The Colorado River, a vital lifeline for the American Southwest, is under mounting stress. On August 27, 2025, a coalition of environmental groups formally petitioned the federal government, urging the Bureau of Reclamation to clamp down on water waste in the river’s Lower Basin states—California, Arizona, and Nevada. Their demand? That the Bureau ensure water is delivered only for "reasonable" and "beneficial" uses, a call that comes at a critical juncture for a river that supports 40 million people across seven U.S. states, two states in Mexico, and numerous Native American tribes.
This appeal isn’t just a bureaucratic footnote. The Colorado River has been battered by chronic overuse, persistent drought, and the relentless heat of climate change, all of which have shrunk its flows to historic lows. With a deadline looming in 2026 for states to hammer out new rules for divvying up its precious supplies—and a mid-November 2025 cutoff for a preliminary agreement before the federal government might step in—the stakes are sky-high. As Mark Gold, adjunct professor at UCLA and former director of water scarcity solutions with the Natural Resources Defense Council (one of the petitioning groups), put it: “We don't have a management future for the Colorado River right now and it's getting pretty scary. We should be dealing with this as a water scarcity emergency, and one of the things that you really want to do in an emergency is, let's deal with water waste first."
Yet, what exactly counts as "reasonable" or "beneficial" water use? That’s where things get sticky. Bureau of Reclamation policy says deliveries "will not exceed those reasonably required for beneficial use," but, as Cara Horowitz, director of UCLA’s Frank G. Wells Environmental Law Clinic, discovered, the phrase isn’t defined or meaningfully applied in practice. “As best as we could tell, it's never defined the phrase and it does not use the phrase in any meaningful way as it’s making water delivery decisions,” Horowitz told the Associated Press. The environmental groups want a clear, reformed process—periodic reviews to make sure states aren’t wasting water, and a willingness to call out wasteful or unreasonable practices.
For example, the petitioners argue that farmers should be encouraged to switch away from "wasteful" irrigation, like year-round flood irrigation of thirsty crops in desert climates. In cities, they point to ornamental turf watering and water-guzzling cooling systems as prime targets for reform. Not everyone is on board. Sarah Porter, who directs the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University, warned, “It’s potentially a whole can of worms that we need to approach very carefully. Who gets to be the entity that decides what’s an appropriate amount of use for any particular water user or community?”
The stakes are especially high for the Imperial Valley in California, which relies entirely on Colorado River water. This patch of desert produces two-thirds of the nation’s winter vegetables. Andrew Leimgruber, a fourth-generation farmer in the valley, has tried to cut back on water use—growing carrots, onions, and mostly alfalfa, which he often flood-irrigates. But he’s worried that stricter definitions of "unreasonable" use could have ripple effects far beyond the fields. “Water cuts because of ‘unreasonable’ use could mean people won't be able to eat a Caesar salad in New York City in January,” Leimgruber said. He fears both food shortages and the prospect of farmers being forced out of business.
Past attempts to enforce "beneficial use" have proven contentious. In 2003, the Bureau ordered water reductions for California's Imperial Irrigation District, the river’s largest single water user, after determining it couldn’t use all its allocation beneficially. The district sued, but the dispute ultimately settled out of court. Bill Hasencamp, who manages Colorado River Resources for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, supports regular reviews to ensure beneficial use, but he cautions that relying on this tool to solve the river’s existential crisis could backfire. “Once things go to court, there's always a wild card that's sort of out of anyone's control,” Hasencamp observed.
Some experts look to California’s own constitution for a model. Its provision on reasonable and beneficial use is interpreted by state water regulators—or, if need be, the courts—and has been used to curb waste during droughts, such as banning sidewalk washing or limiting water draws that harm fish habitats. Felicia Marcus, a fellow at Stanford University’s Water in the West program and former chair of California’s State Water Resources Control Board, explained, “The way it’s written is actually very adaptable to the times, so it’s actually about what is wasted and reasonable use in a given time. So things that would have seemed to be reasonable 50 years ago, no longer are.”
But the Colorado River’s challenges aren’t just legal or bureaucratic—they’re also meteorological. According to the National Weather Service, brief La Niña conditions are projected for fall and early winter 2025, a pattern that typically brings drier weather to the Four Corners region. Drought is expected to persist for at least the next three months. This aligns with the latest observations: McPhee Reservoir, a key water source in the region, is now about 16.5 feet lower than it was a year ago, sitting at just 52% of its full pool. The Dolores River, which feeds the reservoir, is showing more of its rocky bottom than locals are used to seeing.
In the face of these conditions, researchers at the University of New Mexico have found that forests maintained by regular fires are less stressed by drought. The reason? Fewer trees mean less competition for the meager water supply. The team compared the frequently burned Gila Wilderness with other nearby forests and found that fire-maintained areas weather drought better. It’s a small but telling reminder that land and water management strategies can make a real difference.
As the clock ticks toward the November deadline for a preliminary agreement on river management, calls for the Bureau of Reclamation to take a more assertive role are growing louder. “There’s responsibility here to be the water master on the river or it gets thrown to the Supreme Court, which will take years to work its way through,” Marcus noted. The "beneficial use" petition, she added, is one way to prod the Bureau to step up.
Still, addressing the river’s shortages will likely require a blend of solutions. Some, like Leimgruber, suggest limiting population growth and development in already arid areas. Others, such as Arizona Farm Bureau president John Boelts, advocate for more desalination projects. And research from UCLA’s Noah Garrison highlights the potential for states to do more with wastewater recycling.
In the end, the Colorado River’s future hangs in the balance. How the Bureau of Reclamation, state governments, farmers, and cities respond to these mounting pressures will shape not just the fate of a river, but the livelihoods and dinner tables of millions across the West. The next few months will be critical—and everyone with a stake in the river is watching closely.