- Utah River Commissioner Gene Shawcroft accuses Lower Basin states of dishonesty in talks.
- Upper Basin states proposed a generous framework, but it was not accepted or countered.
- Utah and Arizona prepare for potential litigation over Colorado River water allocations.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Colorado River states are still stuck in a stalemate over future water allocations, and the Utah River Commission is growing frustrated.
In a press conference on Thursday, Utah River Commissioner Gene Shawcroft said the Lower Basin states, and particularly Arizona, have been "untruthful" about the ongoing negotiations.
Recent broadcasts from Arizona claim Upper Basin states, including Utah, have been "unwilling to share in major cuts."
Shawcroft reaffirmed that the Upper Basin states (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico) presented a framework to the Lower Basin states (California, Nevada and Arizona) about a month before their last deadline on Feb. 14.
"They were not interested, even really, in understanding the complexities or the details of what we put on the table," Shawcroft said. The framework was "extremely generous to Lake Mead, frankly at the risk of Lake Powell," and the Upper Basin put "significant conservation activities" on the table.
He continued, "When we see and hear press indicating that the Upper Basin states were unwilling to do anything, that's simply not true. ... The Upper Basin did have a plan. We put that plan on the table, and it was not accepted. It wasn't countered. It just simply wasn't accepted."
Animosity from Arizona "really stems from the 1960s and the determination that California had the senior Colorado River right in the Lower Basin," Amy Haas, the executive director of Utah's Colorado River Authority, told the press. Arizona, meanwhile, got the junior rights. So their water "could be cut to zero before California has to give a drop."
Utah's Legislature is preparing for litigation
Leadership across all seven basin states has said they'd rather come to an agreement than leave it up to the Supreme Court.
However, Tom Buschatzke, Arizona's lead negotiator, has said he's unsure how the states could break their stalemate, and Arizona stands ready for litigation.
Utah has similarly positioned itself for the "worst case scenario" of litigation, Shawcroft said.
Haas added, "We've got potential appropriations of up to $6 million for litigation support," though not all of the money is allocated for the Colorado River.
New state legislation also prepares Utah for potential lawsuits. For example, HB473 gives the Colorado River Authority a direct role in Colorado River litigation. It also "requires that we coordinate with the Utah Attorney General's Office to prepare the state for potential litigation," Haas said.
Shawcroft added that while he's hopeful the negotiations don't end up in the courts, "there are those that believe the best solution — the only solution they have — is litigation."
"I think litigation creates an enormous amount of uncertainty for an unknown period of time. ... I'm optimistic that people will recognize that once they pull that litigation trigger, uncertainty will rule for probably decades on the river. And I don't think anybody wants to see that," he said.
What's next?
The federal Bureau of Reclamation released alternative plans to manage Colorado River allocations in mid-January, and the states have until March 2 to submit comments.
Shawcroft said he believes if the states presented a consensus plan by July 1, the Bureau of Reclamation would accept it. But if nothing is submitted by then, the federal government will choose how the allocations will fall.
"I don't think (the federal government) is going to spend a lot of time trying to get us to the table based on the energy that's taken thus far and the results we've had," Shawcroft said.
