Washington just put Arizona on notice. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s newly released final environmental impact statement on post-2026 Colorado River operations sketches a framework that could slash Lower Basin use by 3 million acre-feet a year. According to the Arizona Capitol Times, that could wipe out up to 77% of Arizona’s legal allocation, while leaving Upper Basin states relatively unscathed.
Gov. Katie Hobbs called the federal option draconian and urged adoption of the Lower Basin states’ compromise that would cut 1.25 million acre-feet a year in 2027 and 2028, which the paper reports would mean about a 31% reduction for Arizona. The Arizona Department of Water Resources warned that reductions on the federal scale would devastate Arizona’s water users and economy. None of this is finalized. Reclamation still must issue a Record of Decision after an expedited public comment period.
Here is the consequence if Washington sticks to its big stick. Arizona gets 36% of its water from the Colorado River, ADWR says, and more than 70% of statewide supply goes to agriculture, with the remaining 28% serving municipal and industrial users. Water experts cited in the Capitol Times warn Arizona is not running out of water, but costs can rise when there is less to go around. Pinal County farmers already absorbed the pain when their river water went away, as Rep. Teresa Martinez reminded everyone, and there was no parade or bailout when it happened.
Republican leaders blasted the federal move and urged unity. House Speaker Steve Montenegro called for a firm, united front. Martinez demanded straight answers about who is being asked to cut next. The Capitol Times reports the Legislature has banked millions over the last two budgets to defend Arizona’s share in court, and Hobbs hired a high-powered law firm to prepare for litigation. ADWR signaled that a negotiated seven-state deal remains a long shot and described recent talks as an exercise in lowering expectations.
The fairness problem here is not subtle. Lower Basin states have already made significant cuts, Arizona included. Yet the federal framework would hammer the Lower Basin while the Upper Basin is largely spared. Upper Basin negotiators answer that they have historically taken less than their full share and that the Lower Basin should bear the brunt. History is not a water source. Shared shortages require shared consequences.
Arizona should keep pressing the Lower Basin proposal as the starting point. It is imperfect, but it was hard won and at least resembles a compromise. The state should use litigation as leverage, not as a substitute for strategy. Submit a tight, detailed comment letter. Demand that any final Record of Decision incorporate measurable, enforceable contributions from the Upper Basin. If Washington insists on two-year operational adjustments, then insist those adjustments do not default to punishing the same people over and over.
