September 4, 2026 12:02 am
CRIT Nation, Parker, AZ
September 4, 2026 12:02 am
CRIT Nation, Parker, AZ
Early reports showed the river’s challenges from several angles. The headwaters are drying out, and Arizona is pushing back against the federal government’s post-2026 river plan. Cities are using federal money to conserve and build local resilience. Farmers and rural communities are facing uncertainty. Tribal Nations are also raising concerns about groundwater projects and the long history of being left out of major water decisions.
KJZZ reported that warming temperatures are reducing base flow in streams that feed the Colorado River. Base flow is the water in streams that does not come directly from rainfall. Much of it comes from groundwater and snowmelt. A study published in Earth’s Future found that base flow in Western streams has been declining since 1950, and researchers projected that headwater streams could see 45% to 65% less base flow by the end of the century if warming continues.
That matters because the Colorado River depends on those smaller mountain streams before the water reaches Lake Powell, Lake Mead, or the Lower Basin. If streamflow comes earlier in the year or drops during dry months, water managers have less reliability when demand is highest.
At the same time, Arizona continued to challenge the federal government’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for future Colorado River operations. KJZZ reported that Arizona’s top water official, Tom Buschatzke, warned Reclamation that the federal plan could cause “catastrophic harm” to Arizona. The state argued that the plan does not provide enough certainty and could allow deep Lower Basin cuts without resolving the broader conflict between the Upper and Lower basins.
KTAR reported similar concerns from Sarah Porter, director of Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy. Porter said the federal framework focuses on protecting infrastructure and hydropower but does not put the Basin on a path to stability. She said cities may be able to reduce some impacts through conservation and advanced water purification, but Tribal and rural communities could feel deeper disruption, especially where agriculture is involved.
Cities are already moving to conserve more water. KJZZ reported that several Phoenix-area cities are working on agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation to leave Colorado River water in Lake Mead in exchange for federal funding. Glendale, Mesa, and Gilbert were among the cities discussed. KJZZ reported that Glendale previously left about one-third of its Colorado River water in Lake Mead, and Gilbert has a 10-year agreement that will bring nearly $17 million to the town for water-saving projects.
Gilbert is also expanding its water infrastructure. ABC15 reported that the town is planning to expand the Greenfield Water Reclamation Plant from 12 million gallons a day to 16 million gallons a day. The treated wastewater can be reused for irrigation or recharged underground, helping the town prepare for future growth and Colorado River uncertainty.
Groundwater remained another major issue. The University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center highlighted a study on water banking and groundwater security, finding that managed aquifer recharge and water banking can improve drought resilience when policies encourage long-term storage. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office also reported early results from a groundwater settlement with Riverview Dairy in Cochise County. The agreement includes funding for well drilling, water hauling, and groundwater access, along with commitments to reduce groundwater use over time.
Tribal groundwater concerns also reached court. ICT reported that the Fort Mojave and Chemehuevi Indian Tribes sued the Interior Department over the Cadiz groundwater project in the Mojave Desert. The project would pump groundwater from beneath the Mojave Trails National Monument and move it through a converted pipeline. Tribal leaders said the project threatens cultural, ecological, and sacred resources tied to the desert and its water.
Conditions upstream also showed the river’s physical stress. Aspen Journalism reported that extremely low flows in Colorado’s 15-mile reach affected boaters, irrigators, and endangered fish. The report said the reach, located between Palisade and the Gunnison River, is a chronically depleted section of the Colorado River and critical habitat for endangered fish.
Together, the week’s reporting showed that water security is no longer only about legal allocations. It is about timing, infrastructure, storage, groundwater protection, conservation funding, and whether communities have the resources to adapt.
What does this mean for CRIT?
CRIT holds senior Colorado River rights, which remain central to the Tribe’s position in Basin planning. But the reporting shows that water security also depends on infrastructure, storage, delivery systems, and meaningful inclusion in federal decision-making.
The KTAR reporting on Tribal and rural impacts is important because CRIT is both a sovereign Tribal Nation and a major agricultural water user along the Colorado River. The ICT reporting also shows how groundwater projects can raise Tribal concerns when water, land, wildlife, and cultural resources are connected. (more…)
The Colorado River shortage conversation is starting to move from federal planning into city budgets, backup supplies, and long-term infrastructure decisions.
On Aug. 11, AMWUA reported that its member cities have been preparing for a smaller Colorado River for years. The Arizona Municipal Water Users Association represents 10 cities: Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe. Together, those cities serve about 3.7 million people, more than half of Arizona’s population.
AMWUA said the cities are entering a new era of less Colorado River water, especially as federal officials finalize operating rules for 2027 through 2036. The organization said Central Arizona Project water is at the center of that risk because many Valley cities rely on CAP deliveries.
AMWUA said city planning has focused on three main areas: efficiency, resilience, and technology. Those efforts include advanced water meters, leak detection, turf removal rebates, landscape conversion programs, reclaimed water, aquifer recharge, advanced purified water treatment, and updated development rules.
The goal is not only to use less water. It is also to reduce dependence on Colorado River supplies and build local water sources that are less tied to Lake Mead’s elevation.
Gilbert is one example of how cities are preparing. ABC15 reported that about 40% of Gilbert’s water comes from the Colorado River, and town staff expect reductions to Central Arizona Project water to begin in 2027. The town is considering a Firming Water Delivery Agreement that would give Gilbert more flexibility to access water it previously stored underground during shortages.
ABC15 also reported that Gilbert has drilled eight new wells to access backup supplies. The town’s approach reflects a broader trend in Arizona: communities are trying to make stored water and groundwater more usable before deeper Colorado River cuts arrive.
These local efforts do not remove all risk. AMWUA said no level of city preparation can completely eliminate Arizona’s vulnerability to a smaller Colorado River. More investment will be needed, especially in new water supplies, treatment technology, and infrastructure.
The cost of that uncertainty is becoming a bigger part of the discussion. The Bond Buyer reported that Arizona and Nevada officials criticized the federal Colorado River plan, while analysts said the Final Environmental Impact Statement raises the stakes for long-term water planning. The article said utilities with strong storage, conservation programs, and financial flexibility may be better positioned in the near term, but long-term credit quality will depend on how effectively water providers secure alternative supplies while keeping rates affordable.
That point matters because water planning is not only about engineering. It is also about financing. Wells, pipelines, treatment plants, recharge projects, conservation programs, and new supply agreements can take years to develop and cost millions of dollars. If Colorado River rules change every two years, cities and water agencies may have to make expensive decisions without knowing exactly how much water they will receive in the future.
California is watching the federal framework as well. Spectrum News reported that the new Colorado River proposal could mean future cuts for California. California has historically held stronger priority than Arizona in the Lower Basin, but the federal framework could still bring reductions depending on reservoir conditions and future agreements.
The uncertainty is also reaching water law. Courthouse News Service reported on a Ninth Circuit case involving companies that say California denied them due process in a water rights matter. While the case is separate from Arizona’s Colorado River negotiations, it shows how water disputes across the West are increasingly moving through courts and administrative processes.
Drought conditions are also affecting the Upper Basin. Denver7 reported that Denver Water has moved into an enforcement phase as drought conditions worsen. Customers are limited to watering lawns two days a week, and the utility has begun issuing warnings and fines for violations. Denver Water officials said the goal is to protect supplies heading into next year, when snowpack remains uncertain. (more…)
Water planning in the West is becoming less about one reservoir or one shortage rule and more about whether communities have the legal tools, infrastructure, and storage to manage a drier future.
Aug. 10 reporting continued to focus on Lake Mead after the reservoir reached its lowest level ever recorded. CBS 5 Arizona’s Family reported that Lake Mead dropped to 1,040.5 feet, below the previous record set in July 2022. The reservoir, created by Hoover Dam in the 1930s, remains one of the most important storage points on the Colorado River.
Lake Mead’s decline matters because it supports water deliveries to Arizona, California, Nevada, and Mexico. It also affects hydropower production and the broader operation of the river system. CBS 5 reported that if Lake Mead and Lake Powell fall below certain thresholds, hydropower production can stop, and water deliveries to downstream users can become harder to manage.
Popular Mechanics also reported on the power side of the Colorado River crisis, focusing on how lower water levels affect Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam. The article explained that these dams depend on enough water elevation to push water through turbines. When reservoirs fall too low, the issue is not only reduced water supply. It is also whether the infrastructure can continue moving water and producing power the way it was designed to do.
At the same time, the federal Colorado River plan is leaving water agencies with short planning windows. KQED, through CalMatters, reported that Reclamation’s 10-year framework sets broad limits for managing Lake Powell and Lake Mead, but detailed operating plans may be issued every two years if the Basin states remain deadlocked. The article said that the level of uncertainty makes it harder for water agencies to plan major projects, conservation agreements, and long-term investments.
Groundwater was another major focus. Arizona Independent News Network, using reporting from the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, reported that a lawsuit over the Hualapai Valley groundwater basin could test Arizona’s authority to protect vulnerable rural water supplies. The lawsuit challenges the state’s ability to designate an Irrigation Non-Expansion Area, which limits new irrigated farmland while allowing existing farms to continue pumping.
According to the report, ADWR designated the Hualapai Valley basin as an Irrigation Non-Expansion Area in 2022 after a surge of out-of-state investment in land for new industrial-scale farms. Two investment firms sued, arguing that ADWR should have used Arizona’s standard rule-making process. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge agreed with the investors earlier this year, and ADWR has appealed.
The case matters beyond Hualapai Valley. If the ruling stands, it could take much longer for Arizona to create future Irrigation Non-Expansion Areas. That delay could give landowners more time to expand irrigation before restrictions take effect, increasing pressure on already stressed rural aquifers.
The University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center also highlighted a new study on water banking and groundwater security. The study looked at how managed aquifer recharge and water banking can help improve long-term water security in semi-arid regions. The research found that water banking can improve drought resilience, especially in aquifers that retain stored water well. It also emphasized the importance of policies that encourage long-term storage rather than quick recovery.
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office also announced early results from a groundwater agreement with Riverview Dairy in Cochise County. Attorney General Kris Mayes said the agreement has helped residents affected by declining groundwater levels in the Sulphur Springs Valley. The settlement includes $11 million for well drilling, water hauling, and groundwater access, along with commitments to fallow or transition 2,000 acres of irrigated farmland over 12 years to reduce groundwater use.
Those Arizona groundwater stories show how the water conversation is expanding beyond the Colorado River. As surface water becomes less reliable, more pressure can shift to groundwater. But groundwater rules are different across the state, and rural areas often have fewer protections than Arizona’s Active Management Areas.
Nevada is facing similar questions. Nevada Independent reported on a legal fight over water availability at the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, a major industrial and technology hub east of Reno. The dispute involves whether enough water is available to serve current and future development at the site, which includes major companies such as Tesla and Switch.
The Nevada case shows how water availability can affect economic development. Communities may want new industry, jobs, and tax revenue, but growth still depends on whether water supplies can support long-term demand.
California is also looking at long-term water security. NBC Palm Springs reported on a Sierra Nevada meadow restoration project designed to improve natural water storage. Crews are restoring nearly three miles of the West Walker River and surrounding floodplains at Pickel Meadow, north of Yosemite. The goal is to help the meadow absorb snowmelt and release water more slowly into rivers and streams.
Fox Weather reported that monsoon storms were bringing needed rain to parts of the Southwest and Rockies, including areas of Colorado facing extreme and exceptional drought. The rain may help some areas in the short term, but it does not solve the larger Colorado River problem. The system depends heavily on mountain snowpack, runoff, and long-term reservoir storage. (more…)
On August 7th, reports along the basin were mostly about Lake Mead’s record-low level becoming the clearest sign yet that the Colorado River negotiations are no longer just about future planning.
CNN reported that Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir, reached a new record low. The reservoir is a key part of the Colorado River system, supplying water to Arizona, California, Nevada, and Mexico while also supporting hydropower and downstream deliveries from Hoover Dam.
The new low came as Lower Basin states continue responding to Reclamation’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for future operations at Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Arizona Capitol Times reported that Arizona, California, and Nevada are bracing for possible reductions under the federal framework. The Lower Basin states have urged Reclamation to adopt their May proposal, which calls for 3.2 million acre-feet of water savings over two years, including 1.25 million acre-feet of binding reductions in both 2027 and 2028 and at least 700,000 acre-feet of additional conservation.
The federal plan has left Arizona leaders concerned that the state could face deeper reductions than it believes are fair. The Upper Basin states — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico — would not face the same mandatory cuts for now, which has added to the disagreement between the two basins.
Phoenix is also preparing for the possibility of a legal fight. ABC15 reported that the City of Phoenix has retained lawyers to help protect its Colorado River interests after the release of the federal plan. The Phoenix City Council met in executive session to discuss legal advice and possible options tied to post-2026 Colorado River operations.
The dispute is also reaching smaller parts of water management. KJZZ reported that Central Arizona Project leaders are questioning whether Arizona should keep helping pay for cloud seeding in the Rocky Mountains. CAP has helped fund upstream cloud seeding work since 2007 as part of a broader effort to add snow in key Colorado River watersheds.
The question now is political as much as technical. KJZZ reported that some CAP board members questioned why Arizona should keep funding work that may benefit Upper Basin states if those states are not required to take mandatory cuts. CAP staff said the program benefits the overall river system, even if it is difficult to track exactly how much of that water eventually reaches Arizona.
Environmental concerns also grew. CBS 5 Arizona’s Family reported that federal officials will not release cool water from Lake Powell this year to protect threatened native fish downstream in the Grand Canyon. The decision is meant to avoid putting additional pressure on already strained hydropower production at Glen Canyon Dam.
The issue involves the humpback chub, a threatened native fish in the Grand Canyon. Cool water releases in 2024 and 2025 helped prevent smallmouth bass from spawning below Glen Canyon Dam. Smallmouth bass are an invasive predator that can threaten native fish when warmer water allows them to survive and reproduce downstream.
The decision shows how low reservoir levels can force tradeoffs between power generation, river ecology, and species protection. As Lake Powell declines, federal officials are trying to protect hydropower and dam operations while also managing risks to native fish and downstream habitat.
Conditions in the Upper Basin are also strained. The Colorado Sun reported that Blue Mesa Reservoir, the largest reservoir in Colorado, is about one-quarter full. Federal officials are watching reservoirs like Blue Mesa because they may be used to help protect Lake Powell from dropping to critical levels under the new federal framework.
KUNR reported that summer monsoon storms may ease drought in some parts of the West, but they will not solve the Colorado River’s larger supply problem. The river depends heavily on mountain snowpack and runoff, and one season of rain does not erase years of declining reservoir storage. (more…)
August 6th reports showed the Colorado River debate moving on several fronts at once: Arizona is pushing back against deeper federal cuts, rural groundwater protections are being tested, Tribal water infrastructure remains unsettled, and Upper Basin communities are seeing worsening drought conditions.
Arizona officials are still responding to the federal government’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (ICS) for future Colorado River operations. The Arizona Republic reported that Congressman Greg Stanton called the federal plan a “failure of leadership” and said Arizona is pushing for smaller reductions than the framework allows. The federal plan could require Arizona, California, and Nevada to share major cuts after 2026, while Upper Basin states would rely mostly on voluntary conservation for now.
KAWC Yuma Public Radio reported that Yuma water attorney Wade Noble is closely following the negotiations. Yuma agriculture depends heavily on Colorado River water, and future rules affecting Lower Basin supplies could have consequences for growers, irrigation districts, and the local economy.
Some Arizona communities are telling residents they do not expect immediate changes. The Arizona Daily Star reported that Tucson Water customers are not expected to see immediate impacts under the river cutback plan. Tucson has spent years storing Colorado River water underground and developing a mix of supplies, including reclaimed water and groundwater management.
Groundwater policy also remained a major issue. Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting reported that a lawsuit over the Hualapai Valley groundwater basin could test Arizona’s authority to protect vulnerable rural groundwater supplies. The lawsuit challenges the state’s ability to designate the basin as an Irrigation Non-Expansion Area, one of Arizona’s few tools for limiting new agricultural groundwater pumping in rural areas.
Tribal water rights also stayed in focus. Navajo Times reported that the Navajo water settlement has advanced in the Basin but is facing a funding wall in Congress. The settlement is tied to water infrastructure and long-term access for Navajo communities. It also reflects a larger issue across the Colorado River Basin: legal rights still require funding, infrastructure, and federal action before water can reliably reach homes and communities.
Conditions in the Upper Basin continued to worsen. Colorado Public Radio reported that Colorado River communities are looking for new ways to respond as reservoir levels fall. The Colorado Sun reported that the river hit a “bleak” new low near Palisade, straining supplies for fish and farms. NBC 9 News Denver reported that Denver Water’s largest reservoir is down 20 feet and expected to keep dropping.
Southern Utah News reported that the federal Colorado River plan is putting renewed focus on Lake Powell’s future. Lake Powell remains central to power generation, releases through Glen Canyon Dam, and the larger operation of the river system.
The reports show how much is still unresolved. Arizona is pushing for smaller cuts. Yuma agriculture is watching the negotiations closely. Tucson is pointing to stored water and long-term planning. Rural groundwater protections are being tested in court. Tribal water settlements still need funding. Upper Basin rivers and reservoirs are showing the strain of drought.
The next federal step remains the Record of Decision and operating guidelines. Those documents will determine how the framework is applied for 2027 and 2028, including how much water Arizona, California, and Nevada may be required to conserve.
What does this mean for CRIT?
The reports show why federal shortage rules, agriculture, groundwater, and Tribal water infrastructure all belong in the same conversation.
CRIT holds senior Colorado River rights and is not in the same position as junior-priority Central Arizona Project users. Still, Arizona’s push for smaller cuts, Yuma’s concern over Lower Basin negotiations, and the focus on agricultural impacts are relevant because CRIT is also a major agricultural water user along the Colorado River. (more…)
Aug. 5 reporting showed how the federal Colorado River framework could reach beyond city water supplies and into Tribal Nations, agriculture, recreation, and the Grand Canyon itself.
KTAR reported that lower flows through the Grand Canyon are creating problems for wildlife and commercial boating. The report said commercial boating on the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon is a nearly $50 million-a-year industry. Lower releases from Glen Canyon Dam, combined with dry conditions, have reduced flows through one of the river’s most visible stretches.
The concern is not only economic. KTAR reported that warmer, lower water has also created conditions that can affect river ecology, including invasive smallmouth bass and algae growth. The Grand Canyon is part of the same river system that supplies cities, farms, Tribal Nations, and ecosystems throughout the Basin.
Tribal Nations are also watching the federal framework closely. KNAU reported that the new Colorado River plan is creating concern and uncertainty for some Tribal Nations in Arizona. The report noted that some Tribes hold senior rights to Colorado River water, but the effect of future federal rules may vary depending on each Tribe’s legal settlement, infrastructure, and connection to the Central Arizona Project.
KNAU reported that some Tribal water rights in Arizona remain unquantified, including parts of the Navajo Nation’s claims. The report also discussed the White Mountain Apache Tribe, whose settlement includes Central Arizona Project water. Tribal leaders and legal experts told KNAU that future CAP reductions could raise questions for Tribes that rely on CAP deliveries or lease CAP water.
For Arizona cities, the picture is different. KJZZ reported that many cities will likely receive less Colorado River water, but they do not expect taps to run dry. Cities have spent years building backup supplies through groundwater storage, Salt River supplies, reclaimed water, infrastructure projects, and water-transfer agreements.
KJZZ reported that Gilbert is drilling new wells to access groundwater. Tucson has also pointed to decades of planning. KGUN reported that Tucson has used reclaimed water, protected groundwater, imported Colorado River water, and stored water underground to prepare for future reductions. Tucson Water officials said the city is not expected to run out of water, but water will likely become more expensive to provide.
Other communities are also reviewing their options. CBS 5 Arizona’s Family reported that towns and cities are looking at how they will get water if Colorado River cuts move forward. Surprise has said its water future remains secure despite uncertainty, while Scottsdale has said it can maintain water service because of its mix of supplies, stored water, and long-term planning.
Agriculture remains one of the clearest pressure points. Fox 10 reported that Arizona farmers warned Colorado River cuts could raise prices on food and everyday goods. The report focused on Caywood Farms near Casa Grande, which has already lost Central Arizona Project water from earlier shortages and is also dealing with limited local canal supplies.
Arizona Department of Agriculture Director Paul Brierley told Fox 10 that Yuma produces a large share of the leafy greens sold in the United States and Canada during winter. He warned that deeper cuts could affect rural counties that depend on agriculture.
The broader federal framework remains unsettled. Aspen Public Radio reported that Reclamation’s plan is meant to keep Lake Powell and Lake Mead infrastructure operating while the states continue trying to reach a long-term agreement. High Country News reported that the framework could be updated every two years and could require steep Lower Basin cuts, while Upper Basin states rely on voluntary conservation for now. (more…)
On April 1st, 2026, Senator Ruben Gallego visited the Colorado River Indian Reservation. Upon the visit, he came to the Tribal Council Chambers and met with Chairwoman Amelia Flores, Vice Chairman Dwight Lomayesva, Council Secretary Josephine Tahbo, Councilwoman Vanessa Welch, Councilman Billy Beeson, Councilman Tommy Drennan, Councilwoman Raeanne Patch, and Councilwoman Tracey Quillen. Chairwoman Amelia Flores and Councilman Drennan thanked him for coming to CRIT, and spoke on the pro-rata decisions that are being considered for the Colorado River in its recent publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). They expressed a deep concern for the decisions stating that pro-rata is in many ways unlawful, and goes directly against their seniority water rights.
Furthermore, Senator Gallego took a small tour with Chairwoman Flores, members of Council, and lead water attorney John Bezdek with Joshua Moore as their tour guide on the reservation. The last stop was at the Colorado River Sewage System Joint Venture where they met with Town of Parker Mayor Randy Hartless, Vice Mayor Zafer Genc, Town Manager Nora Yackley, Council member Joshua Grenwalt, and Operations Manager Ashley Longanecker. The tour of the facility was led by Longanecker who emphasized the importance of fixing the sewage system for Parker and the Reservation, which was clearly displayed in its decaying state in need of desperate repairs. (more…)
A new federal policy proposal is threatening to Colorado River tribal water rights, and tribal leaders are fighting back. The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) issued a forceful set of comments in response to the Bureau of Reclamation’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) outlining proposed alternatives for post-2026 operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
In its current form, the DEIS includes an analysis of several alternatives for Colorado River operations that would distribute water shortages by cutting water to all users on a pro-rata basis. By doing this, it aims to treat all users the same, regardless of priority date. For CRIT, which holds senior rights in the Lower Colorado River, rights that date back to 1865, and are protected under the Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California. Such an approach would undermine the very legal foundation that secures the Tribe’s access to water. Making matters worse, the draft also relies on assumptions tied to current consumptive use. This framework risks penalizing CRIT for the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) failure to efficiently operate and properly maintain the Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project, which is the primary means for CRIT to use its water.
If this draft is finalized without any changes, and these policies are put into action, some of the alternatives proposed in the report would represent significant policy shift for Colorado River management. Current operating agreements that govern the river expire at the end of 2026, which is the reason for federal officials to develop new guidelines intended to manage rising demand. Currently, there is extreme pressure to find solutions due to worsening drought conditions, declining reservoir levels, and increasing uncertainty across the basin.
In its response, CRIT asserts that several proposed federal approaches conflict with long-established water law and threaten to undermine the Tribe’s senior water rights. CRIT’s comment letter warns that without significant revision, the draft could place federal actions in violation of existing U.S. Supreme Court decrees. In its letter, Tribal Council made very clear to the Secretary of the Interior and Reclamation officials that it will take any actions it deems necessary to protect CRIT’s rights, including litigation before the Supreme Court.
Why Pro-rata should never be considered:
Pro-rata was put into consideration under the previous presidential administration, and continues on in the current government. This was one of several potential alternatives to address the significant shortages in Arizona, which stands to lose at least 27% of its entire water allocation. Under the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) pro-rata concept, they would address water shortages by cutting deliveries evenly among users based on the percentage of water they currently use (or consume), rather than on each user’s legal priority.
Priority Matters: First in Time – First in Right
A water-user’s ‘priority’ is like a place in line, users at the front of the line are usually those who established their right to use water first. They get their water first, and in full, while lower-priority users, who established their water rights later in time, get their full share of water if there is still enough to go around. Only in times of extraordinary shortage, and after all lower-priority users are cut to zero, would ‘first-priority’ users have to take less than they are legally entitled to use. This is a long-established truth about Western U.S. water law: though it can lead to harsh outcomes, first in time = first in right… and all western water-users know this is how water law works.
But under a pro-rata approach, the Priority system would conveniently disappear, and all water users, regardless of when their rights were established, would share reductions during times of shortage. For CRIT, whose water rights are among the most senior in the Lower Basin, a pro-rata system represents a fundamental shift away from long-standing legal principles that have historically governed how Colorado River water is distributed.
Pro-rata has been vehemently opposed by CRIT leaders as a violation of the law and an attack on CRIT tribal sovereignty. On two separate occasions in the past 6 months, leaders from DOI and Reclamation have met with Council. On both of those occasions, Tribal Council has been forceful that pro-rata shortages are illegal.
Due to a hotter and drier climate, reservoirs at Lake Mead and Lake Powell have dropped to historically low elevations, and federal officials warn that existing management strategies have not been sufficient to stabilize the system. The DEIS proposes a range of operational alternatives designed to balance two competing priorities; 1) maintaining water deliveries to users across seven states, and 2) protecting reservoir storage in order to maintain infrastructure integrity.
Federal officials state that new guidelines are needed to provide predictability to water users while adapting to increasingly dry conditions expected in the future. The proposed framework would guide operations for up to 20 years, beginning in October 2026. CRIT argues that portions of the draft plan conflict with established federal law and the Supreme Court Decree governing the Colorado River.
Water Rights and Infrastructure Challenges
CRIT’s response also highlights longstanding infrastructure challenges affecting the Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project (CRIIP). Since its original construction, the irrigation system serving the Reservation has seen little modernization or meaningful improvement to meet 21st-century operational standards. As a result, aging canals leak significant amounts of water into the ground before it ever reaches a field or crops, and the canals operate so inefficiently that enormous amounts of water is allowed to spill off the end of the system, straight back into the Colorado River, without ever being turned out onto a field.
Addressing this problem is no simple undertaking. The irrigation system is federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), an agency that has faced decades of declining funding and limited operational capacity. According to CRIT’s response, these systemic challenges have prevented the Tribe from fully utilizing water.
The passage of the Colorado River Indian Tribes Water Resiliency Act of 2022 further strengthens this effort by granting CRIT the authority to store, conserve, and lease its water. Historically, the water has been lost through deteriorating canals can instead be preserved for tribal agriculture, community development, and, if the Tribe chooses, leased to generate revenue that directly benefits CRIT and its members. The Tribe’s adoption of its Water Code and recognition of the Colorado River’s Personhood Status under tribal law further reinforces this framework of sovereignty and stewardship. One of the main goals for CRIT in pursuing these efforts is to expand agricultural operations across the reservation. These efforts will create greater opportunities for Tribal members and ensure long-term prosperity for the community and more importantly, for future generations.
CRIT also forcefully argues that Reclamation must acknowledge the Personhood Status of the Colorado River under tribal law. The Tribe claims that the DEIS must analyze the impacts on the Colorado River from diverting water for use in central Arizona. The water is best left in-stream to benefit and protect its status as a living entity, which provides spiritual, cultural, and religious benefits to tribal members.
Taken together, these developments underscore why CRIT views the current federal proposal as a defining moment. This is why pro-rata should never be considered, because it undermines all the progress CRIT has made to ensure it can use its water rights entirely, and within the long-established, existing legal framework. The Tribe’s response makes clear that decisions affecting the Colorado River cannot move forward without full recognition of tribal rights and authority. CRIT has signaled that it is prepared to defend those rights, and if necessary, take this matter to the United States Supreme Court.
Read the document in its entirety – Comments from the Colorado River Indian Tribes on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Post-2026 Operational Guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Follow the link below.
BOR_Comments CRIT Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Post 2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for La
Chief Irataba stands among the most notable figures in Native American history. Some leaders are remembered for their war strategy and resistance, while others are known for diplomacy and negotiation. Rarely do those qualities come together in one leader. Chief Irataba was one of those rare individuals. Known by the Mohave people as fearless, and described by American settlers as peaceful and fair, Irataba helped shape the future of the Mohave people and the land that would later become the Colorado River Indian Reservation.
Irataba, whose Mohave name was Eecheyara Tav, meaning “bright bird,” was born around 1814 along the Colorado River. Historical accounts describe him as a striking and commanding figure. Standing approximately six feet four inches tall, with a heavy jaw and broad shoulders, he was widely recognized for his intelligence, bravery, and leadership. Despite his powerful physical presence, those who encountered him often described his demeanor as calm and gentle. Historian Arthur Woodward referenced early descriptions of the Mohave leader, writing that Irataba was “a man six feet four inches tall, of very powerful frame, but very gentle and kind in demeanor.”
During the early nineteenth century, Mohave communities thrived along the Colorado River. The river provided fertile floodplains for farming and served as an important route for travel and trade among tribes throughout the region. Irataba rose to prominence during this time and became a war leader of the Kwanami, a group whose name has been interpreted as meaning “fearless.” His leadership earned him a reputation as both a warrior and a respected decision-maker within the community.
Accounts from the period suggest that Irataba’s influence extended beyond his own village. One early description noted that he “seemed to have great influence over neighboring tribes and acted in disputed questions as a kind of supreme judge.” His ability to mediate disputes and maintain relationships among tribes helped establish him as one of the most respected leaders in the Colorado River region.
By the 1850s, the Colorado River began attracting increased attention from American explorers and the United States government as they searched for routes across the Southwest. One of the most notable expeditions during this time was led by Joseph Christmas Ives, who traveled along the river studying its geography and potential as a transportation route.
Historical accounts indicate that Irataba played an important role during these early encounters. Acting as a guide and intermediary, he helped facilitate communication between Mohave communities and American explorers traveling through the region. Newspaper reports from the time also recognized his authority. An article published in the Los Angeles Star in 1861 described Irataba as not only the chief of the Mohave people but someone who possessed more influence in the Colorado River country than any other chief in the district.
In 1864, Chief Irataba traveled to Washington, D.C., where he met with Abraham Lincoln and other federal officials. His visit brought national attention to the Mohave people and the challenges facing tribes along the Colorado River as settlers, miners, and military expeditions entered the region. On March 3, 1865, the Colorado River Indian Reservation was formally established by executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln along the lower Colorado River. The reservation would eventually become home to the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi, and Navajo peoples and remains the homeland of the Colorado River Indian Tribes today.
Chief Irataba continued to be a respected leader among the Mohave people throughout the later years of his life. He died in May of 1874 at his home along the Colorado River. Some historical accounts referred to him as “the Uncas of his tribe,” a comparison meant to recognize him as one of the last great leaders of the Mohave people during that era.
Today, many Mohave families continue to live in and around Parker, Arizona, within the Colorado River Indian Tribes community. The history of Chief Irataba is not only preserved in historical records but also through the families and descendants who remain connected to the land along the Colorado River. Generations of Mohave people have continued to live, work, and raise their families in the same region their ancestors once called home.
More than a historical figure, Chief Irataba’s legacy lives on through the people of the Colorado River Indian Tribes. His leadership during a time of great change helped shape the future of the Mohave people, and his story continues to be remembered as a symbol of strength, diplomacy, and resilience for generations to come.
Article written by CRIT Media Reporter Ariana Romero
Nineteen years ago, Mega Throw began, and despite temperatures reaching over 105 degrees, Mega Throw XIX returned to Ahakhav Tribal Preserve on the Colorado River Indian Tribes reservation. Hosted by Ase S’maav, the Mohave Bird Singers, the two-day gathering welcomed tribes from near and far, with songs and tradition carrying on through the heat.
Mega Throw XIX continues a tradition that began in 2004 with a small group wanting to learn and sing. What started as a grassroots effort has grown into an ongoing commitment to keeping songs, language, and teachings active. Throughout the weekend, the preserve filled with the sound of bird songs and the movement of dancers as participants and spectators came together, carrying that purpose forward through their presence and participation.
Despite the intense heat, participants remained committed, continuing to sing and dance throughout the weekend. The dedication shown reflected the importance of the gathering, as the circle remained strong and songs carried on without pause.
From the youngest participants to experienced singers, the event highlighted the role of youth in learning through participation. Tiny tots and youth dancers stepped into the circle, some shy and others confident, following the rhythm of the gourd and songs as they learned in real time. Families gathered under shaded canopies, watching, encouraging, and sharing in the experience together.
Singing groups stood shoulder to shoulder, their voices blending as they carried songs that have been maintained over generations. Each performance reflected not only skill, but a responsibility to uphold what has been taught and continue it with care and respect.
The event also created space for connection beyond the dance area. Mega throwers gathered for a potluck, shared meals under the gazebo, and spent time visiting with one another throughout the day. Vendors were also set up throughout the area, offering handmade items that showcased their artistry and craftsmanship. Food vendors provided a variety of options, including frybread, tacos, and burgers, along with sweet treats like snow cones, deep-fried Oreos, and funnel cakes—making sure there was something for everyone to enjoy.
As the songs carried into the evening and families remained gathered under the cottonwood trees, the weekend reflected a continued commitment to honoring tradition and ensuring it carries forward for future generations. Mega Throw XIX was a success, and a strong showing of the work and dedication of those who organized and supported the event.
Until we gather again in song and tradition for Mega Throw XX.
Article & Photos by CRIT Media Reporter Ariana Romero
