The Brief

Seven western states are now at an impasse over how to keep the Colorado River from collapsing due to climate change and overuse.

On Wednesday, the states of California, Arizona and Nevada released their plan outlining how they’d like to manage the river over the next twenty years. The states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico have released a separate, competing plan.

The two factions — known as the Lower and Upper Basin states respectively — vehemently disagree over many of the most important details, including which states should reduce their water use to account for climate change, and by how much.

Current agreements expire in 2026. Beyond that, there’s no certainty for farmers, cities and businesses that rely on Colorado River water for growing food, supporting rural economies, and supplying drinking water to millions of people.

"The two plans are diametrically opposed," said Pat Mulroy, a Colorado River policy expert and the former lead negotiator for the state of Nevada on Colorado River issues. But, she still believes there is a "glimmer of hope" for the seven states to come to an agreement.

Dispute puts economies at risk

It’s hard to overstate the importance of the Colorado River in the American West. If you take a shower in Los Angeles, eat broccoli in New York City in January, or see Cirque Du Soleil in Las Vegas, you have used Colorado River water. The 1450-mile long river provides drinking water to 40 million people from Wyoming to Mexico, and its water irrigates nearly all the vegetables Americans eat in the winter.

In Southern California alone, 25% of drinking water comes from the Colorado River. The rest comes from the Sierra Nevada and local sources.

Why the river is shrinking

This aerial view shows the All-American Canal along the U.S.-Mexico in Imperial Valley.

(

Sandy Huffaker

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

The current crisis on the Colorado River began in the early 2000s, when water experts began to realize the so-called “Millennium Drought” wasn’t going away. Over the next few years, they realized that climate change was dramatically shrinking the river’s flow. Rising temperatures meant less snowfall in the Rocky Mountains, which is the source of the Colorado River’s water, and more evaporation from big reservoirs like Lake Mead and Lake Powell — essentially, a hot drought.

Scientists now believe that for every degree Celsius the climate warms, the Colorado River shrinks by 8%. They predict the river’s flow to continue shrinking by up to 30% by mid-century.

Where current negotiations stand

Management of the Colorado River is generally left to the seven states that use the river and the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Mexico and thirty tribal nations also have rights to Colorado River water, but do not have a formal seat at the negotiating table.

The seven states come together to hash out a deal whenever a new problem on the river presents itself, like increasing use by cities, drought, or — currently — climate change.

The current management plan, which regulates things like how much water gets released from major dams, and how water shortages are shared, expires in 2026.

The competing plans released today would cover the next few decades beyond 2026, during which the river is expected to continue to shrink.

The threat of "deadpool"

In order for Colorado River water to be used by millions of people downstream, it must first pass through two large dams.

But in 2022, water levels in the reservoirs behind those dams dropped to their lowest levels ever — prompting fears that the waterline would fall below the holes on the dams, and get stuck in the reservoirs, cutting off water to everyone in Arizona, Nevada and California.

Lake Mead in TK

(

Courtesy NASA

)

Lake Mead in July 2022, at just 27% of capacity, a historic low.

(

Courtesy NASA

)

To avoid this scenario, called “deadpool,” negotiators from California and Arizona – which use the most Colorado River water of any states — agreed last summer to massive temporary cuts in water usage.

Those cuts, plus last year's extraordinarily wet winter, seem to be enough to avoid deadpool in the near future, the Bureau of Reclamation announced Tuesday.

Now, negotiators are trying to figure out how to make some of those cuts permanent, and how much more they need to cut in the future.

Both basins agree the amount of water they use needs to be more responsive to real-time snowpack and reservoir levels, instead of using a set amount every year. But they disagree how exactly to calculate that, and who should be taking the cuts.

The Upper Basin’s proposal

The Upper Basin states — which use far less water than the Lower Basin — think the Lower Basin should shoulder all the responsibility for cutting back in the future.

Their argument has two parts:

First, they argue that lower snowpack and reservoir levels have already forced cities and farmers in the Upper Basin to use less water, so they should not have to cut back any further.

Second, they argue that because the Upper Basin has never used all of the Colorado River water that it’s legally entitled to, they’re not obligated to make any further cuts to address climate change.

“We don't know how much water we're going to have each year. We can't make promises we can't keep,” said Amy Ostdiek of the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Ostdiek said the Upper Basin may be willing to make some cuts on a voluntary basis, but did not go into specifics.

The Lower Basin’s proposal

California and Arizona have already committed to slashing their water use dramatically, and say they’ll continue to do so in the future. But they think any further cuts to respond to the effects of climate change should be shared by all seven states.

“Adapting to climate change is not just the responsibility of one state or one basin or just the cities or farms,” said JB Hamby, the lead negotiator from California. “It is all of our collective responsibility. Putting the entire burden of climate change on one person or another will result in conflict, and we can do better than that.”

The Lower Basin argues that when reservoir levels drop dangerously low, all seven states need to do their part to avoid deadpool.

"It's a very big gap," said Eric Kuhn, a former water manager for the Upper Colorado River Basin who now writes about the river. "Similar numbers, similar concepts, but who's responsible is a very big difference."

What happens now?

Negotiators from both the Upper and Lower Basin say they still hope to come up with a plan that they all can live with.

Mulroy, the former lead negotiator for Nevada, said she was "pleasantly surprised" to see that the Upper Basin had offered to make voluntary cuts, and that she thought it provided an opening for continuing the negotiations.

"Do I think it's a long road to resolution? Yes. But the fact that last year was a great winter, and this one's a relatively decent winter, I think it buys them some time," she said.

If the seven states can't agree on a compromise, the federal Bureau of Reclamation may propose its own plan, which may not be popular with anyone. And depending on the results of this fall’s election, a new administration could throw out anything proposed by the current Bureau of Reclamation.

There’s also a risk that the disagreement could end up in the Supreme Court — which many experts say would be a disaster, as the case could drag on for years and in the interim, there would be little clarity about how to manage the river.

Take accountability and move forward.

Those were the two points Los Angeles Fire Chief Jaime Moore hit repeatedly when speaking with LAist’s Larry Mantle this week.

On taking accountability, Moore said hazardous conditions and decisions made before the Palisades Fire erupted a year ago meant “our firefighters never had a chance” to arrest the fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

On moving forward, he emphasized that reform is already in the works.

“Things have changed since the Palisades Fire, and we're going to continue making big changes in the Los Angeles Fire Department,” said Moore, who was selected for the LAFD top job by Mayor Karen Bass in November.

Here are three takeaways from the interview, which aired on AirTalk on Tuesday.

1. Staffing decisions hampered fire response

The LAFD uses a so-called pre-deployment matrix to set firefighter staffing levels ahead of high-risk weather.

According to the department’s after-action report, however, staffing levels on the day the Palisades Fire began fell short of the LAFD standard for extreme weather conditions. The National Weather Service had warned of low humidity, high winds and dry vegetation, what it calls a “particularly dangerous situation.” It’s the highest level of alert the agency can give.

Despite the high risk, the LAFD report said the decision not to deploy more firefighters in advance was in part made to save money.

Moore said Monday that the department has updated its policies to increase staffing for especially hazardous conditions, but he said he doesn’t believe additional resources would have stopped a fire of the magnitude that leveled the Palisades.

To suppress that kind of fire, he said, the department would need to pre-deploy resources across the city’s vast geography — to places like Baldwin Hills, Franklin Canyon, the Hollywood Hills, the Palisades, Porter Ranch and Sunland-Tujunga.

Moore said the department has already made new policies to call for more resources when the Weather Service issues a “particularly dangerous situation” alert.

2. LAFD is mostly an urban firefighting department

Moore referenced a key finding of the after-action report regarding a lack of training in wildland firefighting, which contributed to confusion and struggles to effectively utilize resources during the fire.

Wildland fires pose a number of challenges that are different from what firefighters face in urban environments. Those include the need to coordinate a large number of resources over vast areas, all while dealing with fast-moving flames that can rapidly tear through dry plants and structures.

The department found in its report that fewer firefighters were trained in fighting these wildland fires in recent years and that “leaders struggled to comprehend their roles.”

Some leaders in the department had “limited or no experience in managing an incident of such complexity,” the report said. And some reverted to doing the work of lower positions, leaving high-level decision-making positions unfilled.

“What we're doing now is really furthering that training and reinforcing that education with our firefighters so that they could be better prepared,” Moore said on AirTalk.

3. Changes to the after-action report

Early versions of the after-action report differed from the version released to the public in October, a fact that was first reported by the Los Angeles Times. The Times also reported that Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, who wrote the report, wouldn’t endorse the final version because of the changes.

Moore acknowledged to the L.A. Board of Fire Commissioners at a Jan. 6 meeting that the report had been watered down.

“It is now clear that multiple drafts were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership in that final report,” Moore told the commissioners. “This editing occurred prior to my appointment as fire chief, and I can assure you that nothing of this sort will ever again happen while I am fire chief."

Some changes were small but telling. A section titled “Failures” later became “Primary Challenges.”

Moore told LAist that changes between versions “ made it easier for the public to understand,” but an LAist review found the edits weren’t all surface-level.

In the first version of the report, the department said the decision not to fully pre-deploy all available resources for the particularly dangerous wind event “did not align” with their guidelines for such extreme weather cases. The final version said that the initial response “lacked the appropriate resources,” removing the reference to department standards.

The department also removed some findings that had to do with communications.

One sentence from the initial version of the report said: “Most companies lacked a basic briefing, leader’s intent, communications plan, or updated fire information for more than 36 hours.” That language was removed from the final report.

LAist has asked the Fire Department for clarification about why these assertions were removed but did not receive a response before time of publication.

Olympic organizers announced Tuesday that registration to buy tickets will run through March 18, with sales beginning in April. LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover said that locals will get the first bite at the apple.

The registration period opens 7 a.m. Wednesday.

" Our host city communities here in Los Angeles and Oklahoma City will have the opportunity to be a part of a local presale," Hoover said outside the Coliseum while surrounded by Olympic athletes from Games past. "With our thanks and as part of our commitment to making sure that those who live and work around the games, where the games will take place, can be in the stands and cheer in 2028."

Olympic organizers also provided more details on ticket prices for the first time. One million tickets will sell for $28 a pop and around a third of tickets will be under $100, according to LA28 Chair Casey Wasserman.

That means the majority of tickets to the Olympic Games will run into triple digits. If the World Cup is any indication, some tickets could get astronomically pricey.

Interested fans can go to LA28.org to register. Those who are selected will get an email with a time slot to purchase tickets.

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors took a step toward banning ICE from unlawfully operating on county-owned property and to post signage designating those spaces as “ICE Free Zones.”

The board unanimously approved the motion at Tuesday’s meeting, directing staff to draft the policy.

The draft could include requirements for county employees to report to their supervisor if they see unauthorized immigration activity on county property.

The city of Los Angeles passed a similar order last July, which strengthened protocols that prohibit ICE from operating on city-owned property. The agenda staff report points to an “ICE Free Zone” ordinance passed by the city of Chicago in October.

Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Hilda Solis co-authored the motion.

Horvath said the county will not allow its property to be used as “a staging ground for violence caused by the Trump administration."

Solis added that their action as a board could have a ripple effect on other city councils and local governments.

“Even though it's taken us this long to get here …I think it's really important for our communities to understand what we're saying is you don't have the right to come in and harass people without a federal warrant,” Solis said. “And if you use our property to stage, then you need to show us documentation as to why.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said in an X post that the county cannot exclude federal agents from public spaces.

"Anyone who attempts to impede our agents will be arrested and charged, including county employees," Essayli said in the post. "We have already charged more than 100 individuals for similar conduct."

Since June, ICE raids have ramped up across the nation, heavily targeting certain immigrant communities like those in Los Angeles.

The motion directs the draft to include language that prohibits all types of ICE operations on county land, including staging and mobilizing without a warrant.

The motion cites an incident on Oct. 8, when county officials say federal agents raided the Deane Dana Friendship Park and Nature Center in San Pedro, arresting three people and threatening to arrest staff.

The motion also requires that the county post 'Ice Free Zone' signage on all of its properties.

Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center of Human Rights and Constitutional Law, told LAist the policy is enforceable under Fourth Amendment case law.

“You have to make sure that when you post that signage … that means that you routinely, or semi-routinely, assess who's coming in to the property, so that you can control access,” Perez said. “But if ICE shows up with a warrant, with a subpoena, then all bets are off, and they can enter into the property and do what they need to do.”

Perez said the county has moved “incredibly” slow on this issue.

“It's embarrassing that the county is moving six months later, given how we've been facing violent, aggressive, invasive and illegal raids now for so long here in Southern California,” Perez said, adding that local governments have not been fast or creative enough in protecting immigrant and refugee communities.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, one of the region’s largest immigrant advocacy groups, supports the motion.

"We do not want our county resources being used for federal immigration enforcement activities, which disrupt, uproot, and terrorize our communities,” Jeannette Zanipatin, policy director for CHIRLA, said in a statement. “It is important for all public spaces to be really safe for all residents.”

County staff have 30 days to draft a plan to implement the new policy.