Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
June 6, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
Closed-door negotiations about the future of the Colorado River are at a standstill. The news of the day is that there’s barely any news. So, when more than 300 water experts got together for an annual conference this week, they had little to do besides wring their hands, listen for crumbs of news, and talk about how they would do things differently if they were on the inside of those negotiations.
“The current process to me kind of feels like the conclave,” said Jim Lochhead, who formerly served as Colorado’s top water negotiator.
Top policymakers caused a stir when they decided to skip the meeting at the University of Colorado, Boulder, withdrawing further into the shadows as tense talks about sharing water appear to be making little progress. The people excluded from those meetings — scientists, academics, tribal leaders, environmental advocates and others with a stake in the river — have been left waiting like the masses gathered in St. Peter’s Square.
“We’re waiting for the black smoke or the white smoke to come out of the seven-state negotiating room,” said Lochhead, who once served as CEO of Denver Water and now works as an independent consultant.
On the other side of this Colorado River “conclave,” seven state-appointed negotiators are trying to come up with a new set of rules for sharing water after 2026. They’re under pressure to cut back on demand for water because the river’s supply is shrinking due to climate change. Until they emerge with a new set of rules, farmers, cities and everyone else will be wondering if they will feel the sting of those cuts.
Across the Colorado River basin, those who depend on the river’s water are making preparations however they can. Cities are spending big on technology that will help stretch out their water supplies if they’re given less in the future. Tribes are trying to get a more formal role in river negotiations, so future water-sharing policies don’t leave them behind like so many in the past.
Efforts like those have been underway for years now. But in Boulder, as top state negotiators keep their heels firmly planted in incompatible policy positions and an unpredictable federal government has yet to appoint a top official to oversee Colorado River matters, everyone else was left to marinate in the anxiety that will linger until a new set of rules is formed.
Looking to the past
With little information about the future, the talks in Boulder mainly focused on lessons from history.
Some of those lessons were relatively recent. For example, Lochhead pointed to talks ahead of a 2007 plan that saw more than seven people in the negotiating room, including federal government representatives who were able to push the states towards consensus. He said today’s negotiations would benefit from a similar approach.
Other lessons were more than a century old. Tribal leaders advocated for the presence of Indigenous interests in today’s talks. Were they included in previous discussions, said Lorelei Cloud, things might be different today.
“The past century has really shown that the exclusion of tribal voices has really led to this crisis that we’re dealing with now in the basin,” said Cloud, a member of the Southern Ute Tribe and the recently appointed chair of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “If we had just honored tribal sovereignty from years back, even from the beginning, we probably would have had serious offers that provided solutions to what we’re dealing with now. We wouldn’t be sitting here talking about hindsight to foresight.”
Patty Limerick, a historian and author whose work focuses on the American West, also brought lessons from more than a century ago when she told the story of a man named E.C. LaRue.
LaRue was a federal engineer who studied the river in the early 1920s. He urged his higher-ups to be conservative in their estimates about the amount of water in the Colorado River. They largely ignored LaRue, instead signing legal agreements that promised more water than the river, in most years, is able to provide.
If policymakers had listened to LaRue more than a hundred years ago, some say, those who rely on the Colorado River today would not be in such a crisis.
Limerick finished describing LaRue’s tale and posed a question to the room.
“Is there a latter-day counterpart to E.C. LaRue to whom we should be paying attention?” she asked. “Is that person among us?”
Another speaker suggested that counterpart might be climate scientist Brad Udall. When he spoke shortly thereafter, his outlook was grim.
‘Beyond awful’ forecasts
Udall and other scientists have provided a rare, uncomfortable dose of certainty to Colorado River talks: The planet is getting warmer, the Colorado River is losing water, and cutbacks to water demand are unavoidably necessary.
He told the audience to “hold on to [their] seats” before describing the climate forecast as “beyond awful.”
While his predictions are rarely rosy, Udall struck a more pessimistic tone than previous years, calling out fossil fuel companies and an “anti-knowledge president and his vile enablers” for attacking science and efforts to gird the nation against the harms of climate change, including water shortages.
“Not only are we in a really deep climate hole,” he said, “We’re continuing to dig and absolutely the last thing we need is the federal government undercutting our efforts to meet the water supply challenges in this basin.”
What the feds said
Those in attendance looking for crumbs of information about negotiations from state leaders were left empty-handed. But one federal representative, perhaps surprisingly, dropped a few tiny ones.
The federal government has stayed relatively tight-lipped on Colorado River matters since Donald Trump returned to the White House. In the administration’s early days, it paused funding for water conservation and infrastructure projects. It has yet to appoint a new commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation, the agency which manages dams and reservoirs across the West.
With that role unfilled, the administration’s highest-ranking official focused on Colorado River matters is Scott Cameron, a longtime federal official who currently serves as the Department of the Interior’s acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
Cameron said he’s been meeting with state negotiators roughly “every other week for the last eight weeks” after his boss, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, said he wanted the department’s leadership to be “personally, intensely, and constantly” involved in discussions with the seven states. Cameron did, however, say he did not believe the states needed an external moderator to help break their deadlock.
“My impression is they really want a deal, they really want to find a path forward to working together, and I’m convinced that they’re all sincere in that regard,” he said.
Cameron also said he was “constantly” asking Reclamation’s senior leadership to bolster the agency’s staff on Colorado River matters as a way to “mitigate any unintended consequences of national level initiatives to reduce overall federal spending.”
