The battle to determine how Arizona handles future water-supply cuts is quickly becoming a war.

And, yes, that’s as bad for the state as it sounds.

Arizona is working with Nevada and California to more equitably share deeper water-allocation cuts once Lake Mead drops below 1,075 feet of elevation. It’s called the drought contingency plan, and it’s a big deal because according to current agreements, Arizona is first in line for cuts while California takes none.

That’s hardly fair.

Arizona also is working on a separate plan, called the drought contingency plan-plus, to more equitably share those cuts among water users within the state.

That plan is needed because, without any changes, the state’s underground water bank and Pinal County farmers would shoulder the bulk of the cuts in the early stages of a shortage, while cities and tribes would remain relatively unscathed.

What's their beef? It's difficult to explain

The good news is everyone agrees that the plans are needed. But their approval has been derailed by a deep-seated, bitter and technical disagreement between the Central Arizona Project and Arizona Department of Water Resources.

Even describing the beef is difficult, because both sides contend the other is using misleading, inflammatory language.

But in a nutshell, CAP thinks it can maximize the water Lake Mead gets each year from Lake Powell by varying how much water is conserved in Lake Mead. CAP says there’s a significant amount of water at stake – up to 770,000 acre feet a year from Lake Powell (an acre-foot is roughly 325,851 gallons).

ADWR has said CAP’s approach amounts to manipulating lake levels, and that is risky given how quickly water levels can change. It also believes CAP has needlessly upset states that rely on Lake Powell, which fear Arizona is making a play for their water.

CAP says it’s not manipulating anything, just trying to ensure that we aren’t penalized with a smaller release from Lake Powell by conserving too much water in wetter years such as this one.

There have been meetings among hydrologists and pledges from both sides to find a more flexible approach for how much water is conserved each year, but so far, neither seems to be satisfied with the methodology.

Governor's group is stoking the flames

Meanwhile, Gov. Doug Ducey has convened work groups to iron out these issues and groundwater use – the latter of which, I’m told, is equally volatile because users outside of active management areas are vehemently against the idea of their groundwater use being measured.

The groups are meeting frequently and privately, and decision-making is reportedly moving fast. (A request to speak with Ducey’s office about the meetings was not answered.)

But the speed and content of the meetings also have exacerbated this feud. A document posted publicly by CAP suggests the governor is considering several ideas to scale back CAP’s power – which some board members consider punishment for clashing with ADWR.

CAP recently hosted a public meeting to gather feedback on the drought contingency plans and the governor’s work groups, and the responses suggested that many of the state's major water users are nervous about the scrum.

Some speakers read prepared statements, noting that tensions were high and that words had to be chosen carefully. And – perhaps most interesting – even though they represented vastly different water interests, from cities to tribes to farmers at risk of losing all their water during a shortage, all basically told CAP the same thing: Find some consensus with ADWR, and do it quick.

Even if it was a wet winter and there is no chance of shortage in 2018, they don’t want us wasting another year or more arguing about the cuts we all know are eventually coming.

They want both sides to collaborate, resolve their differences and give our water future at least a little more predictability.

Isn’t that what we all should be asking?

Reach Allhands at joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com.

MORE FROM ALLHANDS:

How craft beer could save our water supply

Will Gilbert finally turn left the right way?

Tucson ruling all but nixes city regulations on guns