Seven states miss deadline. feds take control of Colorado River

The seven states of the Colorado River Basin — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California — missed their Feb. 14, 2026, federal deadline to agree on how to manage the river after 2026. This was the second missed federal deadline in more than two years of negotiations. Without a consensus, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced on Feb. 14 that the federal government will proceed independently to finalize new operating guidelines by Oct. 1, 2026.

The Bureau of Reclamation released a 24-month forecast the same week showing Lake Powell's water-year inflow at just 52% of average. The reservoir stood just eight feet above the 35-foot buffer that, if crossed, would trigger emergency responses to protect hydroelectric operations. Scientists project Lake Powell could reach its minimum power pool — 3,490 feet elevation — as soon as December 2026, which would shut down Glen Canyon Dam's electricity generation entirely.

If Lake Powell drops further to 3,476 feet by March 2027, it would set the lowest reservoir elevation on record since the dam first filled in the 1960s. At that level, Glen Canyon Dam's ability to release water downstream would be severely constrained — a crisis that affects not just electricity but the physical delivery of water to millions of people. Water managers estimate the basin is overallocated by roughly four million acre-feet per year, more than a quarter of the river's average annual flow.

The 1922 Colorado River Compact — the foundational legal agreement governing the river — divided water between Upper and Lower Basin states based on flow estimates that climate scientists now know were far too optimistic. The compact obligates Upper Basin states to deliver an average of 8.25 million acre-feet annually to the Lower Basin and Mexico, even in drought years when the river produces less. Persistent drought since 2000 has cut average river flows by roughly 20%, turning a guaranteed obligation into a near-impossible math problem.

The central dispute comes down to who takes the cuts

Upper Basin states — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico — argue that their water supplies already fluctuate with snowpack and that they can't accept mandatory basin-wide reductions on top of natural shortages

Lower Basin states — California, Arizona, and Nevada — have made major conservation investments in recent years and want any new rules to require proportional cuts from all seven states Colorado's lead negotiator Becky Mitchell put it plainly: the Upper Basin is being asked to solve a problem it didn't create with water it doesn't have.

The 30 Tribal Nations in the Colorado River Basin hold senior water rights to roughly 25% of the river's average annual flow — rights that were established before those of most cities and farms. But none of the 30 tribes were included in the original 1922 Compact negotiations, and 11 tribes still have legally unresolved water rights claims. Tribal leaders have spent years demanding formal seats at the negotiating table and protection of their water rights in any new operating rules, warning that any deal struck without them won't hold.

Imperial Irrigation District in Southern California holds some of the oldest and most senior water rights on the river — 3.1 million acre-feet per year dating to 1901, including 2.6 million acre-feet of present perfected rights. Under the Law of the River, those senior rights are satisfied first when supplies fall short, meaning junior water users — including many farms and some cities — absorb cuts before the Imperial Valley does. The Imperial Valley directly supplies roughly two-thirds of the nation's winter vegetables, so its water security has national food system implications.

Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who helped broker the 2007 interim rules, told the Los Angeles Times that Burgum should not try to impose a long-term solution unilaterally. Babbitt called for a fresh start — a much more inclusive, public process — warning that a top-down federal decree would trigger years of expensive litigation that doesn't actually change the river's hydrology. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has already stated publicly that Colorado is prepared to litigate to defend its water rights if necessary.