Attorney General Phil Weiser Address to Colorado Water Congress (Jan. 28, 2026)
Colorado’s unseasonably warm and dry winter—even amidst a “new normal” of drought conditions—is a stark reminder of the reality of climate change and our water challenges ahead. As I have shared with this group previously, it will be critical for Colorado and our neighboring states to develop innovative, sustainable solutions for our water management while working together to resolve disagreements.[1] To develop such solutions, we must shift our thinking from a zero-sum mindset toward a search for mutually beneficial solutions.
If Colorado and our fellow Colorado River Basin states cannot forge a cooperative framework, we will face the challenge of the federal government working to decide our fate for us. Any such effort will, almost certainly, give rise to litigation. And, as I have emphasized before, Colorado will not, and cannot, accept an unfair compromise just for the sake of having one. That means that we must be prepared to take action in court and proceed to litigation if necessary. I remain hopeful that litigation will not be necessary and recognize that issue will be decided in the weeks and months ahead. Today, I will provide some updates highlighting progress we are making as well as addressing some of the challenges ahead.
I. Recent Settlement Proposal in Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado
A promising example of states working together to resolve our water-related disputes is the recent settlement proposals reached between Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado in a case brought by Texas under the Rio Grande Compact. This suit focuses on claims asserted by Texas and the United States against New Mexico regarding a violation of the Rio Grande Compact. Specifically, Texas asserted that increasing groundwater pumping in New Mexico in the face of drier, hotter conditions has diminished flows owed to Texas under the Compact. Colorado has participated in the case as a signatory to the Compact even though we were not directly affected by the case.
In the Rio Grande case, we worked to ensure that any resolution of the case does not erode Colorado’s rights in this compact or erode state sovereignty over its waters more broadly. I am pleased to report that the parties have reached a settlement based on a compact decree among the states and a decree dismissing the United States’ claims. Under the terms of the resolution, New Mexico will be required to develop a system through which it will account for, manage, and deliver the required amount of water to Texas, with water conservation decisions being made at the local level. Crucially, the proposed settlement preserves Colorado’s water rights and discretion to administer the Rio Grande Compact.
At present, the states are awaiting a report from the Special Master, which we hope will recommend that the Supreme Court enter the compact decree and dismiss the United States’ claims. While that step must take place before the case is resolved, we are optimistic and we are proud of the collaboration among the states to reach an agreement that will meet the states’ obligations and ensure the Rio Grande can continue to provide drinking water and irrigation for the millions of people across our states that rely on it. For all the states, this case is a reminder that how we manage groundwater—including how we are storing, reusing, and conserving water—will attract attention and become more significant, especially as farmers increasingly turn to groundwater for irrigation as dry conditions continue.
II. Recent Developments in Nebraska v. Colorado
While the Rio Grande settlement represents a positive step forward, recent developments involving Nebraska and the South Platte River Compact are an unfortunate example of the other side of the spectrum. As I shared at my previous address to this group last fall, despite our best efforts to dissuade them from doing so, Nebraska has asked the United States Supreme Court for leave to sue Colorado over alleged non-compliance with the South Platte River Compact of 1923.
Specifically, Nebraska claims that Colorado is interfering with Nebraska’s efforts to build the Perkins County Canal (a canal mentioned in the Compact to be built in Colorado for irrigation in Nebraska) and that Colorado is violating its irrigation season obligations under the Compact. As we explained in our response in opposition last October, neither of those claims are true and they are not ripe for consideration by the Supreme Court. In short, they don’t pass the Supreme Court’s test for taking up cases between two sovereign states. In our brief, for those reasons, we ask the Court not to take the case.
Since the Compact was signed, the Colorado State Engineer’s Office has worked with Nebraska and performed the hard work of ensuring Colorado meets its compact obligations on the South Platte River. We remain committed to working with our water users and the State of Nebraska to resolve questions and concerns before they grow into factual or legal disputes. That’s why we were surprised when Nebraska filed this action with the Supreme Court. Nebraska appears to be using the prospect of the canal—a project it has failed to move forward for over 100 years—and this request for Supreme Court review as leverage to renegotiate the South Platte River Compact.
We are currently awaiting the Court’s decision on whether to take up the case. Most recently, the Court invited the United States to weigh in on whether it thinks the Court should do so. And as we speak, a team of lawyers from my office including Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson, Deputy Solicitors General Sarah Krakoff and Andrea Wang, and Deputy Attorney General Scott Steinbrecher are on their way to meet with the United States Solicitors Office.
Even if the Court decides to hear the case, we are confident Colorado will win on the merits, as both the facts and the law are on our side. Colorado has the benefit of the deepest and most experienced bench of water lawyers of any state in the country. We will continue to defend Colorado’s rights under the Compact as well as Colorado landowners and farming communities, who have already faced the threat of their property being purchased or condemned by Nebraska in order to build the canal. While it is unfortunate that Nebraska has chosen this path, I am hopeful that we can ultimately get back to a place where our states can work together to resolve future disputes.
III. Colorado River Compact Negotiations
I also want to provide an update on the negotiations on the management of the Colorado River as our current operational guidelines are set to expire late this year. As you know, Colorado continues to work very closely with the other six Basin States and the United States Department of the Interior to reach a consensus agreement. We have made good progress, and we remain hopeful that we will reach an agreement by the February 14th deadline.
The core goal in the ongoing negotiations is to get everyone rowing in the same direction. As we had been expecting, the Department of the Interior issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on January 9th, which sets forth what it sees as a range of possible solutions. In that document, the federal government reiterates that a seven-state consensus is the preferred solution.
I am proud that we have a deep bench at the Department of Law working on all aspects of this complex problem. First, we advise Colorado’s negotiation team. An attorney from our office attends the negotiations, including the four days of meetings in Utah last week with seven states and the federal government. We are also preserving Colorado’s rights in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and we are working with our client agencies and with our fellow Upper Basin States to draft comprehensive comments to the recent Draft EIS.
We are prepared to initiate and respond to litigation, if that becomes necessary. The Colorado River Compact guarantees the equitable division of the river. We have the Compact and other elements of the Law of the River to fall back on to protect Colorado’s rights. We hope it is unnecessary, but we have a strong team preparing for any litigation that may arise in the absence of a seven-state consensus. In all events, we will work tirelessly to protect Colorado’s interests.
I’ll turn now to the compromise the states are currently discussing. I will caveat this by noting that we are in a sensitive and dynamic time in the negotiations and there is a lot in flux. The seven Basin States are working towards a framework that is supply-driven—meaning that the reservoir releases are more closely linked to the actual hydrology and better adjust for the dry reality we are living in.
The proposed compromise calls for rebuilding storage to sustain the system into the future. Because of the very poor snowpack and low reservoirs this year, there may be an initial phase with slightly different terms. An initial phase may also be necessary to allow the states to ramp up reduction programs. The Basin States are considering different terms for this agreement, with some promoting a five-year term and others preferring an initial phase of five-years linked to a twenty-year term.
Any consensus deal will likely involve voluntary reduction efforts. For Colorado water users, we will need to set up programs for our water users to participate in, should they choose to volunteer. As we consider what those programs might look like, we are considering how and whether existing authorities might need to be adapted in order for those programs to succeed and welcome your feedback on that score. Like previous voluntary reduction efforts, these programs would also rely on Congress to appropriate federal funding. The U.S. Department of the Interior has been closely involved in the Basin States’ plans, and we expect broad support from the federal administration and Congress.
There remains considerable work to do if the Basin States are going to get to consensus before February 14th. The only way we can do that, in my view, is for every state to embrace collaboration and find compromise in each state’s approach.
IV. Protecting Colorado’s Water Quality
Separate from our efforts to protect Colorado’s water rights under our interstate compacts, I would like to quickly provide a brief update on our water quality-related efforts. Importantly, our lawsuits against manufacturers of PFAS (or “forever chemicals”) that are endangering public health are ongoing, as is our work to support the implementation of Colorado’s Water Quality Control Act. While Colorado’s PFAS litigation continues, we have made it a priority to track settlements affecting water providers and conduct outreach to make sure drinking water systems understand their deadlines for seeking settlement funds.
In addition, last year I led other state attorneys general in support of a lawsuit by Eagle County before the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the Colorado River from a Utah plan to build a railway that would transport millions of barrels of waxy crude oil through our state immediately adjacent to the Colorado River and its headwaters. This project poses a major threat to our most crucial water source, the Western Slope communities that rely on it, and the surrounding wildlife and environment.
While we were disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow this risky project to move forward, it is now back before the Surface Transportation Board for consideration. I have weighed in with formal comments to the Board urging them to consider the well-known risks of train accidents, including risks of oil leaks and spills that damage water quality and lead to wildfires. I hope that the Board will take these concerns seriously, and I will continue to fight to prevent this project and protect Colorado’s water.
***
This is a historic moment for Colorado and other western states as we grapple with the challenges of water management and as we work to develop innovative solutions for the future. I am hopeful that together we can navigate these unprecedented challenges, and I will continue to fight to protect Colorado, our people, and our water—the lifeblood of our state. I’m grateful to everyone here today for your contributions toward those goals, and I look forward to continuing to make progress alongside you.
I welcome any questions you may have.
[1] Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Prepared remarks to Colorado Water Congress Convention (Jan. 25, 2023), https://coag.gov/blog-post/prepared-remarks-attorney-general-phil-weiser-to-colorado-water-congress-convention-jan-25-2023/; Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Prepared remarks: Address to the Colorado Water Congress (Aug. 19, 2025), https://coag.gov/blog-post/prepared-remarks-address-colorado-water-congress-8-19-25/.