On July 31, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released its final environmental impact statement (FEIS), which was met with a chorus of denuciations from leaders across the state. The Arizona Department of Water Resources published a response calling the proposed framework “unacceptable,” adding that its implementation would “devastate Arizona’s water users and its economy.”

To better understand the implications of this announcement, AZRE magazine sat down with Cheryl Lombard, president and CEO of CREDA Arizona. 

AZRE: Cheryl, you released a statement calling the FEIS “fundamentally imbalanced,” before detailing the proactive measures taken by Arizona to be a good steward of Colorado River supplies. Does the federal government explain why it doesn’t recognize these efforts? 

Cheryl Lombard: Not in a way that holds up. Arizona didn’t come to this process empty-handed. Along with California and Nevada, we put forward a Lower Basin proposal offering more than 3 million acre-feet of savings over two years. 

The federal plan asks the Lower Basin to absorb cuts of up to 3 million acre-feet a year without comparable reductions from the Upper Basin or full use of the storage flexibility sitting in Lake Powell. That is an imbalance. 

The states that showed up with real conservation on the table are the ones being asked to give up the most, while the Upper Basin’s contribution isn’t proportionate to the water it uses. I understand the hydrology is genuinely difficult and there’s no version of this that’s painless for anyone. But when the burden and the effort don’t line up, “imbalanced” is the accurate word. 

AZRE: Could a consensus agreement still be made ahead of the Oct. 1 deadline? 

CL:Technically, yes — and I hope so. The federal framework is built to allow a basin-wide consensus deal to be folded in even after the October guidelines take effect, since the plan is reviewed roughly every two years through 2036. 

That door isn’t closed. But I’d be lying if I said I was confident, given how many deadlines this negotiation has already blown past. What I’d say to the seven states is what I’d say to any group of stakeholders who’ve been circling a deal for years: the cost of continuing to negotiate through litigation and public statements is much higher than the cost of getting back to the table with real trades on it. 

For our industry, that uncertainty is very real. A drawn-out legal fights over the river make that harder to plan around. Arizona has shown it will negotiate in good faith and put real conservation on the table. I’d like to see that effort met. 

AZRE: Anything else you’d like to leave readers with? 

CL: What gives me some optimism is watching the Arizona Energy Promise Taskforce bring 36 people together with very different interests to agree on 31 recommendations in a matter of months. 

I’d love to see that same spirit brought to the Colorado River table, because Arizona’s long-term competitiveness for housing, for industrial and commercial investment, for the jobs and communities our members are building all depend on getting both of these right. 

CREDA Arizona will be at the table for these conversations because reliable power and secure water are foundational to the projects our members are building and Arizona’s ability to keep growing.