Colorado River Governors Summit and the San Joaquin Delta
Colorado River Governors Summit and Implications for the San Joaquin Delta
Executive Summary
The CalMatters article Trump’s office called 7 governors to D.C. for Colorado River talks. Here’s what California said details an unprecedented high-level summit convened by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, bringing together governors from the seven Colorado River Basin states—California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico—to address the ongoing stalemate over post-2026 water allocation. This analysis examines the summit's context, California's strategic positioning, and critically evaluates the cascading implications for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the controversial Delta Conveyance Project.
The central thesis: Colorado River shortage negotiations and Delta water management are interconnected systems, where pressure on one supply source amplifies stress on the other. California's dependence on both the Colorado River and State Water Project (SWP) exports from the Delta means that outcomes from the February 14, 2026 negotiation deadline will reverberate directly into Delta operations, environmental regulations, and the trajectory of the $20.1 billion Delta Conveyance Project.
The Colorado River Summit: Context and Key Takeaways
Unprecedented Federal Intervention
The January 30, 2026 meeting in Washington D.C. marked the first time all seven basin state governors (or their representatives) were convened simultaneously by a federal administration to address Colorado River governance. Secretary Burgum's intervention reflects the gravity of the situation: the seven states missed the November 11, 2025 deadline for consensus on post-2026 operations, and a new February 14, 2026 deadline now looms.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Meeting Date | January 30, 2026 |
| Host | Interior Secretary Doug Burgum |
| Attendees | Governors of AZ, CO, NM, NV, UT, WY; CA represented by Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot |
| California's Absence | Governor Newsom absent due to "longstanding prior family commitment" |
| Deadline | February 14, 2026 for preliminary agreement |
California's Strategic Position
Karla Nemeth, Director of the California Department of Water Resources, offered CalMatters an insider perspective, characterizing California's approach as "commitment to a negotiated outcome" with "an open hand" toward both upper and lower basin colleagues. Governor Newsom's instructions to his delegation were reportedly simple: "Roll up your sleeves. Be solutions oriented."
California's position reflects several strategic realities:
Senior Water Rights
California holds the most senior water right in the Lower Basin with an annual allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet (maf), established under a 1931 agreement dividing water among Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District, Coachella Valley Water District, and others. This seniority shields California from the deepest cuts under current shortage-sharing frameworks.
Already Substantial Conservation
California water users have conserved over 1.2 million acre-feet in Lake Mead over two years, contributing 16 feet of elevation to the reservoir, with commitments to exceed 1.6 maf by end of 2026.
Strategic Ambiguity
Governor Newsom's relative silence on Colorado River negotiations has been deliberate, allowing technical negotiators to work without political constraints while reserving gubernatorial intervention for critical moments.
The Core Dispute: Upper vs. Lower Basin
The fundamental conflict centers on who bears responsibility for mandatory cuts after 2026. The lower basin states (California, Arizona, Nevada) argue that upper basin states (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico) must implement conservation commitments. Upper basin states counter that they cannot mandate cuts on water rights holders who already use less than their allocated amounts due to natural hydrological limitations.
| Basin | Position | Key Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Lower Basin | Upper Basin must face mandatory cuts | Arizona has already taken 512,000 AF annual reduction (30% of CAP supply) |
| Upper Basin | Cannot mandate cuts on underused rights | "We cannot conserve water we do not possess"—Colorado River Commissioner Becky Mitchell |
| California | 10% reduction as part of 1.5 maf Lower Basin initiative | Holds senior priority; proposes shared responsibility framework |
The hydrology is stark: the 1922 Colorado River Compact assumed 16.8 maf of annual flow, but actual long-term average is approximately 13 maf—a 23% overallocation. Climate models project an additional 10-30% decline by mid-century.
Linkages to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
California's Dual Dependency
Southern California's water supply relies on two major imported sources: the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct, and Northern California rivers via the State Water Project (SWP) through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Together, these sources supply approximately half of all water used in Southern California.
| Source | Share of Southern California Supply | Annual Volume |
|---|---|---|
| Colorado River | ~33% | Up to 4.4 maf (California allocation) |
| State Water Project (Delta) | ~30% | Variable (30% allocation as of January 2026) |
| Local Sources | ~37% | Groundwater, recycling, desalination |
This dual dependency creates a critical interdependence: when Colorado River supplies are constrained, pressure intensifies on Delta exports—and vice versa.
Substitution Dynamics Under Colorado River Stress
A January 2026 analysis from Water Wrights detailed how Colorado River shortages affect the Central Valley and Delta:
"When Colorado River deliveries or storage flexibility are reduced, Southern California agencies tend to substitute toward SWP supplies... That substitution is constrained by Delta export rules, endangered species requirements, and water quality standards."
The substitution pathway manifests through:
- Greater competition for limited south-of-Delta pumping opportunities
- Increased reliance on San Luis Reservoir coordination (shared between SWP and federal Central Valley Project)
- Political pressure on Delta operations to maximize exports
- Accelerated development of local supplies (recycling, desalination)
- Expanded purchases of transferred water originating in Central Valley
Environmental Pressures on the Delta
The Delta's ecological systems face compounding stresses that limit water export flexibility:
Endangered Species
Eight native fish species depend on the Delta, including the threatened delta smelt, listed spring-run Chinook salmon, and green sturgeon. Federal and state biological opinions restrict pumping operations to protect these species, limiting export volumes during critical periods.
| Species | Status | Delta Dependence |
|---|---|---|
| Delta smelt | Threatened (Federal ESA) | Spawning and rearing habitat |
| Winter-run Chinook salmon | Endangered | Migration corridor |
| Spring-run Chinook salmon | Threatened | Migration and rearing |
| Longfin smelt | Species of Concern | Full lifecycle |
Climate Vulnerabilities
The Delta's 1,100 miles of levees face multiple threats including sea-level rise, earthquakes, subsidence, and flooding. Engineering assessments indicate Delta levees are "marginally stable" with continuous impoundment of water, and could experience cascading failures in a major seismic event.
Water Quality Controls
State Water Resources Control Board regulations governing Delta water quality and environmental flows further constrain export operations.
Delta Conveyance Project: A Critical Infrastructure Variable
Project Overview
The Delta Conveyance Project represents California's proposed solution to Delta vulnerability—a 45-mile underground tunnel, 36 feet in diameter, designed to convey water from new intakes on the Sacramento River in the north Delta to existing pumping facilities in the south.
| Specification | Details |
|---|---|
| Estimated Cost | $20.1 billion (2023 dollars) |
| Tunnel Length | 45 miles |
| Tunnel Diameter | 36 feet |
| Intake Capacity | 6,000 cubic feet per second |
| Beneficiaries | 27 million Californians, 750,000 acres of farmland |
| Key Milestones | CEQA certification (2023); Valley Water 2027 construction decision |
Strategic Rationale Under Colorado River Stress
The project's importance increases proportionally with Colorado River constraints:
Water Capture During Storms
DWR estimates that if operational in 2024, the project would have captured 941,000 acre-feet of water—enough to supply over 9.8 million people for a year. As of January 22, 2026, DWR calculated 318,000 acre-feet could have been captured in the current water year had the project been operational.
Climate Adaptation
The SWP is projected to lose up to 23% of its supply capacity over the next 20 years due to changing flow patterns and extreme weather shifts. The Delta Conveyance Project is positioned as a primary climate adaptation strategy.
Earthquake Resilience
The tunnel, at 150 feet depth, would be less vulnerable to surface seismic activity compared to the existing levee-dependent system. However, opponents dispute the significance of this benefit, noting that no major Bay Area earthquake has caused Delta levee breaches.
Operational Flexibility
The project would allow water capture during high-flow events when current infrastructure cannot take advantage of storm runoff.
Opposition and Concerns
Significant opposition exists from multiple stakeholders:
- Delta Communities: Local residents and tribes argue the project will "devastate Delta communities and a multi-billion-dollar regional economy for generations."
- Environmental Groups: Critics contend the project will accelerate extinction of Central Valley salmon and imperiled Delta fish species. San Francisco Baykeeper's Jon Rosenfield argues: "Without sufficient flow, habitat restoration alone cannot sustain fish populations."
- Fiscal Concerns: A January 2026 court ruling set back the project, with opponents arguing actual costs could be "three to five times" the official estimate.
- Tribal Rights: The Delta Tribal Environmental Coalition asserts DWR is "trying to rush forward with a tunnel project that would divert more water out of our rivers and Delta eco-cultural systems."
Scenario Analysis: How Colorado River Outcomes Affect the Delta
Scenario 1: Seven-State Consensus Agreement (By February 14, 2026)
Probability: Moderate (negotiations show cautious optimism)
Under a consensus deal, California would likely accept approximately 10% reduction to its Colorado River allocation as part of a 1.5 maf Lower Basin reduction initiative. This would:
- Increase pressure on Delta exports: Metropolitan Water District and other Southern California agencies would seek to maximize SWP supplies to offset Colorado River reductions
- Accelerate Delta Conveyance Project support: Water agencies would strengthen arguments for infrastructure investment to capture additional Delta supplies
- Intensify Bay-Delta regulatory tensions: Voluntary Agreement framework under consideration by State Water Board would face pressure to prioritize supply reliability over environmental flows
Scenario 2: Federal Unilateral Action (Post-February 14 Failure)
Probability: Significant if negotiations fail
If states cannot agree, the Bureau of Reclamation could implement one of several federal alternatives analyzed in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Under the "basic coordination alternative," California would take minimal cuts due to senior rights, but Arizona could face reductions dropping Central Arizona Project usage from 1.5 maf to approximately 400,000 acre-feet—a 73% cut.
Implications for Delta:
- Arizona's urban growth pressure would intensify demand for Colorado River transfers
- Potential litigation would create multi-year uncertainty affecting water infrastructure investment decisions
- Delta Conveyance Project faces either acceleration (if agencies seek supply security) or delay (if capital is diverted to legal costs and alternative supplies)
Scenario 3: Extended Negotiation (Rolling Deadlines)
Probability: High based on historical patterns
The Colorado River Basin states have repeatedly missed deadlines throughout 2025, suggesting additional extensions are plausible. Extended uncertainty would:
- Create planning paralysis for long-term infrastructure investments
- Increase volatility in Central Valley water transfer markets
- Compound regulatory uncertainty for Delta operations already navigating Bay-Delta Plan updates
Implications for Local Stakeholders
San Joaquin Valley Agriculture
The San Joaquin Valley faces compounding water constraints from multiple directions:
| Constraint Source | Estimated Impact by 2040 |
|---|---|
| SGMA groundwater sustainability | -2.7 maf annually |
| Climate change effects | -0.25 maf annually |
| Environmental flow requirements | -0.2 maf annually |
| Total decline | -3.15 maf (20% reduction) |
Colorado River stress amplifies these pressures by increasing competition for SWP/CVP supplies and transferred water. The interconnected systems mean farmers face risk from both Delta and Colorado River directions simultaneously.
San Joaquin Delta Region
Local communities in the Delta face distinct concerns:
- Water Quality Degradation: Increased exports could alter salinity gradients and water quality in Delta waterways
- Ecosystem Impacts: Native fish populations continue declining under current operations; additional export pressure compounds stress
- Infrastructure Disruption: Delta Conveyance construction would impact roads, agriculture, and community life in the project footprint
- Economic Uncertainty: Delta agriculture generates $32 billion annually; water management changes threaten this economic base
Southern California Urban Users
Metropolitan Water District and its member agencies serving 19 million people face dual-source vulnerability:
- Colorado River supplies face ongoing shortage conditions with deeper cuts possible after 2026
- SWP allocations remain variable (30% as of January 2026)
- Local supply development (recycling, desalination) cannot replace imported supply volumes at comparable cost
Conclusion: Interconnected Systems Under Pressure
The CalMatters article illuminates a critical moment in Western water governance. The February 14, 2026 deadline represents more than a Colorado River negotiation milestone—it is an inflection point for California's entire water infrastructure strategy.
Key Analytical Conclusions
- Supply Interconnection Is Real: Colorado River stress does not directly reduce Central Valley water, but substitution effects amplify competition for Delta exports and transfer supplies. Water managers cannot treat these systems as independent.
- Delta Conveyance Project Stakes Rise: Each year of delayed Colorado River resolution increases the strategic value of Delta infrastructure capable of capturing storm flows. Conversely, continued uncertainty may delay the capital commitments necessary for project construction.
- Environmental Protections Face Pressure: Both the Bay-Delta Voluntary Agreements and federal endangered species protections will face intensified pressure as water users seek to maximize export flexibility during supply-constrained periods.
- Regional Equity Tensions Persist: The Delta communities and tribes opposing the Conveyance Project see themselves as "sacrifice zones" for Southern California growth. Colorado River stress exacerbates these tensions by increasing the perceived urgency of maximizing Delta exports.
The summit's outcome—whether consensus, federal intervention, or continued negotiation—will ripple through California's water system in ways extending far beyond the Colorado River Basin. For San Joaquin Delta communities, farmers, and ecosystems, the negotiations in Washington D.C. may prove as consequential as any Sacramento regulatory proceeding.
References
- Becker, R. (2026, January 31). Trump's office called 7 governors to D.C. for Colorado River talks. Here's what California said. CalMatters.
- International Boundary and Water Commission. (2025, August 14). 2026 Colorado River Water Allocations Announced.
- California Policy Center. (2025, April 22). California Can Dramatically Increase Its Water Supply.
- Maven's Notebook. (2026, January 28). Delta Conveyance Project: Looking back at progress made and ahead to what's next.
- Central Arizona Project. (2025, September 28). Colorado River Reductions.
- Public Policy Institute of California. (2018, November). California's Water: The Colorado River.
- Valley Water. (2026, January 4). Boosting Water Reliability: Delta Project in Santa Clara County.
- Deseret News. (2026, January 28). Colorado River governors meet in Washington, D.C., about water allocations.
- Maven's Notebook. (2026, January 29). Weekly Water News Digest: Heated debate over Delta water plan; SWP allocation increased to 30%.
- Metropolitan Water District. (2025, September 24). Metropolitan board approves $142 million in additional funding for Delta Conveyance planning.
- The Colorado Sun. (2026, January 15). One Colorado River option doesn't require state input. And it could hurt the West.
- Metropolitan Water District. (2025, November 2). State Water Project.
- California Department of Water Resources. (2025, November 23). Delta Conveyance.
- Bureau of Reclamation. (2014). Colorado River Post 2026 Operations.
- NOAA Fisheries. (2024, October 28). San Joaquin River Basin.
- Los Angeles Times. (2026, January 7). Newsom's signature water tunnel is set back by California court ruling.
- Metropolitan Water District. (2025, November 2). Colorado River.
- Voice of San Diego. (2015, April 19). Where San Diego Gets Its Water – and Where it Goes.
- CA Water Library. (2024, August 16). Recovery Plan for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta native fishes.
- Metropolitan Water District. (2026, January 28). Metropolitan Issues Statement on Increased State Water Project Allocation.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1996). Recovery Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes.
- San Diego County Water Authority. (2025, October 1). Metropolitan Water District Program.
- City of Pasadena. (2023, October 30). California's Fragile Water Supply and Delivery Systems.
- Bureau of Reclamation. (2021). Final Feasibility Report Appendix F – Fish.
- California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2017). Chinook Salmon.
- NOAA Fisheries. (2026, January 19). Chinook Salmon (Protected).
- The Arizona Republic. (2026, January 31). Colorado River governors meet with feds as deal deadline nears.
- Southern California Water Coalition. (2025, June 9). Delta Conveyance.
- Colorado River Board of California. (2026, January 5). Notice of Regular Meeting of the Colorado River Board.
- Public Policy Institute of California. (2025, March 26). The Colorado River.
- Sacramento County. (2024). Delta Tunnel Myths and Facts.
- Nature Communications. (2024, March 27). New water accounting reveals why the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea.
- Lake Powell Chronicle. (2026, January 30). Colorado River at the Crossroads: What Happens if Talks Fail.
- Maven's Notebook. (2025, July 13). Explainer: Delta Conveyance Project.
- Wikipedia. (2006). California State Water Project.
- DU Water Law Review. (2025, December 8). An Update on the Post-2026 Operating Guidelines.
- California Department of Water Resources. (2025, August 18). New Report Highlights the Delta Conveyance Project as the Single Most Effective Action.
- California Department of Water Resources. (2013). The California Water System.
- Water Blueprint for San Joaquin Valley. (2025, January 22). Statement on Protecting Smelt Over People.
- California Aquaculture. (2025, July 29). California Endorses Voluntary Agreement Framework to Overhaul Bay-Delta Water Management.
- The Colorado Sun. (2025, January 30). Is the Colorado River the main water source for Southern California?.
- CAH2O Research. (2020, October 11). Critical protections for endangered fish had little water cost, analysis shows.
- Fishbio. (2026, January 28). Restore the Delta: Environmental advocates and tribes call for equitable alternatives.
- Maven's Notebook. (2025, January 16). Water Blueprint for SJV Valley: Protecting smelt over people.
- UC Berkeley Law. Five Guiding Principles for Effective Voluntary Agreements.
- Friends of the River. (2026, January 14). Protecting California Rivers: Bay-Delta Plan & Voluntary Agreements.
- State Water Resources Control Board. (2026, January 6). Bay-Delta Watershed.
- Public Policy Institute of California. (2022, January 5). Alternative Water Supplies in California.
- Water Wrights. (2026, January 12). How the Colorado River Impacts the Central Valley.
- Colorado River Board of California. (2024, November 30). Colorado River Water Users in California Add 1.2 Million Acre-Feet to Lake Mead.
- Maven's Notebook. (2025, June 29). Colorado River: Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and Southern California's Water Dilemma.
- Bureau of Reclamation. (2023). Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Post 2026 Colorado River Operations.
- Public Policy Institute of California. (2024, January 25). Managing Water and Farmland Transitions in the San Joaquin Valley.
- Maven's Notebook. (2025, August 6). Reactions: Delta advocates, others respond to Delta Conveyance Project.
- Maven's Notebook. (2018, January 2). Earthquake Resilience of Southern California's Water Distribution Systems.
- Public Policy Institute of California. (2024, October 16). Policy Brief: The Future of Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley.
- Sacramento News & Review. (2024, October 15). Tribes, environmental groups address 'fundamental flaws' with Delta tunnel project.
- Sacramento County. (2024). Delta Tunnel Proponents Exaggerate Earthquake Risks.
- California Department of Water Resources. (2023, July 23). How The Delta Conveyance Project Would Make California's Water Supply More Resilient.
- CalMatters. (2025, April 9). Miles of Delta levees are at risk of floods. Repairs could cost $3 billion.
- CalMatters. (2025, March 12). California's Delta tunnel strikes fear in rural farm towns.