the president if she happens to be in the Senate,” said HighGround Consulting CEO Chuck Coughlin. “I just don’t think it’s possible. You can’t get around her.”

Republicans in rural areas have also grown frustrated with Griffin. Mohave County Supervisor Travis Lingenfelter has been one of Griffin’s most outspoken critics. Last week, he and other Republican supervisors Holly Irwin, Patrice Hortsman and Nikki Check from La Paz, Coconino and Yavapai counties wrote an opinion article published by The Arizona Republic accusing Griffin of leaving rural Arizona “out to dry” with House Bill 2758. That measure would allow “eligible entities” to withdraw groundwater from the McMullen Valley Active Management Area that’s mostly located in La Paz County.

Active management areas are a tool that has predominantly been used by the Hobbs administration to impose restrictions on water pumping to aggressively manage the state’s groundwater resources. There are currently eight AMAs in the state, with the most recent one being deployed in January for the Ranegras Plain Groundwater Basin in La Paz and Yuma counties to slow annual withdrawal levels that are outpacing natural recharge by nearly 900%, according to the Department of Water Resources.

“They need to be called out on their assertions that they’re looking out for rural Arizona because they are doing anything but,” Bahr said of bills like HB2758. 

Griffin has previously said the Groundwater Management Act of 1980 and its companion laws are sufficient in giving Arizona the tools it needs to manage groundwater. She’s called on residents to petition the water department to form active management areas or petition their county supervisors for local management options. 

In a 2025 opinion column submitted to the Arizona Capitol Times, Griffin said the Legislature’s focus should be to improve existing groundwater management tools. 

If a groundwater deal is not reached at the Legislature, Coughlin said another path that voters could take would be to get a measure on the ballot in the form of a citizen’s initiative. 

But a citizen’s initiative is expensive, and Coughlin said he’s not sure who would be willing to fund a signature gathering campaign that could exceed $5 million and the subsequent campaign for the election. 

“Voter initiatives take a long time and a lot of money and they tend to fail,” Mathis said. “That would be fine by me. I’m sort of all of the above on this stuff whether it’s pursuing the governor’s authority under the groundwater management act, whether it’s a negotiated deal, whether it’s a voter initiative. It’s really just about producing an outcome where we’re able to protect these basins that are at risk.”

Arizona is building a future the Colorado River cannot supply

Rusty Childress

The potential collapse of the Colorado River system is not a distant theory or an abstract climate warning. It is a direct threat to the water supply of roughly 40 million people across seven U.S. states and Mexico. Yet growth across the basin continues as if risk itself were imaginary. More homes are approved. More long-term water obligations are created. More faith is placed in future solutions that do not yet exist.

This behavior mirrors another crisis unfolding in plain sight. In artificial intelligence, leading researchers and industry executives now acknowledge that credible estimates place the risk of catastrophic failure at up to 25%, with some warning that loss of control could pose an existential threat to humanity. Despite this, AI development continues at full speed because no company or nation wants to slow down first. This is not optimism. It is a dismissive response to known risk, driven by competition and short-term incentives.

The same logic now governs Western water policy.

The Colorado River is already over-allocated. This is not opinion. It is math. Average flows are declining. Variability is increasing. Aridification has permanently shifted the basin into a hotter and drier regime. Engineers and hydrologists have repeatedly stated that Lake Powell and Lake Mead are unlikely to ever return to full pool under modern conditions. These reservoirs were designed for a climate that no longer exists.

Yet demand continues to grow.

What makes the situation more dangerous is that artificial intelligence and water scarcity are not separate challenges. They are now directly linked. Modern AI systems require enormous amounts of electricity, and electricity generation requires water. Power plants need cooling. Data centers consume water directly and indirectly through energy production. In arid regions, this means AI expansion increases pressure on the same limited water supplies already stretched to the breaking point. What appears to be a digital problem quickly becomes a physical one.

This creates a compounding risk. AI accelerates energy demand. Energy demand accelerates water demand. Water scarcity then feeds back into economic and political instability. Treating these pressures as separate allows each to worsen the other without meaningful oversight. Together, they push the system faster toward failure.

New subdivisions, industrial facilities, and speculative development are still being approved as if water were guaranteed simply because pipes and contracts exist. Conservation is discussed, but limits are deferred. The result is a system that looks adaptive while quietly becoming more fragile.

This pattern is not new. In Collapse, Jared Diamond showed that societies rarely fail because they lack knowledge or warning. They fail because they understand the risks and continue anyway. Leaders acknowledge limits, then choose short-term stability and growth over long-term survival. Decline becomes normalized, responsibility is deferred, and action is delayed until real choices are gone.

Experts are now warning that under plausible conditions, Lake Mead or Lake Powell could approach dead pool status or lose power generation as early as this year. If that were to occur, the consequences would be immediate and severe. Water deliveries would be curtailed. Hydropower generation would cease. Major infrastructure such as the Central Arizona Project could lose its primary supply entirely. This would not be a temporary disruption. It would trigger cascading impacts across agriculture, housing and financial markets, energy systems, and public trust. Continuing business as usual under deep uncertainty is irrational.

What makes this moment so dangerous is not ignorance. We know the risks. We have known them for years. The danger lies in a dismissive response to that knowledge, one that acknowledges limits in words while continuing business as usual because saying no is politically and economically inconvenient.

That is why a moratorium on new growth tied to Colorado River water is not extreme. It is responsible. Just as many now argue that AI development should pause until risks are better understood and controlled, water policy must adopt the same precautionary principle. No new long-term water commitments should be approved unless there is a verifiable and physically reliable supply to support them. If that supply never materializes, then growth must permanently adjust to reality.

This is not an argument against progress. It is an argument for survival. The river does not negotiate. Physics does not compromise. Optimism does not create water. Everything is not under control, but we still have the ability to stop pretending that it is.

Rusty Childress is an Arizona native and nature photographer.

Arizona won’t cut Colorado River withdrawals without enforceable conservation promises

Key Points:
  • Arizona is embroiled in an interstate dispute over access to the Colorado River
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs refuses to agree to any deal unless upper basin states offer firm water conservation plans
  • Arizona has set aside $3 million for potential litigation over water rights

On Feb. 2, Gov. Katie Hobbs made her position on the Colorado River clear. Either the “upper basin” states offer up a firm commitment for water conservation, or she won’t agree to any new cuts for Arizona.

But the decision to refuse a deal over the embattled water source would not be without consequence. In fact, it would lead to federal intervention by way of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who would impose his own solution on the seven states that draw water from the river.

The caveat? Burgum has so far refused to do more than convene the governors of the affected states. And Terry Goddard, president of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, which oversees the state’s Colorado River supply, said the options put forward by the Interior Department “are not palatable to Arizona or California,” one of the two other “lower basin” states.

“All Burgum’s done is set us up for litigation,” he told Capitol Media Services. “And I think that’s sad.”

In November, Hobbs asked Burgum to get involved and develop a plan to protect Arizona water users, specifically by requiring conservation in the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah. But on Monday, she did not dispute that — even during Friday’s meeting — all Burgum has done is encourage states to work together.

Still, the governor said she thinks the negotiations don’t necessarily have to wind up in court, even though Arizona has already set aside $3 million for litigation.

“While we didn’t leave with a lot of specifics — the details are to be worked out through negotiation — I think that we came away with hearing that nobody wants to end up in litigation,” Hobbs said. “We want to find a way to get to a deal.”

But Hobbs said that means recognizing that Arizona, which already has agreed to give up 27% of the water it has been getting from the Colorado River, won’t give up a drop more unless there are firm and enforceable promises that the upper basin states will share in the burden.

That theme was echoed by Tom Buschatzke, director of the state Department of Water Resources.

“We need certainty that there are reductions in upper basin usage because that is one of two tools that we have,” he said, drawing attention to historic drought conditions that have meant less water flow.

“You can’t make it snow or rain,” Buschatzke said. “But you can reduce your demand. So that has to be a tool that’s in play at some level.”

At the heart of it is the need to reduce Colorado River use, with some estimates showing that water consumption needs to be cut by up to 3.2 million acre-feet a year. That’s enough to serve more than 9 million homes.

The lower basin states of California, Nevada and Arizona have agreed to trim usage by 1.5 million acre feet, enough to serve about 4.5 million homes a year. And Arizona, which, contractually and legally, has the lowest-priority claims to river water, has to cut its own withdrawals by 27%.

Upper basin states have said they’re willing to voluntarily conserve water, which would mean more water would flow downstream to the lower basin states. But Hobbs noted that it has not yet been put into a formal commitment.

“I shared this with Secretary Burgum and the other basin states,” the governor said. “For a successful negotiated outcome, Arizona and the lower basin cannot and will not be balancing the Colorado River on our own.”

She said the lower basin states are willing to do more only “if our partners in the upper basin states come to the table with reductions of their own.”

That, in turn, leads to the prospect of having all this decided in court.

“The stonewalling from the upper basin has made it very hard to see a non-litigation course in the future,” Goddard said. “If the upper basin continues to say ‘In a time of shortage, we’re not going to save and contribute to the shortage one drop of water,’ I don’t see how we can have a settlement.”

How much Arizona can demand could depend, at least in part, on the other lower basin states all working together.

Cooperation has not always been the rule, with California at times exercising its senior water rights. And even now, the amount of water that Arizona has offered up — about 760,000 acre feet — is on a per capita basis more than California.

But Hobbs believes that despite California’s senior right to the water, the state’s western neighbor won’t sell Arizona down the river, so to speak, to protect its own water interests. She said all three lower basin states have been united since they reached an agreement among themselves in 2023.

“So I feel very confident that we are continuing on a united path to get where we need to be on the Colorado River,” the governor said.

“I think we always have to be cautious,” said Goddard, a former state attorney general, acknowledging that, compared to California, “Arizona has a slightly lower pecking order.”

And he acknowledged the history between the two states.

“Keep your friends close,” Goddard said.

“But we’ve had some very good discussions with the major water users in California,” he continued. “They have a joint interest with us. We’re all part of a growing economy in the West that gets its water from the Colorado River.”

That hasn’t stopped Hobbs from making what she says is the case for why Arizona, despite its lower priority on taking Colorado River water, should have its needs met — and why the Trump administration should pay special attention.

“The most important computer chip manufacturing facilities in the western hemisphere are here in Arizona critical to winning our struggle against China in the AI arms race and at the center of the president’s recent trade deal in Taiwan,” Hobbs said.

And then there’s the fact that the majority of the nation’s winter crops are grown in Arizona.

Arizona seeks fair share of Colorado River water in negotiations with upper basin states

Key points:
  • Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs in Washington to make case for Colorado River cuts
  • Seven states missed November deadline for new agreement on river’s water allocation
  • Arizona has conserved nearly 9 million acre-feet of water over 15 years

Gov. Katie Hobbs and the state’s chief water official head to Washington to make their case to a top official in the Trump administration and other governors that Arizona already has taken major cuts in its Colorado River supply even while Upper Basin states like Colorado have taken none.

The meetings with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum come as the seven states that use the river have blown past a November deadline set by the Interior Department to reach a new agreement on how to split the river’s flow, which is a lifeline for all of them. The river supports 40 million residents and farms that grow the bulk of the nation’s winter produce, much of that in Arizona.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has set a new date of Feb. 14 for the states to reach a deal on how to operate lakes Mead and Powell after this year or it will step in. Both Arizona and Colorado are gearing up for litigation if necessary.  

Hobbs, in an extensive statement to Capitol Media Services, said the meetings come “at a pivotal moment” for the Colorado River, that “the status quo is not sustainable” and “the stakes couldn’t be higher.”

“I am going to Washington because I believe a path forward is still possible,” Hobbs said.

“I appreciate Secretary Burgum convening Basin state governors for this conversation after my calls for stronger federal engagement,” the governor continued. “That level of leadership is necessary, overdue, and essential if we are going to break the logjam and reach a durable agreement.”

The big sticking point is the four Upper Basin states’ refusal to take any cuts in their supply, despite Arizona, California and Nevada taking cuts in recent years as the river’s flow diminished, Department of Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzke said this week. He said the Lower Basin states are sticking together. 

“The Upper Basin wants us in the Lower Basin to take 2.1 million acre feet of cuts before they put anything real on the table, and then they want the ratio to be two units of Lower Basin cuts to 1 (unit) of Upper Basin cuts,” Buschatzke told the House Committee on Natural Resources, Water and Energy. Lower Basin states want a 1:1 ratio.

Upper Basin states are arguing that they’ve never taken their full allocation, that Lower Basin states should be on the hook for evaporation losses, and that they should count Arizona tributary rivers as part of their allocation, he said. That’s despite a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said evaporation and Arizona tributaries do not count under the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, which created what is now the Hoover Dam.

Buschatzke expects the Arizona delegation headed to Washington — backed by both Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature — to stick to their guns and argue that Arizona has already taken more than its fair share of cuts. He’s going along with Hobbs.

Hobbs took a similar tack.

“Arizona is a leader in common sense water conservation policies and we are at the table and ready to compromise, but every state that relies on the Colorado River must share in its protection, not the Lower Basin alone,” she said. “I will not accept a deal that endangers the advanced manufacturing and agricultural economy that is vital to our country’s national security or shortchanges Arizona farmers, businesses, and families.”

The state is currently losing more than 500,000 acre-feet of water per year from its 2.8 million acre-feet allocation. Most of those cuts are coming out of Central Arizona agriculture and underground storage programs. An acre-foot is generally enough water to supply three households.

The original 1922 deal between the states, known as the Colorado River Compact, allocated 7.5 million acre-feet each to the upper and lower basin states and 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico.

Drought has cut the river’s flow, and Arizona and the other Lower Basin states have conserved nearly 9 million acre-feet of water over the past decade and a half to keep Lake Mead’s water levels from dropping so low that no water flows past the Hoover Dam. Nearly 3 million acre feet of that has come in the past three years alone.

“We would be in a tremendous crisis situation right now if we had not done all of this conservation,” Butchatzke told the panel. 

Nearly half of the water that Lower Basin states have given up to prop up Lake Mead since 2014 has come from Arizona, even though Arizona is entitled to less than 17% of the 16.5 million acre-feet the current compact allocates among the seven states and Mexico. 

“So we have’ done the heavy lifting,” Buschatzke said. “We’ve done the heavy lifting for the last decade plus.”

Arizona must take cuts first because it has the lowest priority under the 1968 deal that authorized the Central Arizona Project, which brings Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson.

Buschatzke said the demands from the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming that they be held harmless while Lower Basin states take all the cuts are what’s holding up a new deal. 

And he points to reservoirs in those states that are at relatively high levels compared with lakes Powell and Mead, and argues that water should be allowed to flow downstream to the Lower Basin states.

“I believe it’s a pretty tough thing for the state of Arizona to ask our people to take cuts based on the elevations in the volume of water in Lake Powell alone,” he said. “One of our big points of negotiation is that a substantial amount of water from these reservoirs above Lake Powell has to move to Lake Powell and then move down to Lake Mead so that we can access it. 

“There are legal arguments that both sides are making about the purposes of these reservoirs when they were authorized in 1956 in a federal Colorado River Storage Project Act,” he said. “We believe not only is that water designated for movement down into Lake Mead, into the Lower Basin, but that the federal government has an affirmative obligation under that law to do so.”

Upper Basin states – amplified in recent comments by Colorado’s attorney general — say Lower Basin states are overusing their water, Butchatzke said. They point to the evaporation and Arizona rivers that don’t count towards the state’s Colorado River allocation.

That’s not Buschatzke’s view.

In 2014, Lower Basin states received about their full allocation, 7.5 million acre-feet, he said. In 2024, they got 6 million acre-feet, and just 5 million the year before.

“Remember, we get to use seven and a half million acre feet of consumptive use,” he said of the Lower Basin states. 

Hobbs pointed to Arizona’s leadership in the data center technology sector, its massive new microchip plants, and its major role in feeding the nation leafy greens in the winter.

“By striking a deal that protects Arizona’s fair share of Colorado River water, we can continue to onshore critical supply chains and ensure our country’s strength for the next 100 years,” she said. “I look forward to making these points to Secretary Burgum and my fellow governors, and highlighting what is at stake in Colorado River negotiations for the people of Arizona and our country.”

Lab meat debate ignores Arizona’s water challenges

Peter Clark

Lab meat has become a contentious topic within the Arizona Legislature over the past few years. Lawmakers have proposed laws regulating these products, from labeling requirements to outright bans. The race to regulate emerging meat substitutes is gaining momentum in 2026.

However, Rep. Lupe Diaz has taken a more aggressive approach with HB2791. This bill bans the sale of cultured meat with a penalty of up to 18 months in state prison.

Diaz, a Republican, raises several valid concerns regarding artificial meat and its potential future health effects, as well as its impact on Arizona’s cattle industry. But banning this emerging technology overlooks Arizona’s water crisis.

Agriculture is the biggest consumer of water in the state, and the faltering Colorado River negotiations and growing scrutiny of groundwater usage are putting additional pressure on Arizona’s water supply.

Selling test tube beef will not replace your traditional porterhouse, nor will it be the end of the cattle industry. Both products can co-exist in the meat aisle. Policymakers should tread lightly because Arizona doesn’t have the luxury of restricting potential water conservation tools, as water is one of our most scarce resources.

According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, irrigated agriculture accounts for 72% of water consumption statewide, compared to the meager 22% used by municipal and residential consumers. Alfalfa is one of the most water-intensive crops grown in the state, produced to feed cattle. 

Lab-grown meat will not catastrophically disrupt the cattle industry. But expanding alternatives to animal protein options could reduce pressure from water-intensive agriculture over time. Given the growing restrictions on water supply, policymakers shouldn’t rule out water conservation options, even if they offer modest returns. 

We need to consider the reality of Arizona’s current water supply. Prohibiting innovations in food production might satisfy specific constituencies, but it doesn’t address the water scarcity plaguing a landlocked state. 

Most of the opposition to cultured meat stems from the misconception that it will replace traditional beef. Arizona’s cattle industry can rest easy. Lab meat remains a niche, pricey product, with prices averaging $17 to $29 per pound. 

Consumer surveys confirm that meat is here to stay. Purdue University found that roughly 60% of the respondents would try lab meat. A separate study, however, found that only 6% of people surveyed wanted to purchase it regularly. Nevertheless, nearly 90% of Americans consume conventional meat. For most shoppers, lab meat is an option, not a replacement.

Lab meat isn’t likely to displace ranchers, nor will it disrupt traditional beef consumption. Both can co-exist at the local grocery store without threatening an industry central to Arizona’s economy. Lawmakers shouldn’t rush to prohibit emerging technology without evidence – they risk limiting consumer choice.

Arizona is currently facing enormous pressure on its water supply. The Legislature should be welcoming any innovations that could help reduce agricultural water use. Since the Colorado River is currently operating under a Tier 1 shortage, Arizona is currently facing an 18% cut in its water allocation this year. If the Basin states cannot agree, the federal government may press Arizona even more. The Lower Basin could face “shortages up to 1.48 million acre-feet.”

The stakes for Arizona are high. Even if lab meat only offers modest relief, Arizona is in no position to close the door to new methods of water conservation. The initiatives to ban cultured animal products fail to consider the reality of the water shortages – symbolic political gestures are not going to secure our water supply.

Instead of banning lab meat, lawmakers could find a middle ground for regulating this new form of food production. Rep. Quang Nguyen has proposed HB2672, which establishes labeling requirements. It protects consumer choice and promotes transparency, hence helping shoppers make informed decisions, while it’s a balanced approach to regulating cultivated meat. 

Banning lab meat would be a disservice to Arizonans and may discourage future innovation in food production that could help save water. The current state of water insecurity in the Southwest requires us to find new ways to conserve our water supply. Lab meat might be worth a shot.

Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer.

Gov. Katie Hobbs: Affordability, education and water in 2026

Gov. Katie Hobbs is entering her fourth and final legislative session of her first term — and an election year that could decide whether she gets another term — with a focus on affordability, education and the Colorado River. The governor sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times ahead of the session’s Jan. 12 opening day to discuss her priorities.

Questions and answers have been lightly edited for style and clarity. 

What issues absolutely need to be addressed this session?

So Proposition 123 renewal, that’s a priority for me. I know there’s a lot of education folks in the community who consider it a priority, and it seems to be emerging as a priority for the Republicans as well, especially given our challenging budget situation. It’s a way to just give more dollars to our public schools that need it without costing taxpayers anything. What I hear from Arizonans, and thankfully, it sounds like Republicans have gotten the message too, is that we need to do what we can to lower costs. So you’ll hear more about proposals for that in my agenda, and hopefully, there’s a lot of room to work with Republicans on those things. And then, potentially (we) will need legislative approval of a deal that gets done … on the Colorado River post-2026.

Where do negotiations stand on Prop. 123?

I haven’t been directly involved yet, so I don’t have specifics on that. Given our budget situation, I can’t imagine wanting to leave money on the table that’s going to help fund public schools, especially given that (Republicans) haven’t been willing to make any reforms to the now-billion dollar (Empowerment Scholarship Accounts) entitlement program.

Will you, once again, propose guardrails for the ESA program?

Absolutely, and I hope this is the year that Republicans decide it’s time to take action to bring some accountability there. We’ve seen through multiple different reports that it is a program that is ripe with abuse and fraud, and so far from the original intent of helping kids with disabilities and failing schools that I don’t know how they keep defending it. 

Affordability is top of mind for all lawmakers this year. What is your office proposing to address it?

The first thing, and I hope it’s the first bill that the Legislature sends me, is middle-class tax cuts, the pieces of conformity with the federal tax cuts that will benefit most Arizonans right now as they’re beginning to file their taxes. So the greater standard deduction, the tax exemption on overtime and tips, a senior tax credit. Those are the things I included in my executive order, and I think they will provide immediate relief to Arizonans. I know the Republicans very likely want to do full conformity. I think both these tax cuts and the full conformity come with a big price tag, and we need to negotiate how that’s going to be paid for in the budget, the piece for corporations and the wealthy.

Republicans have proposed a special session on tax conformity. Have there been any more conversations on that?

If it makes sense to do a special session, sure, but there’s no reason we can’t just do it in regular session with an emergency clause, so that it goes into effect right away.

This year will be a difficult budget year. How are you planning to address the shortfalls caused by federal spending and tax cuts?

It was challenging to craft this year’s budget, given the cuts we know are coming and those that have already been put in place. I’m actually really proud of the budget, which we’re going to present that is balanced, that continues to invest in important areas for Arizonans and addresses some of the affordability challenges we know Arizonans are facing. You’ll hear more details on Monday, and see them next Friday. But we’ve proposed specifically the Arizona Affordability Fund and a housing acceleration fund to build more affordable housing. So those are two of the things I think will really help Arizonans with their energy bills, and then getting more housing built for sure.

What are you hoping to accomplish on groundwater conservation this year?

One of the things that we’re proposing is a water usage fee on data centers, and that will create a fund to really supercharge some of the conservation efforts that will need to happen. We’re looking at the possibility of another (active management area) in La Paz County. So more to come on that. And I think the Colorado River is really going to dominate the water conversation this year, but I know that we’re going to continue to see rural leaders pushing for more rural groundwater reform.

You’re also looking at ending tax incentives for data centers. Can you talk more about that?

I think we just have to find the right balance. We, as a state, made a strategic decision to incentivize data centers. We’ve done that really well. We’re the top two markets in the world for data centers. And there are concerns about water use, concerns about energy usage, and concerns in communities. You saw a very contentious vote in Chandler and a previously contentious vote in Tucson. So we need to strike the right balance. And I think ending the tax incentive is the right way to do that. We’re not telling cities what they can or can’t do. And I think you see bipartisan support for doing that.

You have eight agency nominees awaiting confirmation. Are you confident they will be confirmed this session?

Our staff has continued to reach out to Sen. (Jake) Hoffman, and had some good conversations. That could be meaningless. I’ve nominated qualified people who are willing to put themselves out there as public servants to run these state agencies that provide important services to Arizonans, and I will continue to fight for them. We are working with them to prepare for contentious hearings. And (Department of Environmental Quality) Director (Karen) Peters went through (the committee) last year, hopefully they’ll get her through Senate confirmation early on.

Republicans will try, and have already tried, to make this session about your reelection campaign. How will you stay focused?

There’s always going to be political distractions, whether it’s an election year or not, and I’ve always tried to just stay focused on what I think is the right thing for Arizonans. Going back to where I started, everyone’s getting the message that affordability is an issue, and so I think there’s a lot of opportunity to find common ground there. And it’s not just an issue in Arizona, it’s an issue nationally, and I am laser-focused on ways that we can do that at the state level.

Water Infrastructure Finance Authority OKs 2 projects to increase AZ water supply

Key Points:
  • WIFA approves at least two desalination plants in California or Mexico
  • Other proposals include treating wastewater and capturing storm water
  • New water would not be available until early to mid-2030s

Arizona will provide taxpayer money to help private companies develop plans for at least two and possibly three desalination plants in California or Mexico under proposals approved by a state agency’s board on Nov. 19.

The Water Infrastructure Finance Authority board also approved initial development of several other projects from the two applicants that proposed new Arizona water supplies and had passed a lengthy review process. Those proposals would rely on treating wastewater, capturing storm water and storing it underground or making agricultural irrigation more efficient, with the projects located in California, Colorado, Utah or Mexico.

Both the desalination plants and the remaining projects envision trading that new water for Colorado River allocations currently used by those states or Mexico. 

The amount of money the state will pay the companies involved to develop their proposals further isn’t known. Instead, the state agency will issue “task orders” in the coming months and determine how much it will pay for each project to be fleshed out.

And the water won’t come quickly: The earliest a proposal could supply any new water is in 2028, but most aim for the early to mid-2030s to begin deliveries.

No cost estimates for the projects were immediately released, but previous desalination proposals were expected to cost between $5 billion and $10 billion each to develop. 

All told, Arizona’s water supplies could be boosted by between 427,000 acre feet and 1.6 million acre feet a year if all the projects were implemented. An acre foot is about 326,000 gallons – enough water to cover an acre of land one foot deep and typically enough to supply three homes for a year.

The moves by the agency known as WIFA come as the state faces additional cutbacks in its Colorado River supplies, and as its existing groundwater sources are stressed to the limit. The unanimous vote by the 9-member board and the release of the proposals mark the first time the public has seen any details of the projects proposed to WIFA over the summer and reviewed in secret by agency staff and by a WIFA committee last week.

Chelsea McGuire, WIFA’s executive director, told reporters after the meeting that, three years after the Legislature expanded the agency’s mission to include finding new water, she was excited to reach the point where the agency is acting to secure new supplies.

“These are real projects, this is no longer a hypothetical,” McGuire said. “This is no longer something that someone is dreaming of in a room somewhere.”

Not considered by the board at the latest meeting was a proposal by water provider EPCOR to import water from a controversial project in the southeastern California desert under development for decades by a company called Cadiz Inc.

Cadiz owns a large swath of remote desert land about 60 miles west of Parker, Arizona. The company has worked for more than three decades to tap a large and ancient underground aquifer as a water source for thirsty California cities but has faced fervent opposition from conservation groups and state political leaders.

Environmental groups turned out in force at the Nov. 19 meeting to urge the WIFA board not to approve the Cadiz project, only to learn that a board committee that reviewed the projects in secret last week had recommended against approval.

“That one’s over, we’re not doing that,” board member David Becham said.

What remained were three other projects proposed by EPCOR, which provides water in multiple areas of the state, including San Tan Valley, Sun City and Paradise Valley, and four by a group led by a Spanish company.

EPCOR is proposing a desalination plant in Baja California that would produce between 167,000 and 500,000 acre feet of water per year by 2034.

The water would be delivered by pipeline to the Colorado River at the U.S.-Mexico border and allowed to flow into Mexico. In return, Arizona would get to take that amount of water out of the river farther north and send it to the Phoenix and Tucson areas through the Central Arizona Project canal.

The other desalination proposals approved for funding on Nov. 19 are from the ACCIONA-Fengate Water Augmentation Alliance.

Acciona develops plants worldwide, and Fengate Capital specializes in infrastructure investment. Acciona won a contract last December to design and build a desalination plant in Dana Point, Calif.

The partnership actually made two desalination plant proposals, according to one-page project outlines provided by WIFA 

Under the first, it would build a new plant in Baja California that would supply 150,000 acre feet of water a year by 2034. The water would be delivered through existing Colorado River water delivery systems or directly exchanged with Mexico for its river allocations.

The second desalination proposal is more general, with the Acciona alliance proposing to use “new or existing” plants in California or Mexico to deliver between 50,000 and 200,000 acre feet of water per year by 2031. That water would be swapped for part of Mexico’s Colorado River supply.

Both EPCOR and the Acciona group applied for state money to create new supplies in other ways.

EPCOR wants to invest in and develop projects in California.

It envisions capturing excess runoff in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and other sources and storing it underground for later use. In exchange for that 10,000 to 100,000 acre feet of water per year, Arizona would get part of that state’s Colorado River supply. 

It also proposes adding a new plant to further treat wastewater from an existing sewage treatment plant near San Diego to drinking water quality in exchange for part of that region’s Colorado River supply. It hopes to net between 14,000 and 95,000 acre feet of new water. 

The Acciona group has a similar “toilet to tap” proposal, hoping to treat wastewater in Mexico and Colorado to high quality, freeing up between 20,000 and 130,000 acre feet of Colorado River water those areas would normally use.

Acciona also wants to invest in improving the efficiency of irrigation operations in Mexico, California and Utah in hopes of obtaining between 16,000 and 466,000 acre feet of water from those areas between 2028 and 2037. 

Ted Cooke, a board member who led the WIFA’s board committee that evaluated the projects, said finding and developing new water supplies for Arizona required a private public partnership the board is now embarking upon.

“We need private equity to get this done,” he said.

“We need private expertise to get this done,” Cooke said while explaining one of his votes. “WIFA cannot operate a plant, WIFA cannot build a plant, WIFA cannot finance this on our own.”

State leaders issue bipartisan call to action on Colorado River negotiations

Key Points:
  • The seven Colorado River states did not reach a deal before a federally-imposed Nov. 11 deadline
  • The U.S. Department of the Interior has pledged to intervene
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs joined Republican legislative leaders in a letter calling on Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to end the stalemate

A federally-imposed deadline for reaching an agreement on Colorado River allocations has come and gone with no solution, spurring a bipartisan call to action from Arizona leaders to the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

The Interior Department gave the seven Colorado River states until Nov. 11 to reach a deal on how to share the river’s water between the four Upper Basin states and the three Lower Basin states. However, a deal was nowhere in sight in the weeks and days leading up to the deadline and was not reached by the end of the day, according to a joint statement from the seven states, the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

“While more work needs to be done, collective progress has been made that warrants continued efforts to define and approve details for a finalized agreement,” the statement said. “Through continued cooperation and coordinated action, there is a shared commitment to ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience of the Colorado River system.”

Despite assembling for an eleventh-hour meeting in Arizona on the day of the deadline, negotiators were unable to reach a compromise that could ensure each of the seven states receives its fair share of water amid declining river levels. What happens next is still up in the air, but Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum indicated that federal intervention would occur if the states could not come to their own agreement.

Arizona is a Lower Basin state, alongside California and Nevada, and its water negotiators have long maintained that the state has already made and agreed to additional water usage cuts. The Lower Basin negotiators have argued that the Upper Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico — are unwilling to make any meaningful cuts to their water usage and instead expect the drier Lower Basin states to bear the brunt of the river’s declining flows. 

“The Lower Basin states have come to the table with offer after offer, with real sacrifices in our water — Arizona taking the brunt of that sacrifice — and the Upper Basin, being led by Colorado, really has refused to budge at all and has refused to take any cuts,” Gov. Katie Hobbs told reporters on Nov. 11.

Hobbs, joined by Senate President Warren Petersen, House Speaker Steve Montenegro, Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan and House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, urged Burgum in a letter to end the negotiating stalemate and honor the framework of the original Colorado River compact, which will expire at the end of 2026. 

“We write to stress to you that Arizona’s Colorado River allocation is important to not only Arizona and its citizens, but also to the nation’s economic growth and independence,” state leaders wrote. “Colorado River reliability in Arizona is a matter of national security. However, based on the trajectory of Post-2026 negotiations over the last two years, it seems that these foundations of growth are at risk due to the refusal of the Upper Basin States to offer meaningful, verifiable conservation commitments.” 

Hobbs told reporters on the day of the federally imposed deadline that she was still unsure about what federal intervention would look like, though she said she imagines it will involve more negotiating. In a press release, Hobbs’ office said the governor is expected to meet with Burgum next week. 

The state is also prepared to go to court to protect its share of Colorado River water after Hobbs and lawmakers earlier this year doled out $1.5 million to the Arizona Department of Water Resources for potential litigation arising from a deal imposed by the federal government. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior has set an Oct. 1, 2026, deadline for new Colorado River guidelines to take effect, and several other administrative hurdles must be cleared in order to meet that deadline. 

Bruce Babbitt: The ‘Godfather’ of Arizona water

Former Arizona Governor and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has devoted nearly all of his public service career to tackling water and environmental issues in Arizona and throughout the country.

As a Democratic governor, Babbitt worked with Republican lawmakers and other officials to craft the influential Groundwater Management Act of 1980, which continues to serve as the state’s only groundwater management regulatory framework.

Babbitt has also helped shape policies for the Colorado River and continues to serve as an influential voice during negotiations between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states. 

He also lobbied the state Legislature to pass the Ag-to-Urban legislation last session. 

Sen. Lela Alston, D-Phoenix, referred to Babbitt as the “godfather watching over water in Arizona” during floor testimony for the measure in June.

Babbitt reflected on some of his notable policies and provided his input on the Colorado River negotiations during an interview with the Arizona Capitol Times.

Answers have been lightly edited for clarity. 

Why have you remained so involved with water issues?

When I left Arizona to become secretary of the interior, that made me the water master. That’s an actual phrase, water master of the lower Colorado River. And that meant that I was directly involved in all this stuff for almost all of my public life. And you just get so deeply involved. When I left the (Department of the Interior), people continued to seek my advice, and I continued my interest, and I began speaking and writing and advocating.

Most recently, Gov. (Katie) Hobbs asked me during the debate over Ag-to-Urban last year … she asked me to help lobby the Legislature. So all of a sudden, I am back talking to legislators. A question many people ask (is) ‘Bruce, who’s your client? You’re a lawyer, or do you represent somebody in some corporation or some faction?’ My only client is Bruce Babbitt. I don’t represent anybody. I’m in this because I care and I believe I have something to offer, and I like doing it. I’ve got a lot of friends all over Arizona, Colorado. I’ve worked in all seven states during my time at the Interior. And it’s so interesting, and I like it so much, I think I have something to offer. 

How did the groundwater management act pave the way for groundwater policy in Arizona and across the country?

Back in 1980, there was a real crisis in Arizona from groundwater overdrafting and we decided to enact an entirely new approach. What made that possible was that I was the governor, and we had good leadership in the Arizona Legislature. The president of the Senate and the speaker of the House were both Republicans. The three of us got along very well, and we simply went behind closed doors and negotiated for six months in detail about a comprehensive statute which has governed groundwater until this day.

How were you and other lawmakers able to come to a compromise?

We listened carefully to each other. We invited representatives from agriculture, the mining industry and the cities to join in the negotiations, and it was a very positive atmosphere because we all listened carefully to each other and were willing to make compromises.

Do you feel there’s anything that could have been done differently in crafting the Groundwater Management Act?

Well, that was 45 years ago, and in that time, we have seen the need for some changes. The most important one, I think, is to have a program for the rural areas of Arizona. In 1980, the Groundwater Management Act applied mostly to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties, with some exceptions, but it was and is basically an urban water management act for central Arizona. It’s now time to reach out and attempt to compromise, and enact a statute for the rest of the state. 

At the time, why was the Groundwater Management Act mostly focused on urban areas? 

That’s because of the huge demand from the urban populations, and it’s where most of the agriculture was. So it was the immediate problem.

How has everything changed for rural areas in the past 45 years in regards to water usage? 

I would say that the biggest change has been the presence of out-of-state companies coming in and establishing huge farms based on groundwater. You can see that most dramatically in Mohave County, the Kingman area and in the Willcox basin in southern Arizona.

What advice would you offer to lawmakers who are trying to pass another act tailored toward rural areas?

There are a number of different bills that have been introduced and debated. To some degree, there are strong points in all of the bills. They differ to some degree in the amount of mandatory conservation, and to some degree in the composition of the local management councils. What we need in the upcoming session is a spirit of compromise. It’s a kind of compromise that we had in the last Legislature when they passed the Ag-to-Urban bill. And my hope and expectation is that with a little more effort and careful attention to differing points of view, it should be possible to find a compromise.

What was your impression of the groundwater management proposals that were introduced last session?

Well, there are a number of different ones. They all have some strong points. I would say that one of the major differences has been how much conservation on what timeline, how much is it necessary to mandate the reduction of groundwater use (and) in what quantity there are differences that I think are susceptible to compromise.

What do you think are the biggest obstacles that lawmakers face in trying to get another groundwater management act passed?

I think the main differences relate to the composition of the local management councils and the authority that they would have to adopt management tools and management plans with the participation of the Department of Water Resources. There are differing provisions in the bills. The second major difference, as I see it, is conservation. How stringent should the water reduction proposal amount and deadlines be laid out? Those are, I think, the major differences.

What has been the biggest hindrance with coming to an agreement with the Colorado River negotiations?

The problem is the impasse between the Upper Basin states of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and the Lower Basin states, which is Arizona, California, Nevada. The Lower Basin states, led by Arizona, have put forward a plan for how to handle drought, which means reducing the amounts of water that are allocated to the water users in the Lower Basin. Under the leadership of Arizona, the Lower Basin states have put forward a very clear, detailed plan that makes substantial concessions in how much water use must be reduced. The basic issue in all of this is there’s not enough water to go around. Big cuts are going to have to be made across the entire basin. The issue is how do you share those reductions? Now, the Upper Basin, particularly Colorado, have responded by saying, “It’s not our intention to offer reductions,” and there’s been no serious offer made by the Upper Basin in response to Arizona in the Lower Basin saying, “Here’s a proposal for reducing usage by the Lower Basin states.”

What will it take for the Upper Basin states and Lower Basin states to actually reach an agreement?

The deadline for agreement is coming up fast. That is, it’s next year. Now the states … have been unable to agree, and there’s not much indication so far that they’re going to make any more progress. That means that the Bureau of Reclamation, that is the Interior Department, now must step in and conduct the negotiations towards conclusion. The first step in that process is going to occur in November. In November, the Department of Interior is going to issue a number of alternative proposals. That’s part of the environmental process that must take place over the next year before the existing regulations expire. The existing regulations expire at this time next year so there has to be an agreement, and it looks like the states are unable. They’ve been talking for years now. That means that the Interior Department must now step in and begin to lead the process. The opening of that process is going to be in November when the department is going to lay out alternative ways of coming to a conclusion. It’s going to be controversial, obviously. But the important thing is that the federal government, in the form of the Interior Department, must now take a strong leadership role.

Colorado River negotiations remain bogged down

Key Points:
  • Arizona’s Colorado River negotiators say they are no closer to a deal 
  • A newly proposed plan failed to gain traction with the Upper Basin states
  • If a deal isn’t made, the federal government could intervene

As a federally-imposed deadline looms for a deal in Colorado River negotiations, Arizona water officials say conversations are still not progressing.

The seven states that use Colorado River water are currently deadlocked in negotiations over how to share the river in the coming decades as its supply dwindles. New guidelines for sharing the river must be in place by Oct. 1, 2026, but the Department of the Interior has imposed a Nov. 11 deadline for the states to come to an agreement without federal intervention.

Arizona’s negotiators, along with those from its fellow Lower Basin states — California and Nevada — maintain that the Lower Basin has made deep cuts to its current allocation of Colorado River water and continue to urge the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico to do the same. And despite reports of progress in late summer, members of Arizona’s team say the conversations are not exactly moving forward.

“The Lower Basin, for more than a decade, has been providing substantial support for the Colorado River system and has proposed solutions which would continue to support the river system,” said Clint Chandler, deputy director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. “The Upper Basin states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, have not answered the challenges relating to conservation to date or proposed meaningful solutions for the post-2026 guidelines.”

Or, in the words of Central Arizona Project Board President Terry Goddard: “We’re up the creek without a paddle.”

Yet while negotiations are at a standstill, both Goddard and Chandler said the seven states are still meeting regularly. Most recently, conversations centered around a plan based on the “natural flow” of the river, which would allocate water supplies based on the actual amount of water in the river rather than the historical amounts states were promised in past agreements. 

Goddard said that despite initial interest in the natural flow concept from the Upper Basin states, that plan did not bring about any compromises that could have led to a deal.

“I don’t think (the Upper Basin states) intended to change their position from ‘hell no we won’t go,’” Goddard said. 

Chandler said the Upper Basin states are still stuck on their ability to build water storage, which would not be possible under a natural flow plan. The Lower Basin states have long argued that the Colorado River’s current water supply cannot sustain increased water storage, despite what may have been promised to the Upper Basin in the past.

“We submitted something that, with just a few adjustments, could become operational, and the Upper Basin answered with a proposal and alternative that would have continued to build storage in the Upper Basin reservoirs, even at high elevations, while reducing deliveries to the Lower Basin,” Chandler said. 

And though Arizona’s negotiators haven’t had much luck with their Upper Basin counterparts, both Goddard and Chandler said the leadership at the Department of the Interior has been instrumental in keeping conversations alive. Both praised Scott Cameron, the acting head of the Bureau of Reclamation and a senior adviser to the secretary of the interior, for his work on the negotiations.

“The only thing I can say that’s kept the ball in the air is Scott Cameron,” Goddard said. “He has continued the meetings … and has kept it from stopping, otherwise it would have just stopped cold.”

However, Cameron only became the acting commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation after his predecessor, Ted Cooke, was forced out in September, as Upper Basin negotiators worried that he would favor Arizona in his role. Cooke previously served as the general manager of the Central Arizona Project, the 336-mile canal system that delivers Colorado River water throughout the state.

“From his experience, he understands the river better than most people, but he would not have favored Arizona over the Upper Basin,” Goddard said. “He would have been straight down the middle and they pulled all the stops out to get (his nomination) killed.” 

As the federal deadline for a deal looms, Arizona’s negotiators see only a few options for a path forward. Chandler said the federal government has adjusted deadlines in the past, which could allow for more time to iron out details if the states can come to a consensus.

But if not, the other option that the state has been preparing for is litigation. The Department of the Interior has signaled its willingness to create Colorado River guidelines on behalf of the seven states, which is likely to result in lawsuits from both sides. 

Arizona’s Legislature and Gov. Katie Hobbs already set aside $500,000 in this year’s budget for potential litigation, a possibility that many in Arizona see as nearly inevitable at this point.

“Hope for the best and brace for the worst is the best advice I can think of,” Goddard said. 

Building water resilience through innovation and partnerships

Arizona stands at a pivotal moment. The Colorado River – long central to our state’s growth and prosperity – is shrinking under the strain of drought and rising demand. The challenges are real, but so are the opportunities. For decades, Arizona has led the nation in confronting water scarcity with foresight and resolve, from pioneering conservation strategies to forging multi-state agreements. That tradition of leadership matters now more than ever.

As we prepare for a future with less water, the path forward must be built on smart solutions, strategic partnerships and regional collaboration. At EPCOR, we’re committed to that work. Serving diverse regions and drawing from multiple sources gives us a clear view of Arizona’s water challenges and the responsibility to act. Our lowest hanging fruit is addressing aging infrastructure and making investments that conserve water, support growth and create greater efficiencies across our water and wastewater systems. Now, as pressures mount, innovation plays a critical role in shaping our next chapter. 

One area that innovation is making a measurable difference is leak detection. Through smart meters, we’re helping customers identify leaks early – saving water and reducing costs. And, through our partnership with FIDO Tech, we’re using AI and acoustic sensors to detect underground leaks. In fast-growing communities like San Tan, this technology has helped us rapidly find and repair over 115 million gallons of leaks annually that might have gone unnoticed for years.

We’re also advancing solutions through strategic partnerships. EPCOR recently collaborated with several startups through the Arizona Commerce Authority and Plug and Play’s sustainability cohort. One promising pilot effort is through OXbyEL, a local company developing a low-cost method to remove PFAS. Their system doesn’t just trap the contaminant – it breaks it down at the molecular level. Though early-stage, this kind of forward-thinking work shows how utilities can accelerate technology to protect public health. 

Looking ahead, we’re also exploring predictive maintenance and advanced decision-support systems that help us make faster, smarter decisions and keep our systems more resilient. Across Arizona, our industry is advancing supply and efficiency, from expanded reuse to regional water development projects. While EPCOR isn’t involved in every initiative, we’re proud to be part of the broader movement – from our innovative facilities where we reuse or recharge 96% of the wastewater we treat to our expansive conveyance systems that move water from where it’s abundant to where it’s needed. 

Arizona has always led in water supply planning and management. The next chapter of Arizona’s water story is being written by all of us – utilities, industry and communities working together to secure our water future. Through smart planning, bold solutions and a united approach, Arizona will continue to lead as other states follow.

Shawn Bradford is senior vice president of EPCOR USA. 

Efficiency from all 7 basin states is the path forward

The Colorado River Basin was inhabited by indigenous people for thousands of years, using its water resources for farming and to support their communities. The river serves many more people today, thanks to modern engineering and water supply projects in all seven Basin States from Wyoming to California.

Today, Colorado River supplies are running short, and a solution seems elusive because some water users are fighting for control over someone else’s share of the river instead of seeking local solutions to their own water needs.

Colorado resident Jason Shulman wrote a recent piece for the Arizona Capitol Times in which he implied solving the Colorado River crisis could be achieved by maximizing efficiency on farms in California’s Imperial Valley, over 750 miles from his home.

Farmland across the West is already on the decline — lost due to water shortages and swallowed up by urban sprawl. Efforts to take even more water from California farms to meet the demands in other states only makes matters worse. The Imperial Valley relies exclusively on water from the Colorado River to meet its needs. There are no alternatives.

Arizona and Southern California are seeing more and more farmland lost to urbanization every year, with Maricopa County leading the nation in farmland loss, according to the American Farmland Trust.

In the Imperial Valley, efforts have been underway for over 30 years to conserve Colorado River water. The Imperial Irrigation District has been administering a variety of effective water conservation programs as a result of collaborative intrastate partnerships.

While we appreciate Mr. Shulman’s recognition of IID’s conservation successes, his focus is more appropriately aimed at his home state of Colorado and other Upper Basin States, including Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico. They have yet to step up in the effort to help craft a basin-wide solution, while California, Arizona, and Nevada have offered 1.25 million acre-feet per year in annual reductions.

Real progress is achievable if local water users look toward regional self-sufficiency instead of clamoring for water supplies that are needed to meet economic and social needs in other states.

A newly released report in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association examined the value of conservation investments throughout the Colorado River Basin. The report explains that conservation programs are usually less expensive than building new water supply infrastructure. Included was the cost per ace-foot for conservation in each of the seven Basin States.

Table 13 of the report shows that the lowest cost for conservation is in Colorado, at $285.90 per acre-foot. California spends $695.58 for the same acre-foot of conserved water, while Nevada is a whopping $3,860.84.

By the end of 2026, IID and other farm and urban water suppliers in California will have saved more than 1.7 million acre-feet of water to add at least 27 feet of elevation to Lake Mead. This is all part of the Lower Basin’s plan that is anticipated to conserve 3.7 million acre-feet by the end of next year. California has already reduced its demand on the Colorado River by 20% per year over the last several years. Since 2003, IID alone has conserved more than 9 million acre-feet of Colorado River water.

Imperial Valley farmers use water to grow a variety of crops, including winter vegetables, citrus, and alfalfa, a foundational crop. The big beef other states have is that many Imperial Valley farmers use their share of the Colorado River to grow alfalfa, but so do growers in these same Basin States.

Critics should instead focus on the kinds of things that are made possible by growing alfalfa. Mr. Shulman says people often “frame the problem as food vs. alfalfa,” but alfalfa is a big part of the food chain that brings us high-protein milk, cheese, yogurt, and other dairy and beef products many people enjoy.

The water that farmers use doesn’t stay on the farm — it returns in the food we buy at the grocery store. That food feeds not just millions of people in the Southwest but tens of millions more across the country. Urban conservation is critical. So is ensuring that farms have the water they need to grow food for the rest of us. Failing to prioritize food production is a recipe for disaster.

Our hope is that the future of the river will not depend on finger-pointing, but on practical, measurable solutions that protect both farmers and families. Efficiency from all seven Basin States is the path forward.

Mike Wade is executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition.

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.