Phoenix hires lawyers as Arizona cities brace for Colorado River water cuts

Coverage spread: 2 sources — 2 unrated

Lean ratings via AllSides / Media Bias-Fact-Check. How this works.

Where they agree

Arizona cities depend heavily on the Colorado River — Phoenix gets about 40% of its water and Scottsdale about 70% from it.
Both Phoenix and Scottsdale are actively taking steps to prepare for reduced river allocations rather than waiting for a final federal decision.
Officials in both cities frame the issue as one of cost and supply diversification, not simply running dry.
The federal government’s post-2026 Colorado River operating framework, tied to ongoing drought, is the trigger for these local actions.

Where they differ

ABC15’s Phoenix coverage focuses on legal strategy — the city hiring Culp & Kelly and holding a closed council session — while its Scottsdale coverage focuses on infrastructure and supply diversification rather than legal action.
Mayor Kate Gallego emphasizes fairness between basin states, arguing Arizona is being asked to shoulder disproportionate cuts while Upper Basin states are protected; Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky’s comments center on cost (‘cheap water’) rather than interstate equity.
The Arizona Capitol Times piece takes a structural, legal-history angle — arguing state water law itself is ill-suited to scarcity — whereas the ABC15 pieces are localized and action-oriented, focused on what individual cities are doing right now.
Scottsdale has already committed money ($8.5 million for water credits), a concrete step, while Phoenix’s response so far is legal exploration without a firm commitment to sue or spend.

The City of Phoenix has retained the law firm Culp & Kelly, LLP to explore legal and regulatory options for challenging proposed post-2026 Colorado River operating rules, which Mayor Kate Gallego says would unfairly shift water cuts onto Arizona. The move comes as the federal government finalized an environmental impact statement outlining how the drought-strained river will be managed after current rules expire, with a more detailed record of decision still to come.

Why did Phoenix hire outside lawyers?

Mayor Kate Gallego told ABC15 that Phoenix, like the State of Arizona, has brought in legal counsel “who might be able to help us fight for your water.” The Phoenix City Council met in a closed executive session to get legal advice and weigh its options after the federal framework’s release. Gallego said the session covered both legal and regulatory strategy, but the city has not committed to filing a lawsuit. “We want to understand how we can best influence this process,” she said, adding that the city is trying to see what it can do to “reverse this very difficult decision from our federal government.”

What exactly is Phoenix objecting to?

Gallego’s complaint isn’t that cuts are needed — she says Phoenix and other Arizona cities accept that the shrinking river requires sacrifice. Her objection is how the burden is divided among the seven states that rely on the river. The federal framework, as she describes it, protects the Upper Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico — from cuts, while the Lower Basin states — Arizona, California and Nevada — would absorb reductions, with Arizona bearing a disproportionate share. “It is deeply disappointing that the federal government set up a framework where they can’t cut the Upper Basin,” Gallego said. “The residents of Phoenix did not cause the drought, and we should not have to get through it alone.”

How much water is actually at stake?

Colorado River water supplies about 40% of Phoenix’s water, and Gallego describes it as among the city’s cleanest and cheapest sources. If that allocation shrinks, Phoenix would need to look at replacement supplies — but Gallego warned those alternatives, such as desalinated ocean water, would likely cost far more. She noted San Diego County already receives desalinated water produced on the California coast, but bringing similar supplies to Arizona would require new agreements and infrastructure that don’t currently exist. She did not give a timeline for when residents might see any impact on service or bills, but cautioned there is no immediate fix.

Is Phoenix alone in this?

No — Scottsdale is facing a similar reckoning. Mayor Lisa Borowsky told ABC15 that Scottsdale, which draws about 70% of its water from the Colorado River, “isn’t running out of water” but is “running out of cheap water.” The Scottsdale City Council recently voted to spend $8.5 million to secure water credits in a groundwater basin roughly 60 miles outside Phoenix, and the city is now working out how to treat that water and pipe it to Scottsdale. Both cities’ moves reflect a broader scramble among Arizona municipalities to diversify supply ahead of expected reductions.

What’s the bigger legal and policy backdrop?

A separate analysis from the Arizona Capitol Times frames the dispute less as a short-term drought fight and more as a structural problem: Arizona’s water law was built assuming abundance, and the current scarcity is exposing gaps in that legal framework. That framing suggests the fight over the federal environmental impact statement is part of a longer reckoning over how Western water law allocates risk between states, cities and future generations, not just a one-time argument over the next round of cuts.

What happens next?

The federal environmental impact statement is not final. It will be followed by a more detailed record of decision that will spell out exactly how future reductions get implemented across the basin. Phoenix has not said whether it will sue, and Gallego framed the city’s current posture as trying to influence the process before that final decision is locked in. In the meantime, cities like Scottsdale are already moving on parallel tracks — buying water credits and building infrastructure — regardless of how the legal and regulatory fight over the federal framework plays out.

Sources

Featured photo: Adavyd via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)