Lorelei Cloud and John Berggren had a really important piece on Colorado River governance in the Colorado Sun last month that has not received sufficient attention.

The challenge, they argue, is the lack of the institutional framework we need to address evolving societal values around the river’s management in a changing world.

Cloud is Vice-Chairman of the Southern Ute Tribe and has become a major voice in the effort to rethink the role of indigenous people in management of the Colorado River. Berggren, now at Western Resource Advocates, is the author of one of the most insightful analyses of Colorado River governance we’ve had in recent years. (I hope that link works for folks, this might also.)

They catalog the remarkable efforts within the last decade or more to create new frameworks for Tribal involvement in Colorado River governance, notably the Ten Tribes Partnership and the Water and Tribes Initiative. Here’s Cloud:

When I was first elected to the Southern Ute Tribal Council in 2015, I was asked to participate in the Ten Tribes Partnership, or TTP, which is a coalition of the 10 Tribes along the Colorado River focused on securing and using tribal water. After one year, I was asked to chair TTP.

I drew on my personal and spiritual connection to water and started learning about the complex legal and technical issues related to managing water in the American West. I was stunned to learn that Tribes have historically delegated to have little to no role in managing Western water, and that tribal needs and interests are often marginalized.

The challenge, as Berggren documented in his thesis, is a set of water management institutions – by “institutions” here I mean the formal rules we wrote to manage water – which are antecedent to the government agencies and political power centers that emerged to carry them out – created to allocate water for municipal and agricultural use.

Because those rules were allocative in nature, the government agencies and political power centers that emerged to carry them out focused almost entirely on carving up the water supply and getting it efficiently to farms and cities. Which worked great, until it didn’t. As the twin challenges of climate change and evolving values emerged, those institutional structures have proven maladaptive.

But it’s a path dependence from which it is hard to dislodge ourselves as new, changing values emerge. These new values (“New” here seems weird, the indigenous communities represent the oldest values! Maybe “newly recognized”?) don’t have a seat at the table.

Like Tribes, environmental interests have mostly taken a backseat to the use of the Colorado River for municipal and agricultural purposes. Most adjustments to address cultural and ecological values have been treated as subservient to the allocative laws that largely service municipal and agricultural interests.

Returning to the primary purpose of the 1922 Compact, we believe that providing for the equitable use of water includes substantive and procedural elements. There’s a huge difference between how the Colorado River is managed for multiple values (substance) and how people who care about such issues determine what ought to happen (process).

I don’t know if their proposed solution, is the right one:

an ongoing, whole-basin roundtable that would embrace the entire transboundary watershed, address the major water issues facing the basin, and, importantly, provide an equitable process to engage all four sets of sovereigns (United States, Mexico, seven basin states and 30 Tribal nations), water users and stakeholders.

But if not this tool, then what should we do instead?