As Colorado River negotiations remain stalled, water leaders across the West are looking beyond temporary reservoir protections and considering broader changes to how water is managed. Recent reports show growing interest in mediation, permanent groundwater conservation, less water-intensive agriculture, and stronger tribal participation in state water decisions.
Representatives from the seven Colorado River Basin states recently addressed criticism over their failure to reach an agreement for managing the river after the current operating rules expire. KJZZ reported that negotiators remain divided over how future reductions should be shared between the Upper and Lower basins, despite more than a year of talks and worsening conditions across the watershed.
The negotiators acknowledged the frustration surrounding the process but maintained that the disagreements involve difficult legal, economic, and hydrological questions. Some state representatives have suggested bringing in a mediator to help narrow the divide. Mediation could provide another path toward compromise, but it would not remove the central dispute over who should reduce water use and by how much.
While the states continue debating Colorado River operations, groundwater is becoming another area of concern. KJZZ examined whether Arizona could establish a program to voluntarily purchase and permanently retire groundwater rights, similar to a program being developed in Nevada. Nevada’s approach would pay willing water-right holders to stop pumping permanently in areas experiencing declining aquifers, threats to groundwater-dependent ecosystems, or conflicts between existing users. An assessment of more than 6,000 Nevada wells found that nearly 40% showed significant declines over several decades.
A similar program could offer Arizona another tool for addressing groundwater depletion, especially in rural basins where pumping can exceed natural recharge. However, the cost of purchasing water rights would vary by location, and a voluntary program would require stable funding and clear priorities. Buying back rights would not restore an aquifer immediately, but it could prevent additional pumping and reduce long-term pressure.
Agriculture is also being asked to adapt to shrinking supplies. The Colorado Sun reported that researchers and farmers are testing crops that require less water, including black-eyed peas and drought-tolerant grains. Black-eyed peas can reach strong production with considerably less water than some traditional crops and can withstand heat without showing the same level of stress.
The challenge is not only whether farmers can grow less-thirsty crops, but whether there is a reliable market for them. Farmers must consider processing, transportation, buyers, and prices before replacing established crops. Water conservation will be difficult to sustain if producers are asked to take on the financial risk alone. Researchers say successful transitions will require partnerships among farmers, universities, buyers, and public agencies.
New reporting also provides a clearer picture of agriculture on California tribal lands. The Public Policy Institute of California found that about 15,800 acres are irrigated annually on tribal reservations in the state, representing roughly 0.2% of California’s irrigated acreage and agricultural water use. Most irrigated tribal acreage is located within the Colorado River Basin.
The report found that tribal agriculture generally has a more balanced mix of crops than agriculture statewide, with fewer permanent orchards and vineyards and a greater share of annual crops, pasture, and vegetables. Because annual crops can be changed more easily from year to year, tribal agricultural operations may have more flexibility during drought. However, tribal producers still face challenges involving infrastructure, financing, water access, and unquantified rights.
California lawmakers are also considering a measure that would strengthen the role of tribes in water policymaking. Assembly Bill 2218 passed the State Assembly and would require certain state agencies to consult affected tribes when reviewing water rights and policies. The bill would also recognize historical inequities caused by state actions that excluded tribes from access to and control over water.
Supporters say existing tribal consultation policies are not always legally secure and can depend on executive decisions. The proposed law would provide a stronger requirement for agencies to consider tribal water uses, Indigenous knowledge, and ecosystem restoration when making water decisions.
Together, these developments show that the West’s water crisis cannot be addressed through reservoir operations alone. Negotiators still need to reach an agreement on the Colorado River, but states and communities must also address groundwater depletion, agricultural demand, and the historical exclusion of tribes from water policy.
Long-term water security will require more than asking users to conserve during emergencies. It will require permanent tools that reduce unsustainable pumping, provide realistic alternatives for farmers, and recognize tribes as sovereign governments with water rights and generations of knowledge about the rivers and landscapes being managed.
What does this mean for CRIT?
For the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the growing attention to tribal agriculture and consultation reinforces an important point: tribal participation must go beyond being invited to comment after states have developed their plans. Tribes should be involved early and directly wherever water policy, agricultural conservation, or changes to river operations may affect their rights and communities.
The findings on California tribal agriculture also challenge the idea that tribal water use is a major cause of the Basin’s shortage. Tribal farming represents a small portion of statewide water use, while tribal nations have already participated in conservation programs that benefit the broader Colorado River system.
CRIT’s agricultural lands, senior water rights, and longstanding relationship with the Colorado River place the Tribe in a different position than cities or industries searching for replacement supplies. Any conservation program involving tribal water must remain voluntary, fully compensated, and consistent with tribal sovereignty..
Sources
Public Policy Institute of California
https://www.ppic.org/blog/agriculture-and-water-use-on-californias-tribal-lands/
Lost Coast Outpost
https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2026/jun/5/bill-passes-state-assembly-would-make-state-agenci/
Colorado Sun
https://coloradosun.com/2026/06/07/colorado-water-saving-crops-versus-market-demand/