The seven Basin states relying on the Colorado River did not reach a long-term agreement at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference, with a new deadline set by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for February 14 to propose a solution after 2026 when current guidelines expire.

Federal officials urged cooperation, with the Bureau of Reclamation stressing that cooperation is preferable to litigation given the high costs and uncertain outcomes of legal battles.

The Upper Basin seeks reduced releases from Lake Powell to Lake Mead, while Arizona and others demand stronger commitments from the Upper Basin, complicating progress.

Negotiators emphasized ongoing conservation efforts like turf removal and canal lining, while pushing back on taking on more reductions, arguing that others should bear a larger share of the burden.

More than 40 million people across seven states, Mexico, and Native American tribes rely on the river for agriculture, water, and electricity, making a shared plan critical amid drought and rising temperatures.

The seven Colorado River basin states, along with federal and tribal officials, are failing to reach a long-term agreement on allocating the river beyond 2026, despite discussions at the conference in Las Vegas.

The seven states—California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—have not reached a long-term sharing plan as drought-era guidelines expire in 2026, with a February deadline set for proposing a path forward.

Nevada’s lead negotiator floated a possible five-year short-term deal governing releases and storage at Lakes Powell and Mead as an interim path.

The Bureau of Reclamation plans to release a range of proposal options in the coming weeks but will not publish a single preferred operating plan, underscoring the stalemate and high stakes for water users.

Despite conference discussions, leaders indicate a clear path to a long-term deal is unlikely soon; a shorter-term agreement may be possible to avoid litigation.

Lower Basin proposes a 1.5 million acre-foot-per-year reduction to address a structural deficit, while Upper Basin states argue they already underspend their allocation and should not be required to cut further.

Federal officials are avoiding a federally imposed plan, urging basin-state consensus instead; failure to reach agreement could trigger costly litigation.