The seven states dependent on the Colorado River—a lifeline for the Southwest and the primary source of water for Lakes Mead and Powell—are grappling with deep divisions over how to manage the diminishing water supply, highlighting a historic and growing rift that has left them no closer to consensus.
Monday's Arizona Reconsultation Committee meeting of state water officials underscored the widening gap as the clock ticks toward 2026, when the current rules governing the river's use expire.
What happens in the coming months will affect the water supplies for no less than 40 million people in the U.S. and Mexico.
At the heart of the conflict are two camps: the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming and the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada.
These groups have issued competing proposals for reducing water consumption as climate change continues to shrink the river's supply.
Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, painted a grim picture of the stalemate during the meeting, describing the divide as a "giant chasm."
He criticized the Upper Basin states for resisting significant sacrifices, saying they were "unwilling to take reductions from their available supply."
"This is a visceral issue between the states," Buschatzke said.
Meanwhile, Becky Mitchell, Colorado's lead negotiator, defended the Upper Basin's approach while speaking to public radio station KUNC, rejecting the notion that their water-saving measures outside of formal negotiations are trivial.
"These are not minor actions or a pittance, as some would call them, but these are real and meaningful," Mitchell said.
The current impasse reflects long-standing tensions rooted in the Colorado River's legal framework. The Upper Basin states are legally required to send water downstream to their Lower Basin counterparts, a commitment they have upheld for over a century.
However, with the river's flow reduced by climate change, the Upper Basin argues it should be allowed to send less. The Lower Basin, on the other hand, proposes a system that ties cutbacks to the combined water levels of eight key reservoirs.
Under this plan, the Lower Basin would absorb initial reductions, but both basins would face cuts if combined reservoir levels dropped below 38 percent of capacity.
For context, both Lake Mead and Lake Powell are below 38 percent capacity as of Tuesday, with many believing they will never return to full levels.
Each camp insists its approach is more equitable and sustainable, but both proposals remain in limbo as federal officials at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation await a united front.
Although the states emphasize the importance of collaboration, preparations for legal battles are underway. Arizona has requested $1 million for potential litigation, signaling the high stakes.
"I do not want litigation," Buschatzke said. "But if we get backed into a corner and that's our only choice, that was the context of that budget request."
While the two basin groups dominate the conversation, other stakeholders, including environmental organizations and tribal nations, are pushing for their needs to be recognized.
Meanwhile, a change of presidential administration looms large over the increasingly testing negotiations. How much impact the new Donald Trump administration will have on the proceedings remains to be seen.
Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about Lakes Powell or Mead? Let us know via science@newsweek.com.
English (US) ·