An abysmally dry winter has once again tanked Lake Powell.

The feds have proposed protecting the lake by releasing a record low amount of water downstream, which could largely erase affordable hydropower generated at Lake Mead.

Arizona, California and Nevada have responded with a last-minute plan — literally; they submitted it about 10 minutes before a federal deadline — to save at least 3.2 million acre-feet of water in Lake Mead by the end of 2028. 

But what does their proposal mean for Arizona farmers and ranchers?

How is this deal structured?

This is a complex plan with multiple components, and the three states say all are needed for the deal to work. The two largest provisions are:

  • Shared reductions. This is essentially what the three states had previously proposed to reduce use by 1.25 million acre-feet each year in 2027 and 2028. Water users are unlikely to be compensated with federal money for making these cuts.
  • Additional conservation. In addition to the 1.25 million acre-feet, the states would target another 700,000 acre-feet, at minimum, in voluntary or compensated conservation — “contingent on appropriate funding,” according to the plan.

What is Arizona’s share?

Arizona would shoulder a majority — 760,000 acre-feet — of the 1.25 million acre-feet in shared reductions. California would agree to cut 440,000 acre-feet of use and Nevada 50,000 acre-feet annually.

That’s deeper than the cuts spelled out in the current operating rules, which expire this year. The most severe shortage tier puts Arizona on the hook for 720,000 acre-feet, for example.

Of the 700,000 acre-feet in voluntary conservation deals, Arizona and California hope to cement 300,000 acre-feet of water savings each over two years. Nevada would come up with 100,000 acre-feet.

How could the cuts fall?

Water cuts are expected to hit cities and tribes much harder than farmers.

Tom Buschatzke, the state’s top water official and Colorado River negotiator, said Arizona’s 760,000 acre-feet in shared reductions would be made according to the state’s priority system, primarily impacting fourth-priority users such as the Central Arizona Project and a few on-river users north of Yuma.

Higher third-, second- and first-priority users — including Yuma-area farmers and irrigation districts — would not face these cuts. 

But the reductions would wipe out the Central Arizona Project’s non-Indian agriculture pool, which primarily serves the Gila River Indian Community and cities that lease this water, and begin dipping into its municipal and tribal pools.

How likely are voluntary deals?

Voluntary conservation agreements — including potential deals involving farmers and irrigation districts — could help offset the impact of cuts.

But participation heavily depends on how much state and federal money may be available to fund these deals. 

The Inflation Reduction Act earmarked $4 billion to fund similar deals through 2026. Some money remains, though exactly how much — and how much could be used for deals in 2027 and 2028 — depends on whom you ask.

What else does the plan do?

The plan standardizes some of the rules for adding and removing Intentionally Created Surplus — water that users have stored in Lake Mead for later use — during this period.

That’s important, as more than 3 million acre-feet — or roughly 40% — of the water left in Lake Mead falls into this category. 

The plan also would create a pool of water at Lake Mead to help the federal government meet its water delivery obligations to tribes, including the Gila River Indian Community.

Arizona supports the creation of the pool but would not directly contribute to it.

In addition, the plan spells out how much additional water could be released from upstream reservoirs into Lake Powell and how much would be released from Powell into Lake Mead, depending on lake levels and what’s needed to stabilize Lake Powell over the two years.

Other basin states have balked at those provisions.

The plan also admonishes the federal government to rework Glen Canyon Dam, so Lake Powell can safely operate at lower water levels, and invest in “federal infrastructure in the Yuma area” — perhaps by building an additional storage reservoir or reworking its mothballed desalting plant, though the plan doesn’t spell out options.

How much time could it buy us?

It’s unclear, for now. In-depth modeling has not yet been released.

But the intent of this deal is not to fix things. It’s simply to buy time.

If we’re lucky, it will be enough to stabilize the lakes for a full two years. But we might not be that lucky, and even more painful actions may be required.

What happens next?

It’s unclear whether federal officials will add all, some or none of the three-state plan into an ongoing environmental review process, though we should know in the next few weeks.

If the plan is incorporated into the federal preferred alternative, it also would need approval from the Arizona Legislature.


Joanna Allhands writes about water, land use and other issues important to the Arizona Farm Bureau. Reach her at joannaallhands@azfb.org.