SHRIVELLED — The West is on the precipice of the most high-stakes water war this country has seen. The Colorado River is the lifeblood of 40 million people from Wyoming to Mexico, the backbone of economies from Phoenix to Los Angeles to Denver. It nourishes rural cattle ranching communities on the slope of the Rocky Mountains and massive agricultural regions along the U.S.-Mexico border. It supports 30 tribes and courses through 11 national parks and monuments, including the Grand Canyon. But it has shrunk dramatically over the past 25 years. Now, the rules that govern water deliveries are about to expire and the seven states that share the waterway, along with the federal government, must agree on new ones that will work in a far drier future. It’s a wrenching task that can only bring political and economic pain. The West’s most important river has lost 20 percent of its flows since the turn of the century, gripped by a megadrought that climate experts say may be just a taste of things to come. The region is warming and drying out far faster than the rest of the U.S., sending water levels at the region’s two main reservoirs so low in recent years that federal engineers have begun worrying about their ability to physically release water from the dam that feeds California, Arizona and Nevada. It’s the country’s first major climate crisis and it’s about to fall on the Trump administration — which has denied the science of climate change and is pledged to roll back Biden's climate policies. But, as one lead negotiator has put it: “Elections don’t add water to the river.” The talks over new rules are not going well. Fundamental, century-old disputes over how the river gets divided are now unavoidable, and upstream and downstream states have been deadlocked for nearly a year over who should bear the brunt of the cuts. Relationships among the governors’ representatives have turned bitter and acrimonious. Several states have begun openly preparing for the once unthinkable possibility of a Supreme Court battle. In such moments, the federal government can be a crucial player. Although water supplies are primarily governed by the states, the Interior Department owns and operates the river’s biggest dams and reservoirs, and is in charge of water deliveries in Arizona, California and Nevada. At key junctures in the past, federal officials have very effectively used that authority to scare states into action, such as when the George W. Bush administration prodded California into stanching its overuse in 2003. But the Biden administration’s negotiators were muzzled by the White House during much of the past year, amid fears that any move could carry political consequences in a region with two highly prized electoral swing states. The administration finally made its play just before Thanksgiving, floating a slate of unsavory options for managing the Colorado River that were designed to push negotiators back to the table. It was almost certainly too little, too late. Publicly, all sides say they remain committed to a negotiated solution, but much will depend on the new federal leader taking the reins soon. When the river’s major players gather at a Las Vegas hotel and casino for their big annual meeting starting Wednesday, the cocktail conversation will be centered on the incoming Trump administration. For all President Donald Trump’s disruptive instincts, he placed institutionalists in key posts relating to the river during his first term and they got results. Despite his campaign bombast about Mexico in 2016, his administration quietly clinched a major Colorado River deal with the country during his first year in office. His Interior Department also pushed a key drought agreement among the seven states over the finish line in 2019. The question is whether the river can be kept away from partisan politics this go-around. Trump is no stranger to Western water fights and has made a separate one – the fight over California’s Bay-Delta –a common refrain over the past decade . That battle, in which protections for a tiny, endangered fish are pitted against water exports to massive Central Valley farms, lends itself more neatly to red-meat politicking. And some hopeful candidates for key Interior posts now have started applying a similar political framing to the Colorado River’s problems. Trump’s pick to head Interior in his second term, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, has soothed some worries. Burgum is seen as a serious, steady hand, even by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum. "Interior won the lottery in my view, with respect to Trump administration picks,” a former Biden administration official who was granted anonymity to speak frankly told POLITICO recently. The prize? The responsibility of refereeing the country’s most consequential climate fight without ever speaking the word. The current rules governing the river expire at the end of 2026 and whatever regime comes next will have to go through a robust environmental review process that could easily take a year. That makes 2025 the crucial window for getting a deal done if the legal fight – and the cascading political and economic consequences it would bring – is to be avoided. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@politico.com . Or contact tonight’s author at asnider@politico.com or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @AnnElizabeth18 .
| 
