“Colorado River water should be allocated to wildlife first.”

Colorado's water rights conflicts stem from a fundamental structural problem: the 1922 Colorado River Compact allocated more water on paper than the river actually carries. Actual flows average roughly 12.4 million acre-feet against the 16.4 million assumed. As the federal government finalizes a new 10-year management framework for post-2026 operations, every stakeholder is fighting to protect its share of a shrinking pie.

- **Agricultural users** — Farmers and ranchers hold senior water rights that make them legally protected but also the primary target for reductions, and they are fighting the accelerating "buy and dry" practice where cities purchase irrigated farmland solely for its water, permanently dewatering rural communities. - **Urban/municipal providers** — Fast-growing Front Range cities hold junior rights and increasingly buy agricultural water to serve expanding populations, putting them in direct conflict with rural interests while seeking new supply mechanisms like conservation pools and tribal water leasing. - **Tribal nations** — The Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes hold some of Colorado's oldest water rights, yet much remains undeveloped or used by others without compensation, and tribes are pushing for water marketing rights to lease their water for revenue while lacking the infrastructure to physically access it. - **Environmental/conservation interests** — Advocates are working through programs like the Colorado Water Trust and the CWCB's Instream Flow Program to restore streamflows for endangered species habitat, while wrestling with legal tensions over whether conserved or banked water can be shielded from Colorado's "use it or lose it" abandonment doctrine. - **Upper Basin states (CO, WY, UT, NM)** — Colorado and its neighbors argue they should not face mandatory cuts to compensate for the Lower Basin's overconsumption, insisting their obligation is a non-depletion standard — not delivering a fixed quantity — and that any conservation target must remain voluntary. - **Lower Basin states (CA, AZ, NV)** — These states face up to 3 million acre-feet in mandatory cuts under the new federal framework and want the Upper Basin to share more of the drought burden, arguing upstream states are failing to ensure sufficient river flow reaches them as required by the 1922 Compact. - **Federal government (Bureau of Reclamation)** — The Bureau has finalized a 10-year post-2026 operating framework with two-year rolling plans, signaling willingness to act unilaterally if states cannot agree, and has released $40 million toward the landmark Shoshone water rights purchase to permanently protect Western Slope river flows. - **Legal/judicial system** — Courts in 2026 are expected to rule on cases that could reshape prior appropriation, including whether the state can mandate sustainable aquifer yield in the Rio Grande Basin and whether Arizona's compact claim against upstream states could force mandatory cuts in Colorado — outcomes Colorado has signaled it will challenge. - **Climate science** — Researchers warn that the basin is in its driest period in 1,200 years, that stabilizing the system may require 13–20% reductions in annual use, and that low storage and water cuts are the Colorado River's future regardless of legal outcomes.