Equal Access to the Colorado River Act: A Push for Fair Water Cuts in the Southwest

In a move aimed at reshaping how water shortages are managed in the drought-stricken Southwest, Arizona Congressman David Schweikert has introduced legislation to ensure fairer distribution of Colorado River water cuts among Lower Basin states. The Equal Access to the Colorado River Act (H.R. 7078) seeks to amend the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, addressing long-standing disparities in water allocation during shortages. If passed, the bill would require Arizona, California, and Nevada to share reductions proportionally based on their original legal apportionments—a shift that could ease Arizona’s burden while redistributing the impact of drought across the region.

The Current System: Why Arizona Bears the Brunt

The Colorado River, a lifeline for over 40 million people across seven U.S. States and Mexico, has been stretched thin by decades of overuse and climate change. Under the existing legal framework, Arizona has historically absorbed the largest cuts during shortages due to its “junior” water rights status. This system, established by the 1922 Colorado River Compact and reinforced by subsequent laws, prioritizes older, “senior” water rights—primarily held by California—over Arizona’s allocations.

Arizona has faced disproportionate reductions in its water supply, despite its growing population and critical municipal needs. The Central Arizona Project (CAP), a 336-mile system delivering Colorado River water to central and southern Arizona, has been particularly vulnerable. During shortages, CAP deliveries are slashed first, leaving cities, farms, and tribes scrambling for alternatives.

How H.R. 7078 Would Change the Rules

Schweikert’s bill proposes a fundamental shift in how water cuts are allocated during shortages. Instead of Arizona taking the first and deepest hits, the legislation would require all three Lower Basin states—Arizona, California, and Nevada—to reduce their diversions proportionally based on their baseline allocations:

• California: 4.4 million acre-feet annually
• Arizona: 2.8 million acre-feet annually
• Nevada: 0.3 million acre-feet annually

The bill amends Section 301(b) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act to mandate that reductions be applied “without preference to present perfected rights.” This language is significant: it would override the traditional legal hierarchy that has shielded senior water rights holders—primarily California—from cuts, even as Arizona’s supply dwindles.

“Arizona families and businesses shouldn’t be punished by an outdated framework that no longer matches today’s reality. This bill ensures that when shortages occur, every state shares the burden fairly, based on their original legal share of the river.”

Tribal Water Rights: A Parallel Effort for Equity

While H.R. 7078 focuses on state-level allocations, another critical development is unfolding in Congress to address the historic exclusion of tribal nations from Colorado River water rights. The Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2024 and the Yavapai-Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Act aim to secure water access for tribes that have long been denied their fair share.

Nearly a third of Navajo and Hopi households lack running water, forcing residents to haul water over long distances at great cost. The proposed settlements would fund infrastructure like pipelines and impose groundwater pumping restrictions to prevent further depletion. Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren has called the legislation a “moral imperative,” emphasizing that water insecurity has persisted for generations.

What’s Next for the Bill?

H.R. 7078 was introduced on January 14, 2026, and referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Its fate hinges on bipartisan support, as water policy often sparks regional tensions. Key questions remain:

• Will California support proportional cuts? The state has historically resisted reductions, citing its senior water rights and agricultural needs.
• How will tribes be impacted? While the bill doesn’t directly address tribal allocations, fairer state-level cuts could indirectly benefit tribes by reducing pressure on Arizona’s supply.
• What about Mexico? The bill doesn’t alter Mexico’s 1.5 million acre-foot allocation under the 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty, but future negotiations may need to address cross-border impacts.

Key Takeaways

• The Equal Access to the Colorado River Act (H.R. 7078) would require Arizona, California, and Nevada to share water cuts proportionally during shortages.
• Arizona currently bears disproportionate cuts due to its junior water rights status under existing law.
• The bill would override senior water rights protections, a major shift in Western water law.
• Separate legislation aims to secure water access for tribes, addressing long-standing inequities.
• The bill’s success depends on bipartisan and interstate support, which has been elusive in past water negotiations.

FAQ

Why does Arizona receive cut first during shortages?

Arizona’s water rights are “junior” to California’s under the 1922 Colorado River Compact and subsequent laws. This means Arizona’s allocations are reduced before California’s during shortages, even though Arizona’s population and water needs have grown significantly.

How much water is at stake?

The Lower Basin states are allocated a total of 7.5 million acre-feet annually from the Colorado River. During shortages, cuts are applied to this total, with Arizona historically absorbing the largest share.

What is the Central Arizona Project (CAP)?

The CAP is a 336-mile system that delivers Colorado River water to central and southern Arizona, serving cities, farms, and tribes. It is the primary conduit for Arizona’s Colorado River allocation and the first to face cuts during shortages.

How would this bill affect California?

California would no longer be shielded from cuts during shortages. Under the current system, California’s senior water rights protect its supply, but H.R. 7078 would require proportional reductions based on its 4.4 million acre-foot allocation.

What’s the connection between this bill and tribal water rights?

While H.R. 7078 doesn’t directly address tribal water rights, fairer state-level cuts could reduce pressure on Arizona’s supply, potentially benefiting tribes that rely on the same water sources. Separate legislation, like the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, aims to secure tribal water access directly.

The Bigger Picture: A River in Crisis

The Colorado River’s challenges are a microcosm of broader water crises in the West. Climate change has reduced the river’s flow by nearly 20% since 2000, while demand continues to rise. The current legal framework, designed in the early 20th century, no longer reflects the region’s realities—neither its population growth nor its environmental constraints.

Schweikert’s bill is one of several efforts to modernize water management in the Southwest. Others include:

• Drought contingency plans: Agreements among states to voluntarily reduce water use during shortages.
• Tribal settlements: Legislation to secure water rights for tribes, which hold rights to roughly 20% of the Colorado River’s flow but have historically lacked the infrastructure to access it.
• Infrastructure investments: Federal and state funding for water recycling, desalination, and conservation projects.

As the Southwest grapples with a hotter, drier future, the question is no longer whether the system needs to change—but how quickly it can adapt. The Equal Access to the Colorado River Act may be a critical step toward a more equitable and sustainable water future for all who depend on the river.