When Arizona filed a motion to join Nevada’s Colorado River lawsuit, you could hear the collective gasp across the river basin.

Here comes the water war, the headlines screamed — the point where any hope for the river’s recovery ends.

But is that where we’re headed?

To a future of protecting our own interests, at great cost and with little to show for it in the end?

The next few weeks will be telling.

Nevada’s lawsuit is limited, for now

Many legal experts believe a judge will allow Arizona to get involved, though that’s not official yet.

Both states are asking a district court to throw out the federal government’s 10-year plan to manage the dwindling river.

They contend that the plan not only fails to adequately quantify the impacts of its deepest cuts, but that it also defies a century’s worth of law, court rulings and treaties.

For now, this is a lower court fight — and a rather limited one, at that. 

If a judge declares the 10-year plan illegal, it’ll be sent back to the feds for a redo.

But that doesn’t necessarily ensure that the new plan’s conclusions will be any different.

The court may simply require the feds to explain their actions in more detail.

Why Arizona got involved


The current 10-year plan contemplates annual water cuts of up to 3 million acre-feet.

That’s deep enough to dry up the Central Arizona Project that feeds Arizona’s largest cities and idle up to 40% of Yuma farmland, threatening the nation’s supply of leafy greens in the winter.

Either outcome could be devastating for the state. Together, they could be catastrophic.

Plus, Nevada is asking the court to throw out the feds’ two-year plan, which largely follows the terms that Arizona, California and Nevada agreed to in concept months ago.

Under that Lower Basin Agreement — which has yet to be formally adopted among the states — California would agree to 440,000 acre-feet of cuts that it otherwise wouldn’t have to make.

It’s a key provision for Arizona, which faces a mandatory 760,000 acre-feet cut in the short term. Without California’s water, that figure could be a lot higher.

“Their intervention was probably inevitable,” said Rhett Larson, an Arizona State University water law professor who also represents the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association.

“Arizona couldn’t risk Nevada making an unchallenged argument that jeopardizes the two-year Lower Basin plan.”

Colorado River tensions escalated

Arizona water director Tom Buschatzke noted as much in a news conference after the motion was filed, arguing that “by taking this step we are protecting the integrity of our agreement.”

Still, the action clearly escalated tensions.

A federal spokesperson accused Arizona of “playing politics instead of working toward meaningful solutions.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who is among those being sued, said he expects the lawsuit to be thrown out because neither state has yet been harmed by the cuts.

Meanwhile, the Gila River Indian Community has made it clear that while it supports Arizona joining the lawsuit, it will decide soon whether to join or file its own.

The Central Arizona Project has spent multiple closed-door sessions discussing potential litigation, as is just about everyone else — with many holding their legal strategies close to the vest.

No one wants to be left out

No one wants to risk getting a raw deal if the feds’ current plan is declared illegal and negotiations must begin anew. 

The arguments raised in this case could set the tone and direction for the big one, a future U.S. Supreme Court battle to determine whether a century of Colorado River law stays or goes.

There is fear that if water users aren’t at the table now — even in a case that doesn’t promise to resolve much — they could be on the menu later.

Which may be the greater concern.

It’s possible that more parties joining could lead to settlement.

But it also could force everyone into corners, shutting down efforts to share cuts, shore up the river — or find additional water supplies to reduce our reliance on it.

Can we still reach an agreement?


Nevada surprised everyone in late August when it filed this lawsuit. 

The shock and resulting scramble to consult lawyers has slowed work on the Lower Basin Agreement — which still must earn multiple approvals, including that of the Arizona Legislature, before it takes effect.

Arizona says it is working hard with California and Nevada to finalize the agreement’s formal language.

But the clock is ticking. Planned cuts take effect Jan. 1, and it’s unclear how the feds might dole them out if the agreement is still pending.

That’s a problem for farmers and cities, which must decide what to plant or set water rates months in advance.

“If this isn’t done by the end of the year, what little certainty we had is out the window,” said Meghan Scott, a water lawyer who represents several Yuma irrigation districts.

“And then where do we go from there?”

What happens over the next few weeks will likely tell the tale.


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