Public Comment

The Colorado River serves seven states and supports cities, farms, tribes, and ecosystems. Reuters reported on May 15, 2026, that the federal government proposed a 10-year plan that could cut current supplies to Arizona, California, and Nevada by up to 40%, or up to 3 million acre-feet per year. The older water-sharing plan is expiring while state negotiations remain stalled. The debate is how to divide shortage among senior water rights, fast-growing cities, agriculture, conservation, tribal rights, and long-term drought risk. The river cannot provide paper water that does not exist. The hard part is making cuts in a way that does not just punish the weakest community or wait until reservoirs crash.

How should the federal government handle Colorado River water cuts?

Overall results

1
54% support
1

Conservation alone will not work if growth keeps assuming the river will somehow expand.

2
53% support · excluded by 3%
1

Paying for saved water is faster and less destructive than fighting every cut in court.

3
51% support · excluded by 14%
1

Drinking water and sanitation should come before lower-value uses when the system is short.

4
46% support · excluded by 9%
1

A rigid priority system may be legally clean but socially brittle. Shared shortage can reduce collapse risk.

5
45% support · excluded by 20%
1

Water law is not optional just because shortage is painful. Rules create predictability.

About the author