Colorado River water negotiators appear no closer to long-term agreement
—Jessica Hill, Associated Press
The seven states that rely on the Colorado River to supply farms and cities across the U.S. West appear no closer to reaching a consensus on a long-term plan for sharing the dwindling resource.
The river's future was the center of discussions this week at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas, where water leaders from California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming gathered alongside federal and tribal officials.
It comes after the states blew past a November deadline for a new plan to deal with drought and water shortages after 2026, when current guidelines expire. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has set a new deadline of Feb. 14.
Nevada's lead negotiator said it is unlikely the states will reach agreement that quickly.
“As we sit here mid-December with a looming February deadline, I don’t see any clear path to a long-term deal, but I do see a path to the possibility of a shorter-term deal to keep us out of court,” John Entsminger of the Southern Nevada Water Authority told The Associated Press.
An essential resource
More than 40 million people across seven states, Mexico and Native American tribes depend on the water from the river. Farmers in California and Arizona use it to grow the nation's winter vegetables such as broccoli, cabbage and carrots. It provides water and electricity to millions of homes and businesses across the basin.
But longstanding drought, chronic overuse and increasing temperatures have forced a reckoning on the river's future. Existing water conservation agreements that determine who must use less in times of shortage expire in 2026. After two years of negotiating, states still haven't reached a deal for what comes next.
The federal government continues to refrain from coming up with its own solution — preferring the seven basin states reach consensus themselves. If they don't, a federally imposed plan could leave parties unhappy and result in costly, lengthy litigation.
Not only is this water fight between the upper and lower basins, individual municipalities, tribal nations and water agencies have their own stakes in this battle. California, which has the largest share of Colorado River water, has over 200 water agencies alone, each with their own customers.
“It’s a rabbit hole you can dive down in, and it is incredibly complex,” said Noah Garrison, a water researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.
No deal emerges
During a Thursday panel of state negotiators, none appeared willing to bend on their demands. Each highlighted what their state has done to conserve water, from turf-removal projects to canal lining in order to reduce seepage, and they explained why their state can’t take on more. Instead, they said, others should bear the burden.
Entsminger, of Nevada, said he could see a short-term deal lasting five years that sets new rules around water releases and storage at Lakes Powell and Mead — two key reservoirs.
Lower Basin states pitched a reduction of 1.5 million acre-feet per year to cover a structural deficit that occurs when water evaporates or is absorbed into the ground as it flows downstream. An acre-foot is enough water to supply two to three households a year.
But they want to see a similar contribution from the Upper Basin. The Upper Basin states, however, don’t think they should have to make additional cuts because they already don’t use their full share of the water and are legally obligated to send a certain amount of water downstream.
“Our water users feel that pain,” said Estevan López, New Mexico's representative for the Upper Colorado River Commission.
Upper Basin states want less water released from Lake Powell to Lake Mead.
But Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, said he hasn’t seen anything on the table from the Upper Basin that would compel him to ask Arizona lawmakers to approve those demands.
Within the coming weeks, the Bureau of Reclamation will release a range of possible proposals, but it will not identify a specific set of operating guidelines the federal government would prefer.
Scott Cameron, the bureau's acting commissioner, implored the states to find compromise.
“Cooperation is better than litigation,” he said during the conference. “The only certainty around litigation in the Colorado River basin is a bunch of water lawyers are going to be able to put their children and grandchildren through graduate school. There are much better ways to spend several hundred million dollars.”
States brace for Trump push to make oil drilling cheap again.
—Morgan Lee, Associated Press
A Republican push to make drilling cheaper on federal land is creating new fiscal pressure for states that depend on oil and gas revenue, most notably in New Mexico, which is trying to expand early childhood education and save for the future.
The shift stems from a signature tax and spending cut law President Donald Trump signed in July that rolls back the minimum federal royalty rate to 12.5%. That rate — the share of production value companies must pay to the government — held steady for more than a century under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, until it was raised to 16.7% by the Biden administration in 2022.
Trump and Republicans in Congress say the rate reset will boost energy production, jobs and affordability as the administration clears the way for expanded drilling and mining on public lands.
The stakes are highest in New Mexico, the largest recipient of federal mineral lease payments. The state could could miss out on $1.7 billion by 2035 and as much as $5.1 billion by 2050, according to calculations by economist Brian Prest at Resources for the Future.
After New Mexico, the states receiving the most federal oil and gas royalties are Wyoming, Louisiana, North Dakota and Texas.
NM advocacy groups, residents file motion to intervene in feds’ voter data lawsuit against state
—Julie Goldberg, Source NM
Nonprofit good government group Common Cause, along with two New Mexico residents, have filed a motion to intervene in the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver.
Lawyers from the ACLU National Voting Rights Project and ACLU of New Mexico are representing them.
As Source NM previously reported, the federal agency began asking state election officials for their voter rolls last July. Toulouse Oliver told Source at the time her office was “reviewing whether or not we are legally able to prevent sending the private data, which would be Social Security, all dates of birth and driver’s license numbers.”
Ultimately, the New Mexico Secretary of State says it provided the federal government with publicly available data roll information, which excluded Social Security numbers and full dates of birth.
On Dec. 2, the US DOJ announced it was suing New Mexico and several other states for not providing the requested data.
In the filing arguing for the right to intervene in the case, Common Cause contends that it has more than 9,000 members and supporters in New Mexico “whose personal data will be provided to the federal government if DOJ prevails in this lawsuit.”
In addition to Common Cause, proposed intervenors include registered New Mexico voter Claudia Medina, who has lived in the state for more than three decades. Born in Colombia, Medina moved to the United States to attend graduate school and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1995, the suit says, and registered to vote the same day. “She has voted regularly in local, state, and federal elections ever since.”
However, the filing notes, Medina “is concerned about how DOJ might use her sensitive voter data, particularly in light of widely reported recent examples of the federal government’s provision of data to unvetted members of the Department of Government Efficiency …without adequate guardrails or privacy protections.” As such, Medina “fears that the federal government’s efforts to gain voters’ sensitive information will make eligible voters—especially naturalized citizens like herself— ‘less likely to register to vote or even just to vote..’”
Another proposed intervenor, Justin Allen, is described in the filing as a registered New Mexico voter and lifelong New Mexico resident.
“As a young gay man, Mr. Allen’s family did not accept his homosexuality, which led him to engage in ‘self-defeating behaviors such as substance abuse,’ resulting in criminal felony convictions and his incarceration,” the suit says.
While incarcerated, Allen “came to understand the importance of using his voice and exercising his rights, and after his release, he registered to vote when he became eligible to have his rights restored. He also became “a leading advocate for New Mexico’s Voting Rights Act, including the provision focusing on restoration of formerly incarcerated people’s right to vote.”
Allen doesn’t feel safe “knowing that there is a chance” the Trump administration will have his data “and the data of every other registered New Mexican voter,” and he believes that formerly incarcerated people, “despite their voting rights having been restored, will either not register to vote or not vote if the Trump Administration has access to their voter registration information.”
According to a news release, Common Cause previously filed a lawsuit in Nebraska to protect state voter data and has similarly joined with the ACLU Voting Rights Project to file motions to intervene as defendants in DOJ lawsuits against Maryland, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.
“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington have no business accessing New Mexicans’ sensitive personal information,” Common Cause New Mexico Executive Director Molly Swank said in a statement. “Handing this data over to the federal government violates the law and would put voters’ private information in the hands of dangerous election conspiracy peddlers. Common Cause is fighting to protect the rights of New Mexico voters and to prevent the potential misuse of their data.”