Anyone who has hosted a good dinner party knows that the guest list, table setting and topic of conversation play a big role in determining whether the night is a hit or the guests leave angry and unsatisfied.
That concept is about to get a true test on the Colorado River, where chairs are being pulled up to a negotiating table to start a new round of talks that could define how the river system adapts to a changing climate for the next generation.
The decision of who gets to sit at that table, whose interests are represented, and what鈥檚 on the menu is still very much in flux. But the uncertainty isn鈥檛 stopping would-be participants from voicing concerns they feel leaders in the southwestern watershed can no longer ignore.
And when it comes to the water supply for 40 million people in seven U.S. states and Mexico, the stakes are much higher than a one-night feast.
鈥淲ho's at the existing table?鈥�
Late last year, the seven states that make up the Colorado River basin -- Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, California, Nevada and Arizona -- made clear that after a federal government-induced year-long pause to negotiations, they were ready to start negotiating future policies.
In a letter dated Dec. 17 to then-Department of the Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman, water officials gave notice they were 鈥渋nitiating preliminary conversations with one another,鈥� to figure out how to operate the river鈥檚 biggest reservoirs.
The talks are focused on creating policy past 2026, when a current set of guidelines established in 2007 expires. The 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for the first time addressed the issue of looming water shortages in the basin, and linked the operations of Lakes Powell and Mead. While those who negotiated the agreement in Las Vegas, plenty of others in the basin said it failed to truly address the wide range of problems that have plagued the watershed for decades.
When water managers negotiated that major policy overhaul in 2007, the 29 federally-recognized tribes in the watershed were left out.
Daryl Vigil of the Jicarilla-Apache Nation says that鈥檚 also true for a landmark 2012 study that calculated water supplies and demands in the basin. sent by 17 tribal leaders to the federal government about the 2007 guidelines, it鈥檚 only been in the last five years that tribes have seen the federal government meaningfully engage with them on Colorado River issues. Even now, as basin leaders commit to more tribal inclusivity this time around, the mechanism to do so doesn鈥檛 currently exist.
鈥淭here's no process at all in the current structure to have inclusivity of tribes,鈥� Vigil said.
Vigil is a co-leader of the Water & Tribes Initiative. The initiative receives funding from the Walton Family Foundation, which also supports KUNC鈥檚 Colorado River coverage. The project鈥檚 main goal is to build capacity of tribes to participate in the renegotiation of the 2007 guidelines, Vigil said.
For all the talk of consensus-building in the watershed, up until now it鈥檚 only been among a narrow group of players, Vigil said. Many other perspectives, like the river鈥檚 cultural and spiritual value or its ecological role in some of the driest reaches of the country, are ignored or rejected.
鈥淲ho's at the existing table? The existing table in terms of policy in the Colorado River truly is controlled by the basin states and the federal government,鈥� Vigil said.
If the basin is to truly tackle its fundamental supply-demand imbalance, its current culture of backroom, handshake deals has to change, he said. Collectively the to about 20% of the river鈥檚 flow. Combine that with a dwindling supply due to rapidly warming temperatures at the river鈥檚 headwaters, and the alarm bells start ringing more loudly.
鈥淲hy wouldn't you allow 29 tribes in the basin who've lived sustainably for thousands of years, they might have something that would be of value in terms of how we move forward as human beings,鈥� Vigil said.
While some individual states, like Colorado and New Mexico, are beginning to engage with tribes on water issues in a meaningful way, others, like Arizona, are not, Vigil said. The Biden administration has yet to vocalize its priorities for the negotiations as well.
A spokesperson for the Interior Department, which manages much of the basin鈥檚 existing infrastructure and plays a major role in the Lower Basin鈥檚 policy, said in February the agency is 鈥渞eviewing all programs and partnerships,鈥� ahead of the talks.
One option could be the creation of a Sovereign Review Board, where tribes in the basin could organize around a set of values and priorities and communicate with federal and state leaders on a sovereign-to-sovereign level, Vigil said. However, the creation of any such tribal review board is still in a conceptual phase.
What鈥檚 on the table?
The question of who participates in the negotiations is essential, said Kathy Jacobs, director of the Center for Climate Adaptation, Science and Solutions at the University of Arizona. And it needs an answer before the talks can begin in earnest.
鈥淗ow you set the table has a great deal to do with the outcome of the dinner,鈥� Jacobs said.
Tribal leaders aren鈥檛 the only people who鈥檝e been summarily excluded in the past. Environmentalists, recreation advocates, scientists and water officials from Mexico have also been left out of various agreements in the past, depending on the issue at hand.
Over the last several years, Jacobs has overseen . The project received funding from the Walton Family Foundation, which funds KUNC鈥檚 Colorado River coverage. Most recently, it brought together academics, water utilities, tribes and nonprofits to game out scenarios on the river and attempt to plan for them.
During those conversations, Jacobs said she played the role of an unbiased facilitator, not advocating for one path or another. But she said her biases show when it comes to the process to get to solutions. The table must be larger, more voices need to be heard, and processes to allow more engagement need to be created, she said.
鈥淭he values of the American public and the values of the people in Mexico who are affected are not completely represented by the people who have historically been part of these conversations,鈥� Jacobs said.
So, the number of seats at the table is up in the air. The agenda is too.
鈥淭here will be huge tension between: is this the time to fix the big picture problems? Or is this an incremental step towards doing that or is this just a finger in the dike?鈥� Jacobs said.
The big picture problems are many. Later this year, Lakes Mead and Powell, which store the bulk of the river鈥檚 water, are expected to hit their lowest levels since they were built. That news comes as water managers in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado make the case for new uses of the river鈥檚 water, citing population growth.
Current dry weather will likely create a stark backdrop to the negotiations. Extreme drought conditions blanket more than 75% of the river鈥檚 upper basin, and forecasts show little relief in sight.
John Weisheit, the Utah-based director of the environmental nonprofit Living Rivers, said the science is clear: cities, farmers and everyone else in the basin need to use less water. The supply is shrinking, and demands need to follow. If that鈥檚 not part of the renegotiation, they鈥檙e doomed to fail. The 2007 guidelines quickly needed a policy patch, which took the form of the , as dry conditions in the basin worsened, he noted.
鈥淭o just keep doing the same thing over and over again is insanity,鈥� Weisheit said.
Studies from decades ago predicted looming water shortages following the construction of the Central Arizona Project. Those findings have only been reinforced by recent studies that show .
Inconvenient science has been tossed aside by water managers in the past, Weisheit said. If leaders don鈥檛 take climate change seriously this time around, the system is at risk of failure.
鈥淪o are we going to get smart about this or not? If we don't, then whatever happens -- and we don't know when, but it's going to -- we deserve it,鈥� he said.
Agreeing on the problems
With problems piling up in the long and short term, it鈥檚 understandable why some players are champing at the bit to get the talks started.
But University of Nevada-Reno political scientist Elizabeth Koebele said it could take a year or more to create the processes to allow more seats at the negotiating table. No single entity is in charge of managing the Colorado River, meaning that its decision-making can be messy, even without including interests and perspectives that have been excluded or ignored historically.
And before big solutions can get trotted out for consideration, the basin could use a reckoning on what exactly the problems are.
鈥淎 lot of the language I've seen about these renegotiations is like, 鈥榚veryone agrees the system doesn't work,鈥欌�� Koebele said. 鈥淏ut I'm not sure that everyone agrees the system doesn't work in the same way. And I think that that's going to be a really important part of the process.鈥�
That might seem like an intuitive place to start, Koebele said. But in the basin, coming up with basic answers to simple questions can be a challenge.
鈥淲hat are the bounds of this problem? What's the definition of the problem? What are our real beliefs about what the causes of these problems are?鈥� Koebele said.
Koebele recently received to study Colorado River decision-making as policy negotiations start in earnest.
Certain factors will play an outsized role in determining how the negotiations play out, Koebele said. If the current drought worsens, those at the table might be more willing to take risks and entertain more innovative solutions.
But one thing is certain, Koebele said: The deadline to finish a new agreement is five years from now. And the future of the water supply for 40 million people is on the line.
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River Basin, produced by KUNC and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial content.
