#LakePowell and #LakeMead are moving in opposite directions โ€“ What gives? — Jack Schmidt, Eric Kuhn, Anne Castle, Kathryn Sorensen, Katherine Tara (Center for #ColoradoRiver Studies)

Click the link to read the article on the Center for Colorado River Studies website (Jack Schmidt[1], Eric Kuhn[2], Anne Castle[3], Kathryn Sorensen[4], Katherine Tara[5]):

February 9, 2026

Key Points

  • The rules that control releases from Lake Powell and Lake Mead are very different. Lake Powellโ€™s releases are determined by an Annual Operating Plan that has little flexibility during the year. Lake Meadโ€™s releases change each month in response to changing delivery requirements to Lower Basin users. The impact of these different release rules on each reservoirโ€™s storage was illustrated this autumn and early winter when Lake Powell steadily declined and Lake Mead steadily increased. The magnitude of Powellโ€™s decline and Meadโ€™s increase compensated for one another, and the total combined storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead did not change.
  • During the four months between October 1 and February 1, Lake Meadโ€™s releases were reduced in response to decreasing Lower Basin demands, but Lake Powellโ€™s releases were not similarly reduced. Lake Powell lost 615,000 af during the four-month study period, and Lake Mead gained the same amount.
  • On February 1, Lake Mead had 2,714,000 af more water than Lake Powell, the largest difference between the two reservoirs since April 2022.
  • Modest flood inflows in early October delayed drawdown of Lake Powell by six weeks. Releases during the four-month study period were the second smallest since at least 2010[1]. Releases from Lake Mead were the smallest since at least 2010. Despite the small inflows to Lake Mead, the increase in storage in Lake Mead during the study period was the largest since 2019.
  • The four-month delay in depletion of the combined storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead saved between 400,000 to 900,000 af.
  • Forecasts for spring snowmelt inflow to Lake Powell are not encouraging and have been declining all winter, because Rocky Mountain snowpack remains meager.

[1]We compared the inflows, outflows, changes in storage, and Lower Basin consumptive uses between 2010 and 2026.

Briefly

In mid-September 2025, we noted that if the 2026 snowmelt was as little as in 2025, the total realistically accessible combined storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoirs (hereafter referred to as Powell+Mead) would likely fall to less than 4 million acre-feet (af) by early autumn 2026, less than the 21st century minimum of March 2023. At the mid-point of winter 2025-2026, where do we stand?

Despite the bad news associated with this winterโ€™s meager Rocky Mountain snowpack and the prospect of insignificant spring inflow to Lake Powell, unusually large autumn rainfall, alongside involuntary shortages and compensated system conservation efforts, reduced the need for deliveries to Lower Basin users, resulting in a significant increase in storage in Lake Mead that matched the drawdown of Lake Powell. As a result,ย total combined storage In Powell+Mead did not change in October, November, December, and January[1]. This is a helpful and important outcome.

Total inflow to Lake Powell and from sources between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead totaled 1.72 million af during the four-month study period (Table 1). Outflows from Lake Mead, including consumptive use by Nevada and estimated evaporation losses from Lake Powell and Lake Mead, were 1.75 million af. Because the combined storage of Powell+Mead did not change, the Inflows and the outflows, including losses must have been equal. The small discrepancy between inflows and outflows from this two-reservoir system (last two rows of Table 1) remind us of the inherent uncertainty and imprecision of some measurements. In this case, the sources of uncertainty include unmeasured inflows, unmeasured gains and losses of bank storage, and uncertainty in measurements, especially of evaporation.

Table 1. Inflows, outflows, and evaporation losses in Powell+ Mead between October 1, 2025, and February 1, 2026. Blue colors highlight terms used to calculate inflows to the Powell+Mead system. Red colors highlight terms used to calculate outflows and losses from Powell+Mead.

1ย sum of daily evaporation reported in Reclamation Hydrodata base.ย https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/hydrodata/reservoir_data/site_map.html
2ย sum of daily evaporation reported by Lower Colorado Region, Reclamation.ย https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/levels_archive.html.

Even though the total amount of water in Powel+Mead did not change, Lake Powell dropped and Lake Mead rose during the study period resulting in transfer of water from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. Lake Powell lost 615,000 af during the four-month study period, and Lake Mead gained the same amount. Autumn rains modestly augmented inflows to Lake Powell, and Reclamation significantly reduced releases at Hoover Dam, such that inflows and outflows to Powell+Mead approximately balanced each other.

On February 1, Lake Mead had 2,714,000 af more water than Lake Powell, the largest difference between the two reservoirs since April 2022[2]ย (Fig. 1).ย Divergence in the amount stored in each reservoir resulted from different operating rules. Releases from Lake Powell in the Upper Basin are established in an Annual Operating Plan intended to meet the Upper Basinโ€™s delivery obligation to the Lower Basin. This plan has little flexibility to adjust releases in response to unexpected changes in inflow. In contrast, releases from Lake Mead are adjusted to the changing delivery requirements to Lower Basin users. As demand in the Lower Basin decreased in autumn and early winter, releases from Lake Mead were significantly reduced.

Figure 1. Graph showing active storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell since January 1, 2022.

Details

Although October flood inflows to Lake Powell were modest, this short period of augmented inflow delayed the long-term decline in storage by six weeks, an important respite for the reservoir. Inflow to Lake Powell from the Colorado River, the largest source of inflow, was only 75% of average in November, December, and January but exceeded the three-year average between October 12 and 19[3]. Inflow from the San Juan River, the second largest inflow source, exceeded the long-term daily average between October 11 and 22 and between November 15 and 24[4]. As a result, storage in Lake Powell increased by 105,000 af between October 9 and 20, the period when inflow exceeded reservoir release (Fig. 2). The rate of subsequent reservoir decline was much slower than the initial rise, and it was not until late November that Lake Powell returned to the elevation it had been just before the onset of the October floods.

Figure 2. Graph showing Lake Powell inflows and releases. Inflows were calculated as the sum of stream flow measured at USGS gages on the Colorado River above Gypsum Canyon, the Dirty Devil River above Poison Springs Wash, the Escalante River near Escalante, and the San Juan River near Bluff. Releases measured at Lees Ferry represent the sum of actual releases and ground-water seepage from Lake Powell.

The drop in Lake Powell that began in late October occurred despite Reclamationโ€™s decision to delay release of approximately 600,000 af until summer 2026.[5]ย Total release from Lake Powell during the study period was 2.106 million af, the second smallest fall and early winter release since 2010 (Table 2).

Table 2. Releases from Lake Powell and inflow, change in storage, and releases from Lake Mead in October, November, December, and January.

1Colorado River at Lees Ferry
2Colorado River above Diamond Creek near Peach Springs
3Reclamation, Lower Basin Accounting Reports. Hydrodata for 2025-26.

Reclamation reduced releases from Lake Mead beginning in mid-November. In response, storage increased, because inflows exceeded releases (Fig. 3).ย Recovery of Lake Mead during these months was the largest since 2019ย and was 5% greater than the median autumn and early winter recovery since 2010 (Table 2).ย Releases from Lake Mead were the smallest since at least 2010ย and were 30% less than the median total release for those years. The increase in Lake Mead occurred despite the small releases from Lake Powell.

Figure 3. Graph showing Lake Mead inflows and releases since October 1, 2025. Inflows were calculated as the sum of stream flow measured at USGS gages of the Colorado River upstream from Diamond Creek, Diamond Creek, and the Virgin River downstream from Muddy Creek.

The small demand for water from Lake Mead was due to a combination of significantly reduced agricultural demand caused by abundant autumn precipitation in Californiaโ€™s Imperial and Coachella Valleys, the Yuma area, and elsewhere in Arizona and southeastern California as well as ongoing Lower Basin programs including involuntary shortage cuts (mostly) to Arizona, Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) contributions, and reductions in water use from compensated system conservation. Although agricultural consumptive use in Arizona and the Imperial Valley is always smallest between November and February, demand in fall 2025, especially in November, was unusually small (Table 3). Withdrawal of water by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) into the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal and consumptive use by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) in November 2025 was less than in any previous November since at least 2010 and was 26% and 54% of the median November use[6], respectively, by those districts. Consumption in October and November by other Arizona users of mainstem Colorado River water was the second smallest since at least 1979 and CAWCD use in October was the second smallest since 1995. Only in 2024 was use less. Use by the Metropolitan Water District in January was the second smallest of the study period.

Table 3. Monthly consumptive use in parts of the Lower Basin in October, November, December, and January.

1Lowest monthly use since at least 2010
2ย Second lowest monthly use since at least 2010
3Median monthly use computed for 2010-2026

A Bit of a Silver Lining

What was the significance of the four-month delay in depletion of Powell+Mead? Combined Powell+Mead storage increased between October 1 and February 1 twice since 2010, in the large runoff years of 2011 and 2019 (Table 4). In all other years, storage declined during these four months, and this yearโ€™s decrease of 200 af was the smallest decline among those 12 recent years of decline. The median drawdown of the 12 years of decline was 660,000 af and ranged between this yearโ€™s tiny drawdown and drawdown of more than 1 million af in 2012 and 2020. It is beyond the scope of this paper to estimate what the drawdown of Powell+Mead would have otherwise been, butย a reasonable estimate of the water savings caused by the delayed drawdown of Powell+Mead this year is between 400,000 to 900,000 af[7].ย To this small degree, the autumn rains and programs and policies to reduce Lower Basin demand allowed the Basinโ€™s water managers to take one small step back from the edge of the cliff.

Table 4. Change in the combined storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead between October 1 and February 1 in indicated years.

1The combined contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead began to increase on January 13, 2016. Between October 1 and January 13, the two reservoirs lost 655,000 af.

But, the Bad News

Bad news looms in the future, especially for Lake Powell. The January 2026 24-Month Studyโ€™s most probable forecast predicts that in March 2027, storage in Lake Powell will drop to 4,382,000 af of active storage, of which only 150,000 af is realistically accessible (3 ft above reservoir elevation 3500 ft).[8] When Lake Powell is at or below elevation 3500 ft, reservoir releases are complicated by the risk of cavitation in the Glen Canyon Dam turbines and the inability to constantly use the river outlet works. Under the minimum probable inflow forecast, the predicted elevation of Lake Powell is 3476 ft in March 2027, an elevation in which no water could be released through the penstocks and no hydropower would be produced.

Even the minimum probable forecast may be overly optimistic, because the forecast for April โ€“ July unregulated inflow to Lake Powell has been progressively decreasing, because the winterโ€™s snowpack remains meager. The Colorado River Basin Forecast Centerโ€™s official February 1 forecast is that the 50th percentile prediction (considered the most probable forecast) is 2.4 million af, significantly less than the January forecast of 3.65 million af (Fig. 4). The 90th percentile prediction (considered the minimum probable forecast) has dropped from 2.1 million af to 950,000 af. If the actual unregulated inflow were to be that of the minimum probable forecast, 2026 would replace 2002 as the lowest April to July inflow on record. Reclamationโ€™s February 24-Month Study will be released in mid-February, and those results will certainly draw considerable attention.

Figure 4. Graph showing forecast of unregulated inflow to Lake Powell made by NOAAโ€™s Colorado Basin River Forecast Center. The dark blue line is the median forecast. The downward trend of the forecast means that more recent forecasts are predicting smaller inflows to Lake Powell. The redlines are the official CBRFC forecasts that the USBR uses as input for the 24- Month Studies.

Unless the snowpack significantly improves between now and early April, Reclamation will have difficult choices to make. Ideally, the agency could use a combination of a large release from Flaming Gorge Reservoir coupled with an additional reduction in releases from Lake Powell to keep the elevation of Lake Powell above 3500 ft. Unless Flaming Gorge Reservoir releases are implemented using the Secretary of the Interiorโ€™s emergency authority, however, consultation and agreement with the Upper Basin states will be required. This was the strategy used in 2022, and Reclamation has indicated that even with a release of water from upstream reservoirs, there may still be a need for reductions in Lake Powell releases.[9]ย However, if the annual release from Lake Powell is reduced to 7 million af or less, the 10-year delivery of water from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin will be less than what some states consider the delivery obligation of the Upper Basin (i.e., the Compact tripwire). In such a circumstance, interstate litigation might ensue.ย 

Until basin-wide uses are reduced to meet the available supply, there are no good choices!

[1] Combined active storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell was 14,974,197 on October 1, 2025. Combined storage on February 1, 2026, was 14,973,991af.
[2] The disparity between storage in the two reservoirs has continued to increase. On February 8, Lake Mead had 2,810,000 af more water in storage than Lake Powell.
[3] Average flow of the Colorado River at Gypsum Canyon near Hite was calculated between June 30, 2023, and January 31, 2026. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/USGS-09328960/statistics/.
[4] Average flow of the San Juan River near Bluff was calculated between October 30, 1914, and January 31, 2026. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/USGS-09379500/statistics/.
[5] The goal of delayed release was to protect a target elevation at Lake Powell of 3525 feet. Adjustments to Glen Canyon Dam monthly releases were adjusted to hold back 598,000 af in Lake Powell between December 2025 and April 2026 (Reclamation, January 2026 24-Month Study). https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/24mo.pdf.
[6] 2010-2025
[7] This is the interquartile range of the 12 years when Powell+Mead declined in storage.
[8] For an explanation of โ€œrealistically accessible storageโ€ see Schmidt et al., Analysis of Colorado River Basin Storage Suggests Need For Immediate Action, Sep. 11, 2025,  https://www.inkstain.net/2025/09/analysis-of-colorado-river-basin-storage-suggests-need-for-immediate-action/.
[9] Reclamation, 2024 SEIS ROD: Section 6(E) Monthly Meeting, Jan. 22, 2026.

Authors:

[1] Director, Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, former Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.
[2] Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District.
[3] Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School, former US Commissioner, Upper Colorado River Commission, former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, US Dept. of the Interior.
[4] Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University, former Director, Phoenix Water Services.
[5] Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.

Warming winters are disrupting the hidden world of fungi โ€“ the result can shift mountain grasslands toย scrub

Warmer winters in normally snowy places can interfere with the important activities of microbes in the soil. Seogi/500px via Getty Images

Stephanie Kivlin, University of Tennessee; Aimee Classen, University of Michigan, and Lara A. Souza, University of Oklahoma

When you look out across a snowy winter landscape, it might seem like nature is fast asleep. Yet, under the surface, tiny organisms are hard at work, consuming the previous yearโ€™s dead plant material and other organic matter.

These soil microorganisms โ€“ Earthโ€™s recyclers โ€“ liberate nutrients that will act as fertilizer once grasses and other plants wake up with the spring snowmelt.

Key among them are arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, found in over 75% of plant species around the planet. These threadlike fungi grow like webs inside plant roots, where they provide up to 50% of the plantโ€™s nutrient and water supply in exchange for plant carbon, which the fungi use to grow and reproduce.

A magnified image shows dots and thin filaments weaving through the outer cells of a root.
A magnified view shows filaments and vesicles of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi weaving through the outer cells of a plant root. Outside the root, the filaments of hyphae gather nutrients from the soil. Edouard Evangelisti, et al., New Phytologist, 2021, CC BY

In winter, the snowpack insulates mycorrhizal fungi and other microorganisms like a blanket, allowing them to continue to decompose soil organic matter, even when air temperatures above the snow are well below freezing. However, when rain washes out the snowpack or a healthy snowpack doesnโ€™t form, water in the soil can later freeze โ€“ as can mycorrhizal fungi.

In a new study in the Rocky Mountain grasslands, we dug into plots of land that for three decades scientists led by ecologist John Harte had warmed by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) using suspended heaters that mimicked the air temperature the area is likely to see by the end of this century.

Above ground, the plots shifted over that time from predominantly grassland to more desertlike shrublands. Under the surface, we found something else: There were noticeably fewer beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, which left plants less able to acquire nutrients or buffer themselves from environmental stressors like freezing temperatures and drought.

These changes represent a major shift in the ecosystem, one that, on a wide scale, could reverberate through the food web as the grasses and forbs, such as wildflowers, that cattle and wildlife rely on decline and are replaced by a more desertlike environment.

When plants and fungi get out of sync

Warmer winters and a changing snowpack can affect the growth of plants and fungi in a few important ways.

One of the first signs of changing winters is when the timing of plant, fungal and animal activities that rely on one another get out of sync. For example, a mountain of evidence from around the world has documented how early snowmelt can lead to flowers blooming before pollinators arrive.

Timing also matters for plants that rely on mycorrhizal fungi โ€“ their growth must overlap.

Since plants are cued to light in addition to temperature, whereas underground microorganisms are cued to temperature and nutrient availability, warmer winters may cause microorganisms to be active well before their plant counterparts.

A mountain with a meadow filled with grasses and wildflowers in the foreground.
A view across the subalpine grasslands outside the experimental plots. Stephanie Kivlin

At our research site, in a subalpine meadow in Colorado, we also initiated an early snowmelt experiment in April 2023 that advanced snowmelt in five large plots by about two weeks.

We found that the early snowmelt advanced mycorrhizal fungal growth by one week, but we didnโ€™t find a corresponding change in the growth of plant roots. When mycorrhizal fungi are active before plants, the plants donโ€™t benefit from the nutrients that mycorrhizal fungi are taking up from the soil.

Disappearing nutrients

Early snowmelt can also lead to a loss of nutrients from the soil.

When microorganisms decompose organic matter in warmer soils, nutrients accumulate in the air and water pockets between soil particles. These nutrients are then available for mycorrhizal fungi to transfer to plants. While mycorrhizal fungi transfer nutrients to the plant, other fungi are primarily decomposers that keep the nutrients for themselves.

However, if rain falls on the snow or the snow melts early, before plants are active, the nutrients can leach from the soil into lakes and streams. The effect is similar to fertilizer runoff from farm fields โ€“ the nutrients fuel algae growth, which can create low-oxygen dead zones. At the same time, plants in the field have fewer nutrients available.

This kind of nutrient leaching has happened in a variety of ecosystems with warming winters and rain-on-snow events, ranging from mountain grasslands in Colorado to temperate forests in New England and the Midwest.

Without a thick snowpack, soils can also freeze for longer periods in the winter, leading to lower microbial activity and scarce resources at the onset of spring.

The future of changing winters

Under all of these scenarios โ€“ a timing mismatch, more rain causing nutrients to leach out or frozen soil โ€“ warmer winters are leading to less spring growth.

Ecosystems are often resilient, however. Organisms could acclimate to lower nutrient concentrations or shift their ranges to more favorable conditions. How plants and mycorrhizal fungi both adapt will determine how this hidden world adjusts to changing winters.

So, the next time rain on snow or a snow drought delays your outdoor winter plans, remember that itโ€™s more than a hassle for humans โ€“ itโ€™s affecting that hidden world below, with potentially long-term effects.

Stephanie Kivlin, Associate Professor of Ecology, University of Tennessee; Aimee Classen, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, and Lara A. Souza, Associate Professor of Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Report: Colorado Climate Damages & Adaptation Costs — Pegah Jalali (ColoradoFiscalInstitute.org)

Click the link to download the report from the Colorado Fiscal Institute website (Pegah Jalali):

January 30, 2026

Introduction

Between 2025 and 2050, our analysis finds that climate change could impose roughly $33 billion to $37 billion in additional costs and resilience needs across Coloradoโ€™s health, infrastructure, wildfire, flooding, and winter recreation impacts. The largest quantified drivers are extreme heat, which could lead to about 1,800 to 1,900 additional heat-related deaths, or about $24 billion to $25 billion in losses, and infrastructure pressures totaling about $8.3 billion to $8.7 billion in added costs and upgrades as roads, bridges, stormwater systems, and building cooling demand are pushed beyond historical design conditions. Wildfire smoke and property impacts add another $1.3 billion, with additional resilience needs on the order of $2.3 billion. These figures do not capture every hazard or indirect loss, but they make one point clear: Planning and investment now can save lives and avoid much larger costs later.

Executive Summary (2025 TO 2050)

Colorado is already experiencing the effects of a warming climate: hotter summers, longer wildfire seasons, more smoke exposure, and mounting pressure on critical infrastructure and water-dependent industries. These changes are not abstract. They influence public health, household costs, and the reliability of roads, bridges, and stormwater systems, while increasing the risk of disruptive, high-loss events.

Across the impacts we quantify, total projected costs from 2025 to 2050 are on the order of $50 billion to $54 billion, of which $36 billion to $37 billion represents additional costs directly attributable to climate change, plus defined resilience investments.

This executive summary highlights projected climate-related damages and resilience needs from 2025 to 2050. It is intended for policymakers, community leaders, and reporters who need a clear, comparable set of numbers to understand the scale of the challenge. Results are shown under two global emissions pathways that bracket plausible futures: a medium-high pathway (SSP3-7.0) and a high-end emissions pathway (SSP5-8.5).

Among Coloradoโ€™s health, infrastructure, wildfire, flooding, and winter recreation impacts, the largest quantified drivers are extreme heat, which could lead to about 1,800 to 1,900 additional heat-related deaths, or about $24 billion to $25 billion in losses, and infrastructure pressures totaling about $8.3 billion to $8.7 billion in added costs and upgrades as roads, bridges, stormwater systems, and building cooling demand are pushed beyond historical design conditions. Wildfire smoke and property impacts add another $1.3 billion, with additional resilience needs on the order of $2.3 billion. These figures do not capture every hazard or indirect loss, but they make one point clear: Planning and investment now can save lives and avoid much larger costs later.

How we estimated impacts: For each sector, we combine Colorado-specific historical records with downscaled climate projections to quantify how key hazards change over time. We then estimate climate-attributable impacts by comparing projected outcomes to a counterfactual that holds climate hazards at 1995 to 2014 baseline levels while allowing underlying trends to continue. Where relevant, we also estimate defined resilience investments, such as bridge upgrades, stormwater improvements, wildfire mitigation, and snowmaking, that can reduce future losses. All monetary values are reported in 2024 dollars.

Because not every climate impact can be modeled with available data, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. They cover major, quantifiable pathways but do not include every hazard, indirect economic spillover, or nonfatal health effect.

Wild Horse Reservoir to shift locations in preparation for NEPA process — The Flume

Click the link to read the article on The Flume website (Meryl Phair). Here’s an excerpt:

February 18, 2026

Plans for the Wild Horse Reservoir have recently updated the location of the proposed water reserve in Hartselย based on Aurora Waterโ€™s evaluation of several alternative locations in preparation for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)โ€™s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Located southwest of Spinney Mountain Reservoir, the site will be shifting to the Wild Horse South Reservoir, a move that representatives of Aurora Water describe as having significant advantages for construction. Aurora Water Assistant General Manager Sarah Young stated in a media briefing on the recent planning change that the NEPA process Aurora Water has been working through with the BLM, in collaboration with Park County government, aims to both clarify the need for the project and understand all available alternatives for meeting that need.

โ€œWe evaluated twenty different options,โ€ Young said. โ€œAs we were evaluating these alternatives, what we found out is that the Wild Horse South Reservoir has a number of significant advantages.โ€ย 

In addition to the initially proposed Wild Horse Reservoir Project, some of the alternatives included the Small Wild Horse Reservoir and Denver Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Alternative, expanding existing capacities in Spinney Mountain Reservoir, a no-action alternative and the Wild Horse South Reservoir Alternative. Regarding the projectโ€™s need, the proposed reservoir undertaking aims to enhance the City of Auroraโ€™s water management of supplies from the Arkansas and Colorado River basins. As the third-largest city in Colorado, Aurora serves over 400,000 residents, yet lacks access to an immediate water source. Projections in the statewide Colorado Water Plan indicate that a significant statewide water supply gap is anticipated by 2050 and the Wild Horse Reservoir was identified in Auroraโ€™s 2017 Integrated Water Master Plan as a crucial step in meeting the growing need.ย The shift in plans comes during a record low snow pack year for Colorado, the lowest since 1987, which is projected to affect state water resources down the line.

โ€œWhen weโ€™re having a year like weโ€™re having right now, [Wild Horse] will help us bridge these types of droughts by storing water that comes from times when the snowpack is much better,โ€ Young said.ย 

Romancing the River โ€“ The Romance of Conquest, Part 1 — George Sibley (SibleysRivers.com) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Graphic credit: George Sibley

Click the link to read the article on the Sibley’s Rivers website (George Sibley):

February 17, 2026

Youโ€™ve seen that quote here before โ€“ and youโ€™ll probably see it again; if this were a Wagnerian opera, that line would be a lietmotif, a recurring musical thread associated with a particular character or place or idea in the story being told musically. And whoโ€™s to say, โ€˜The Romance of the Colorado River,โ€™ Frederick Dellenbaughโ€™s title, might make a grand opera.

But before launching into the next chapter in the โ€˜Romance of the Colorado River,โ€™ there are some items of news to note. The no-news item of course continues to be the ongoing stalemate in the ongoing negotiations between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins. On the eve of their Valentineโ€™s Day deadline, there is talk of new โ€˜interim interim guidelines,โ€™ two to five years, for at least a nominal state presence as the Bureau of Reclamation tries to keep the lights on and some water flowing.

The bigger news is the extent to which the Colorado River Basin continues this winter to experience the reality we have created: an ongoing anthropogenic โ€˜heat droughtโ€™ (February temperatures in the 50s to 8,000 feet elevation this past week), coupled with a โ€˜dry droughtโ€™ โ€“ probably also caused by anthropogenic warming-induced changes over the Pacific Ocean. Snowpacks in the mountains from whence the riverโ€™s waters flow range from 35 to 85 percent of normal in mid-February; we may be heading for new records in low runoff.

The biggest news, but probably less noted, is a new take on the larger reality we have created globally. Late in January, the United Nations headquarters came out with a fairly astounding announcement:

“Amid chronic groundwater depletion, water overallocation, land and soil degradation, deforestation, and pollution, all compounded by global heating, a UNย reportย today declared theย dawn of an era of global water bankruptcy, inviting world leaders to facilitate honest, science-based adaptation to a new reality.”ย (Emphasis added)

This announcement was generally ignored, in the worldโ€™s morbid fascination over โ€˜what the Trumpsters are breaking today.โ€™ But the scientists who generated this report claim that phrases like โ€˜water stressโ€™ and โ€˜water crisisโ€™ are too hopeful, suggesting deviations from a normalcy that we might somehow be able to get back to. Today, they say, โ€˜many rivers, lakes, aquifers, wetlands, and glaciers have been pushed beyond tipping points and cannot bounce back to past baselines.โ€™ Bankruptcy.

A short list of global โ€˜hotspotsโ€™ included the American Southwest, where โ€˜the Colorado River and its reservoirs have become symbols of over-promised water,โ€™ with no reasonable hope of ever fulfilling those promises. Nothing new there โ€“ but calling it a state of bankruptcy bumps the desperation level up a little.

I am not going to get deeper into that report today, or the other news, but will hold it for the last chapter (to date) in this unfolding โ€˜Romance of the Colorado River.โ€™ If the report intrigues your morbid fascination with the apocalypse we seem to be driving toward, as the Trumpsters and financializers part out our civilization for distribution to the morbidly wealthy, you can find the report by clickingย here. [ed. also see Global Water Bankruptcy: Living beyond our hydrological means in the post-crisis era โ€” United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health on Coyote Gulch]

Now, back to the โ€˜Romance of the Colorado River.โ€™ Do remember that when we talk about โ€˜romancingโ€™ here, we are not talking about a sappy love story; we are talking about people muscling up to take on a challenge that is beyond or below the mundanity of life. In the last post on this site, we looked at โ€˜the Colorado River and the Romance of Exploration.โ€™ Dellenbaughโ€™s Romance of the Colorado River was published in 1903, and covered the adventures of everyone from the early Spanish conquistadores trying to sail up the river from its delta, to the trappers strip-mining the beavers from its upper tributaries, with a final focus on the explorations of John Wesley Powell who first sketch-mapped the unknown area between the upper river and the lower.

Dellenbaugh pulled no punches in describing his sense of the river and the challenge it represented. After noting in his introduction that โ€˜in every country, the great rivers have presented attractive pathways for interior explorationโ€”gateways for settlement,โ€™ serving as โ€˜friends and alliesโ€™ โ€“ he launches into his initial impressions of the Colorado River:

By contrast, it is all the more remarkable to meet with one great river which is none of these helpful things, but which, on the contrary, is a veritable dragon, loud in its dangerous lair, defiant, fierce, opposing utility everywhere, refusing absolutely to be bridled by Commerce, perpetuating a wilderness, prohibiting mankindโ€™s encroachments, and in its immediate tide presenting a formidable host of snarling waters whose angry roar, reverberating wildly league after league between giant rock-walls carved through the bowels of the earth, heralds the impossibility of human conquest and smothers hope.

Opposing utility everywhere? Refusing absolutely to be bridled by Commerce? Heralding the impossibility of human conquest, smothering hope? Could he have said anything more stirring in throwing down the gauntlet to an adolescent civilization?

Dellenbaughโ€™s Romance does sort of follow the formula of todayโ€™s sappy romance novel, but on the grand scale of the romantic adventure: first you establish the object of the protagonistโ€™s โ€˜dangerousโ€™ love as arrogant or disturbed or otherwise undesirable or unattainable โ€“ but thereforeโ€ฆ irresistibly attractive. Why are we drawn to such hard cases? Why wouldnโ€™t we leave such an angry and extreme river alone, like countless generations of First Peoples had done, settling riparian along its tributaries and even the mainstream, but just living with the โ€˜veritable dragonโ€™ as it was, and doing nothing to confront or challenge it? Or to bend it to their perceived needs? But we Euro-Americans are a civilization in which โ€˜love conquers allโ€™ โ€“ or else. Love or its simulacra โ€“ lust for wealth, for power, for knowledge, whatever. Come not between a woman and her lust for impossible men โ€“ or a civilization and its lust for everything it doesnโ€™t already control.

So it almost seems more destiny than coincidence that when Dellenbaugh wrapped up the โ€˜Romance of Explorationโ€™ in 1903, that was also the year the U.S. Reclamation Service went to work, following the Reclamation Act of 1902, to reclaim and conserve the river.

Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir at Glacier Point. By Underwood & Underwood – This image is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cph.3g04698. See Commons:Licensing for more information., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3517191

We call Theodore Roosevelt โ€˜the father of American conservation,โ€™ but he did not have the commonly accepted sense of conservation that we have today. Conservation to Roosevelt and his sidekick Gifford Pinchot was the full and efficient development of resources otherwise wasted. Freshwater running off to the ocean in an unmanageable spring flood was a prime example of profligate โ€˜wasteโ€™; they took it on through a Reclamation Service charged with working with farm communities, to develop irrigation systems to get water out of the rampant river and on to the dry land, thus conserving for human use both the land and water, each โ€˜uselessโ€™ until combined with the other.

The Reclamation Service was created as a division of the U.S. Geological Survey, which was still a bulwark of John Wesley Powellโ€™s disciplined science in the otherwise freewheeling Interior Department, aka General Land Office, charged primarily with privatizing the public lands through the Homestead Act and other laws. From the start, the Reclamation Service was filled with idealistic young engineers infused with the spirit of Rooseveltian conservation โ€“ the kind of idealism that could gradually transmogrify into the unconscious arrogance of those who Know They Are Doing Good and are therefore Always Right.

Their idealism is reflected in an article written in 1918 by C.J. Blanchard of the U.S. Reclamation Service, for The Mentor, an educational publication:

A vein of romance runs through every form of human endeavorโ€ฆ. In the desert romance finds its chief essentials in adventure, courage, daring and self-sacrifice. For more than half a century man has been writing a romance of compelling interest upon the face of the dusty earth. Irrigation, with Midasโ€™ touch, has changed the desertโ€™s frown to smiling vistas of verdure.

In a section titled โ€˜The Romance of Reclamation,โ€™ Blanchard described the reclamation engineers as men not concerned about โ€˜large emoluments, for government salaries are notoriuously meagerโ€™; instead, โ€˜as they toiled in the fastness of mountains, an abysmal canyons or far out in the voiceless desert, through the blazing heat of the Southwest or the fierce blizzards of the northern plains, this thought was uppermost, โ€œBy this work we shall make the desert bloom.โ€โ€™

But the reclamation engineers quickly found working at the farm end of irrigation systems drawing water from the wildly varying flows of the Colorado River frustrating at best, impossible at worst. And they were engineers, not scientists โ€“ engineers with a brave new world of technology unfolding; fellow engineers were building the Panama Canal (1904-1914) using steam trains and steam shovels that could move more dirt in an hour than a hundred farmers with shovels could move in a day. Scientists just figure out how the world works; engineers figure out how to make it work better. (or so they hope).

Roosevelt Dam, Salt River, Arizona. By Nicholas Hartmann – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51639491

So within their first half-decade the Reclamation Service engineers were drawn toward larger projects that, in effect, would โ€˜correctโ€™ the inefficiency and maddening variability of the river: the Roosevelt Dam up in the Salt River canyons storing the spring flood for release to irrigators throughout the whole growing season; a concrete weir dam all the way across the lower Colorado River to keep the late summer flows up to the headgate of the Laguna Irrigation Project near Yuma; a five-mile tunnel from the Black Canyon of the Gunnison River to the water-short (or over-developed) Uncompahgre Valley โ€“ all three projects begun in 1905-6.

Gunnison Tunnel via the National Park Service

Evolving concrete technology, and the evolving internal combustion engine made them dream of even larger projects, addressing all the natural challenges posed by Dellenbaughโ€™s โ€˜veritable dragon.โ€™ In 1907 the Reclamation Service separated from the U.S. Geological Survey and became an independent bureau in the Department of Interior. This separation was more than just a name change; they also began to work independently of John Wesley Powellโ€™s scientific rigor practiced in the Geological Survey.

U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Eugene Clyde La Rue takes notes (top) while in camp on Diamond Creek, a tributary to the Colorado River in Arizona, in 1923. La Rue (bottom; standing in water) measures river discharge along Havasu Creek, another tributary in Arizona, also in 1923. Click image for larger version. Credit: Both: U.S. Geological Survey

This became a background issue when the seven states of the Colorado River Basin gathered in 1922 to try to work out an equitable division of the river among themselves. Knowledge of the actual flow of the river was sketchy. Rough measures of the flow at a Yuma gauge only went back to the mid-1890s, and gave an average in the wild annual fluctuations of just under 18 million acre-feet (maf). But a Geological Survey scientist, E. C. LaRue, had studied tree rings and other evidence, and argued that the river was just in a very wet spell, that the longer-term average flow of the river was probably well under 15 maf, maybe as low as 10-12 maf (what it appears to be today). He also cautioned that extensive storage in desert reservoirs would exact a large toll in reservoir evaporation; there would beย more water availableย for use, but the tradeoff would beย less water overall.

LaRue โ€“ John Wesley Powellโ€™s kind of scientist โ€“ offered to consult with the Compact Commission; but nobody really wanted to hear what he was known for saying, and his offer was ignored by Chairman Herbert Hoover (an engineer). But a constant advisory presence at the compact planning meetings was Reclamation Commissioner Arthur Powell Davis, another engineer and an active participant in discussion leading to the commission accepting the Bureau figures, and deciding that a โ€˜temporary equitable divisionโ€™ of 15 maf between an upper and lower basin was a reasonablyย conservativeย division, leaving enough uncommitted water for โ€˜those men who may come after us, possessed of a far greater fund of information, [to] make a further division of the river.โ€™

Current water mavens Eric Kuhn and John Fleck wrote a well-researched book,ย Science Be Dammed: How Ignoring Inconvenient Science Drained the Colorado River,ย detailing this decision to ignore solid USGS science in drafting the compact. A more mythic summary of what happened probably lies in desert poet Mary Austinโ€™s recollection of a legend about the Hassayampa River, a Colorado River tributary; if anyone drinks its water, according to the legend, they will โ€˜no more see fact as naked fact, but all radiant with the color of romance.โ€™ Whatever was in the Hassayampaโ€™s water may have infiltrated the entire Colorado River in the 20thย century.

Basically, the Bureau of Reclamation, with all the emerging technology and its vision of โ€˜making the desert bloom,โ€™ was itching to take on the โ€˜veritable dragon.โ€™ The โ€˜Romance of Explorationโ€™ had uncovered a rampaging river whose waters were needed for American advancement; the โ€˜Romance of Conquestโ€™ was the obvious next step, and science just based on the โ€˜naked factsโ€™ no longer seemed to dictate the limits of the possible. Weโ€™re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. That may not have been so baldly stated until 2004, but it was the driving theme of the 20th century โ€“ first in America, then globally.

President Franklin Roosevelt at dedication of Boulder (now Hoover) Dam, September 30, 1935

The Romance of Conquest began with the three 1905-6 projects, but shifted into high gear with the Boulder Canyon Project, created by Congress in 1929 following ratification of the Colorado River Compact โ€“ almost simultaneously with the onset of the Great Depression. The Project became practically the nationโ€™s only bright light in the early 1930s, and became a template for much of Rooseveltโ€™s โ€˜New Deal.โ€™

The centerpiece of the Boulder Canyon Project was Hoover Dam, the largest dam project ever undertaken anywhere, capable of storing almost two years of the riverโ€™s flow, and as it released water on demand from the โ€˜desert bloomersโ€™ downstream, it would generate enough electricity to handle most of the Southwestโ€™s power demand at that time. But while the big dam was being built, the Bureau was also building the Imperial Weir Dam 180 miles downstream, to diverting more than three million acre-feetย of water into the All-American Canal for an 80-mile trip to the Imperial Valley where crops could be grown year round. And between those two huge works, the Bureau was also overseeing construction of Parker Dam (not officially part of the Boulder Canyon Project) to pool up water for a 250-mile aqueduct a Metropolitan Water District was building to carry domestic water to Californiaโ€™s burgeoning south coast cities.

All of that was completed by 1941 โ€“ a massive coordinated regional development: food, water and power for cities that quickly became an industrial force in the winning of World War II. And it was all done on budget, and on time, organized by an agency created only forty years earlier to help small new farming communities build local irrigation systems.

And Iโ€™m going to pause there, at the moment of the Bureauโ€™s triumph, and pick up the rest of the story of the Romance of Conquest in the next post here. Stay tuned.

The California Aqueduct, San Joaquin Valley, California. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

Yikes! #LakePowell likely to receive half or less of its normal water supply this year — Shannon Mullane (Fresh Water News) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

The Bureau of Reclamationโ€™s latest forecast for the Colorado River predicts Lake Powell will โ€œmost probablyโ€ drop below the critical minimum power pool level before the end of this year, jeopardizing Glen Canyon Damโ€™s structural integrity. In the worst-case scenario, it would do so before summerโ€™s end. This could force the feds to operate the dam as a โ€œrun-of-the-riverโ€ operation to preserve the damโ€™s infrastructure and hydropower output, which would significantly diminish downstream flows and threaten Lower Basin water supplies.

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Shannon Mullane):

February 19, 2026

Lake Powell could receive only half the normal amount of water from upstream rivers and streams this year, according to a recent federal study.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation releases a monthly study that forecasts good, bad and most likely storage conditions for the Colorado River Basinโ€™s key reservoirs over the next two years. The February forecast expects about 52%, or about 5 million acre-feet, of the normal amount of water to flow into Lake Powell by September. The more grim outlook says Powellโ€™s inflows could be 3.52 million acre-feet or 37% of the average from 1991 to 2020.

Itโ€™s enough to spike concerns about hydropower generation at Glen Canyon Dam โ€” which controls releases from Powell โ€” prompt discussions about emergency releases from upstream reservoirs and trigger federal actions to slow the pace of water out of the reservoir.

โ€œI think theyโ€™re going to be nervous about operating the turbines,โ€ said Eric Kuhn, former general manager for the Colorado River Water Conservation District.

In January, about 79% of the 30-year average flowed into Lake Powell โ€” which is on the Utah-Arizona border โ€” from upstream areas of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, according to the federal February 24-month study, released Friday.

The February projections also showed even less water flowing into Lake Powell, a decline of about 1.5 million acre-feet since January.

One acre-foot is enough water to support two or three households for a year. Colorado used an average of 1.96 million acre-feet of Colorado River water between 2021 and 2025.

The Colorado River Basin, which provides water to 40 million people, has been plagued by a 25-year drought that drained its main reservoirs โ€” the largest in the nation โ€” to historic lows amid unyielding human demands.

And that stress is going to continue. The most probable forecast shows nothing but below-average flows in February โ€” 71% of the 30-year average โ€” and for April through July, when flows are likely to be 38% of the norm.

Feds take action to boost Powell

Upstream states like Colorado do not get a drop of water from Lake Powell, Kuhn said. Coloradans rely mostly on local reservoirs to help pace the spring runoff and support year-round water use.

But the reservoirโ€™s status can impact whether upstream reservoirs, like Flaming Gorge in Wyoming and Blue Mesa in Colorado, will have to make emergency releases to elevate water levels in Lake Powell.

In response to the dry and warm winter, the federal government is trying to keep the water in the reservoir above certain critical water levels, according to the study.

At 3,490 feet in elevation, Glen Canyon Dam can no longer send Powellโ€™s water through its penstocks and turbines to generate hydroelectric power โ€” that would remove a cheap, renewable and reliable power source for communities across the West.

Lake Powell is projected to drop below the critical elevation by December, or as soon as August in one scenario, according to the 24-month study.

Federal officials are likely to call for emergency water releases from upstream reservoirs to keep Powellโ€™s water level from falling to that point. Theyโ€™re working to maintain a cushion by keeping Powellโ€™s water level above 3,525 feet, or at the very least 3,500 feet in elevation, according to the study.

Lake Powellโ€™s elevation was just over 3,532 feet as of Monday, but itโ€™s expected to drop to 3,497 feet by Sept. 30 under the most likely forecast. (The minimum forecast puts it closer to 3,469 feet.)

Putting himself in the Bureau of Reclamationโ€™s shoes, Kuhn would be looking upstream to fill that gap.

โ€œWhere do they plan for it?โ€ he said. โ€œI would be looking to get a lot of water if Iโ€™m going to keep Lake Powell above 3,500. โ€ฆ 3,525 may not be possible. There just may not be enough water in the system.โ€

Facing new lows

That is partly because the Bureau of Reclamation is required by a 2007 agreement, which expires this fall, to release certain amounts of water each year based on reservoir elevations. Replacing these rules is the focus of ongoing high-stakes โ€” and deadlocked โ€” negotiations among states.

Powellโ€™s releases are expected to be 7.48 million acre-feet between Oct. 1, 2025, and Sept. 30, according to the February 24-month study.

To try to keep reservoir levels up, the Bureau of Reclamation has adjusted its normal releases since December to keep about 600,000 acre-feet of water in the reservoir. That water will eventually be released downstream as required by the 2007 rules.

Federal officials could also release less than 7.48 million acre-feet this year to keep more water in Lake Powell, according to the study. A 2024 short-term agreement allows the officials to release as little as 6 million acre-feet of water this year to avoid Lake Powell falling below 3,500 feet.

Lake Powellโ€™s lowest release was about 2.43 million acre-feet in 1964, when the reservoir was first being filled. Since 2000, when the basin dipped into the ongoing 25-year drought, Powellโ€™s average annual release has been 8.69 million acre-feet, according to The Sunโ€™s analysis of water release data.

โ€œI donโ€™t think theyโ€™re going to release 7.48 this year. I think they have to cut the flow down to 7 (million acre-feet) or even below,โ€ Kuhn said.

More by Shannon Mullane

Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

ย โ€˜Large-scale fish killโ€™ on the #RioGrande: — Chris Lopez (AlamosaCitizen.com)

A team of nine CPW staff walked stretches of the river channel and collected as many fish as they could on Monday, Feb. 16. CPW staff reported โ€˜too many dead fish for the team to collect them all.โ€™ Credit: CPW

Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website (Chris Lopez):

February 18, 2026

Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project work near Del Norte results in 7.2-mile stretch of the river being dried up; biologists say it could take three to five years to recover the fishery

Colorado Parks and Wildlife has confirmed a โ€œlarge-scale fish killโ€ along the Rio Grande below Del Norte that was the result of a 7.2-mile stretch of the river being dried up as part of a river restoration project.

The Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project has its Farmers Union Canal Diversion and Headgate Improvement project underway in the area. During construction on this project a decision was made that caused the ecological disaster.

A significant number of the fish populations in this stretch died across all age classes. Brown and rainbow trout as small as two inches and up to 24 inches have been found, along with all sizes in between. Credit: CPW

On Monday, a team of nine CPW staff walked stretches of the river channel and collected as many fish as they could, said John Livingston, southwest region public information officer for CPW.

โ€œThere were too many dead fish for the team to collect them all,โ€ Livingston said in an email exchange with Alamosa Citizen.

The state agency was notified by a landowner on Feb. 3 that the north branch of the Rio Grande east of Del Norte was being dewatered, and fish were dying or dead.

Through its investigation, CPW determined that the species impacted include sportfish such as brown trout and rainbow trout, brook stickleback, longnose dace, fathead minnow and white sucker. Additional species such as northern leopard frogs and aquatic invertebrates such as mayflies, caddisflies and stoneflies, among others have also been found dead, according to Livingston.

โ€œA significant number of the fish populations in that stretch died across all age classes. Brown and rainbow trout as small as two inches and up to 24 inches have been found, along with all sizes in between,โ€ he said. 

Brown trout spawn in the fall and this yearโ€™s eggs that were laid in the rocky bottoms of the river most likely have been lost, CPW reported.

โ€œCPW faces challenging conditions to determine how many fish perished from the rapid dewatering. Many dead fish have also been scavenged by birds, raccoons, skunks, and foxes flocking to the area and others have been isolated in frozen pools,โ€ Livingston said.

The Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project has its Farmers Union Canal Diversion and Headgate Improvement project underway in the area. Credit: CPW

The Farmers Union Canal diversion project received nearly $1.3 million in funding through the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Rio Grande Restoration Project and San Luis Valley Irrigation District are teaming up on the project.

Farmers familiar with the project told Alamosa Citizen a โ€œhasty decisionโ€ was made to move ahead on the project during a cold spell this winter, resulting in the drying of the river through private corridors of the Rio Grande.

โ€œThereโ€™s a lot happening behind the scenes to remedy this. Landowners are pissed,โ€ one rancher told the Citizen.

CPW is concerned about the fish kill and potential impacts to other species, such as amphibians and aquatic invertebrates, and the potential impacts to the riparian corridor. An aboriginal population of Rio Grande chub, a Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need, has been documented in this reach of the Rio Grande, according to state parks and wildlife.

โ€œThis stretch of river is habitat for the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher and the federally threatened western yellow-billed cuckoo. While flycatchers and cuckoos do not overwinter in this reach, they rely on this habitat for nesting and rearing their young every spring and summer,โ€ said Livingston.

Fish have been isolated in frozen pools. Credit: CPW

Aquatic biologists estimate it could take three to five years to recover the fishery, he said.

โ€œCPW wants to thank the landowners along the river for their cooperation and for providing access to the river for this investigation, and CPW shares their concerns regarding this incident,โ€ Livingston said.

Alamosa Citizen is seeking comment on this from Daniel Boyes, executive director of the Rio Grande Restoration Project.

Hereโ€™s more on the project itself.

Primer on Stratospheric Aerosol Injection as one (very controversial) way to cool the planet

by Robert Marcos

Stratospheric aerosol injection, (SAI), is a theoretical solar geoengineering proposal that involves dispersing sulfate (or other reflective particles) into the stratosphere to reflect a portion of incoming sunlight back into space. Research into delivery methods focuses on platforms capable of reaching the stratosphere, which begins at varying altitudes depending on the latitude. Proposals range from spraying reflective particles, such as sulfur dioxides, finely powdered salt or calcium carbonate, from aircraft or high-flying balloons. None of these solar geo-engineering strategies address the underlying causes of climate change. Instead, they aim to control the amount of incoming solar radiation by emulating the sulfur-rich dust cloud that remains in the atmosphere after large volcanic eruptions.1

Proof of Concept provided by Mt. Pinatubo

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo injected approximately 17 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, creating a global layer of sulfuric acid haze that significantly increased the Earth’s albedo. This aerosol veil reflected incoming solar radiation back into space, resulting in a measurable drop in global mean temperatures of approximately 0.5ยฐC (0.9ยฐF) between 1992 and 1993. This transient cooling effect temporarily offset the trend of anthropogenic global warming and disrupted global precipitation patterns, demonstrating the profound impact that volcanic stratospheric aerosols can have on the Earth’s energy balance.2

According to one study, by sending specially designed high-altitude airplanes on roughly 4,000 total sulfate injection missions a year, humans could replicate this same level of cooling. This has the potential to offset half of the warming expected over the studyโ€™s 15-year period and counteract billions of metric tons of CO2 emissions each year. At a cost of around $2 billion annually, even medium-sized economies could afford such a program. This price tag would also be far less expensive than the potential impacts of climate change. Take the United States: the 2018 US National Climate Assessment Report estimates the impacts of climate change damages will amount to โ€œhundreds of billions of dollars annuallyโ€ by 2090, making atmospheric sulfate injection an appealing solution.3

Aerial platforms under consideration

Large commercial or military transport aircraft: These could potentially be retrofitted with specialized tanks and nozzle systems. However, most standard aircraft have flight ceilings that only reach the lower stratosphere, particularly near the poles.

Specialized Research Planes: Aircraft designed for high-altitude atmospheric research, such as those used by space agencies, can reach the higher altitudes (around 20 km) often cited as optimal for SAI. These generally have limited payload capacities.

Purpose-Built High-Altitude Jets: Many researchers suggest that a new class of specialized aircraft would be necessary for efficient, large-scale delivery. These designs would require high-lift wings and engines capable of sustained operation in thin air while carrying heavy payloads of aerosol precursors.

High-Altitude Balloons: Tethered or free-floating balloons have been proposed as a lower-cost method to loft materials into the stratosphere, though they face challenges related to stability and large-scale operational control.4

Potential benefits

Rapid Global Cooling: SAI can lower global average temperatures much faster than carbon removal methods. Historical volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991, have proven that atmospheric sulfur can cool the planet by roughly 0.5ยฐC within a year.

Cost-Effectiveness: Compared to the trillions needed for a full green energy transition, SAI is estimated to cost between $18 billion and $27 billion per year using modified aircraft.

Life-Saving Potential: Some studies suggest SAI could save up to 400,000 lives annually by reducing heat-related mortality in the world’s hottest regions.

Glacial Preservation: By lowering surface temperatures, it could slow sea-level rise and prevent the melting of land-based glaciers and sea ice.

Reversibility: Unlike permanent carbon storage, SAI effects are temporary; if stopped, the aerosols naturally fall out of the atmosphere within 1โ€“2 years.5

Potential risks

Termination Shock: If SAI is suddenly stopped (due to war, terrorism, or political collapse) while greenhouse gases are still high, the planet would experience a catastrophic and rapid temperature spike.

Ozone Depletion: Injecting sulfates can damage the stratospheric ozone layer, increasing harmful UV radiation and risks of skin cancer.

Disrupted Weather Patterns: Models indicate it could cause regional droughts, specifically by weakening the South Asian monsoon and reducing tropical rainfall.

Ocean Acidification: SAI only masks temperature; it does not reduce CO2 levels. The oceans would continue to absorb carbon, leading to acidification that destroys coral reefs and marine life.

Moral Hazard: The availability of a “quick fix” might reduce the political and corporate incentive to actually cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Geopolitical Conflict: There is no international governance for SAI. A single country could “control the thermostat,” potentially leading to global conflict if their actions cause weather disasters elsewhere.

Ecological Impacts: Reduced direct sunlight could decrease crop yields and interfere with solar power generation.6

#Drought news February 19, 2026: Severe drought (D2) or worse is widespread from western #Nebraska across the southern tier of #Wyoming through northern and central parts of #Colorado

Click on a thumbnail graphic to view a gallery of drought data from the US Drought Monitor website,

Click the link to go to the US Drought Monitor website. Here’s an excerpt:

This Week’s Drought Summary

After a few warm and dry weeks, heavy precipitation returned to the West Coast States this past week; however, the heaviest amounts fell on California, which is almost completely free of dryness and drought. At least 1.5 inches fell on a large part of the state including much of the western tier, the higher elevations, and the northern Valleys. Much larger amounts fell on isolated higher-elevation and orographically-favored locations, with a few spots recording amounts approaching 10 inches (liquid-equivalent). Several feet of snow has piled up on a few spots across the Sierra Nevada, but overall the snowpack in this area remains significantly below normal. Other areas from northwestern California northward through the Cascades and points west also recorded significant amounts of precipitation, ranging from 0.5 to locally 3.0 inches. Similar amounts were more scattered across the rest of the interior West, with the largest totals confined to the highest elevations. As of early Tuesday Feb 17, this precipitation has not significantly boosted snowpack in some areas with less than normal amounts, specifically much of the Cascades, south-central Idaho, Scattered locations across western Wyoming, much of west-central and southwestern Colorado, central sections of Utah and Nevada, and the southernmost Rockies.

Farther east, moderate precipitation was fairly widespread over approximately the southeastern quarter of the contiguous states, east of the High Plains and from the central Great Plains, lower Ohio Valley, and mid-Atlantic region southward. Heavier amounts fell on scattered areas across the east-central and southeastern Great Plains, parts of the adjacent lower Mississippi Valley, and a few narrow swaths across the western Florida Panhandle and parts of the northern Peninsula. To the north, scattered light amounts with isolated moderate totals were recorded in upstate New York and parts of New England. Other areas across the High Plains and the northeastern quarter of the contiguous states reported little or no precipitation.

Some areas of improvement were introduced based either on this past weekโ€™s precipitation or a re-assessment of the effects from earlier storms. Specifically, improvements were introduced in central Idaho, the southwestern High Plains, and parts of the Tennessee, lower Ohio, and middle Mississippi Valleys. There was more deterioration than improvement overall, however, including areas scattered across the Eastern Seaboard, lower Mississippi Valley, Deep South, Upper Midwest, northern High Plains, and far southern Texas. Hawaii experienced areas of improvement for the second consecutive week while Alaska and most dry areas in Puerto Rico remained unchanged…

High Plains

Moderate to locally heavy precipitation fell on part of eastern Kansas, and scattered light to moderate amounts fell on the rest of the southern tier of the Region. Farther north, however, scant precipitation led to large areas of degradation across a large proportion of Wyoming and central through eastern Montana, with more limited deterioration introduced across parts of Nebraska and South Dakota. This resulted in moderate drought or worse covering a swath across most of Nebraska and adjacent areas westward through most of Wyoming and the northern, central, and western sections of Colorado. Severe drought (D2) or worse is widespread from western Nebraska across the southern tier of Wyoming through northern and central parts of Colorado…

Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending February 17, 2026.

West

Heavy precipitation was fairly widespread across California, which is currently almost completely devoid of any degree of dryness or drought. Elsewhere, widespread deterioration was introduced across central and eastern Montana, leaving most of the state entrenched in abnormal dryness to severe drought (D0 to D2), with an area of extreme drought in parts of north-central Montana. Elsewhere, only minor adjustments were made as light to moderate precipitation fell on a large part of the areas of dryness and drought โ€“ enough to preclude widespread deterioration, but not sufficient to justify much improvement. Only a few parts of central and south-central New Mexico were improved, primarily from the effects of precipitation prior to last week. Severe to extree drought (D2-D3) now extends across most of the western half of New Mexico, adjacent4 Arizona, central and northern Utah, parts of northern and southwestern Idaho, and parts of Pacific Northwest east of the Cascades…

South

Heavy precipitation (3 to locally 5 inches) dropped on a swath through central Arkansas while 1.5 to locally 3.0 inches were recorded from the lower Red River (south) Valley through the central tier of Arkansas into much of western Tennessee. Moderate to locally heavy amounts were observed over much of the west side of the lower Mississippi Valley and portions of eastern Texas. Amounts of several tenths of an inch to locally around an inch were reported across a large part of central and north-central Texas, most of Oklahoma east of the Panhandle, much of Mississippi and western Alabama, and eastern sections of Tennessee. Little or no precipitation was reported across the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles, western Texas, and Deep South Texas. This pattern supported improvement across the western half of Tennessee and smaller areas of Arkansas and northwestern Mississippi, along with scattered spots across southern Oklahoma. Deterioration was fairly common in areas that missed most of the weekโ€™s precipitation, primarily in the lower Mississippi Valley, the immediate ArkLaTex region, and Deep South Texas. Intensifying dryness in the latter area prompted the introduction of exceptional drought (D4) in parts of Jim Hogg and Brooks Counties. D4 already existed in part of interior northeastern Arkansas and the southernmost reaches of the Texas Big Bend. Meanwhile, extreme drought (D3) expanded to cover most of south-central and Deep South Texas, parts of east-central Louisiana and adjacent Mississippi, portions of southern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas, most of northeastern Arkansas, and a few smaller scattered areas in western Arkansas and northeastern Oklahoma. During the past 90 days, fewer than 2 inches of precipitation have fallen on western Oklahoma, the Texas Panhandle, and the southwestern tier of Texas from the Big Bend into much of Deep South Texas…

Looking Ahead

The heaviest precipitation over the next few days is forecast along and near part of the West Coast, with at least 2 inches expected across northwestern California, the southern Cascades, and the central and northern Sierra Nevada. Up to 7 inches may fall in isolated higher elevations, most or all of which would be snow. Meanwhile, moderate to heavy amounts (0.5 to 2.0 inches) are forecast across Washington and Oregon from the Cascades westward. Similar amounts are forecast for the northern Great Lakes, and most locations from the Deep South through central New England, with lesser amounts expected over much of the central and northern Carolinas. There is a lot of uncertainty in this area, depending on the development and track of an East Coast storm system that could affect the mid-Atlantic and lower Northeast over the weekend. Light to moderate totals are anticipated over a large part of the interior West, including the Great Basin, much of the northern Intermountain West, and the higher elevations across the Rockies. Several tenths of an inch are possible across the lower Great Lakes, middle and lower Ohio Valley, and the east side of the lower Mississippi Valley. Little or no precipitation is expected across the northern and southern Plains, southern Florida, and northern Maine. Above-normal temperatures are expected from the Southwest through most of the Plains, with many locations expected to average 5 to 11 deg. F above normal. In contrast, subnormal temperatures are forecast in the northernmost Plains, where daily highs could average as much as 9 deg. F below normal. Meanwhile, 5-day average anomalies are expected to range from -2 to -5 deg. F across northern California as well as the Ohio Valley and many locations farther east.

The 6- to 10-day outlook for February 24-28 depicts increased chances for below-normal precipitation across much of the southern tier of the contiguous U.S., from the extreme southern Rockies through the central Gulf Coast and most of Florida. Chances for abnormal dryness exceed 40 percent across most of Texas and some adjacent areas. Farther north, heavier than normal precipitation is at least nominally favored from the mid-Atlantic, southern Appalachians, central Plains, and Desert Southwest northward to the Canadian border. Chances for unusually unsettled weather exceed 60 percent across central and northern California, and top 50 percent central California northward across western Washington and Oregon, as well as the middle and lower Ohio Valley. In Alaska, drier than normal conditions are favored along western parts of the state while surplus amounts are more likely over eastern areas. Across Hawaii, above-normal amounts are marginally favored statewide. Meanwhile, warmer than normal weather is expected to dominate the contiguous 48 states from the Appalachians to the Intermountain West, with chances for significantly warmer than normal conditions topping 80 percent in western Texas. Areas somewhat favoring below-normal temperatures are restricted to the West Coast west of the Cascades, and over much of the Florida Peninsula. Considerably higher chances for unusually cold weather cover most of Alaska, reaching above 70 percent in southwestern parts of the state. In contrast, warmer than normal conditions are somewhat favored across Hawaii, especially across Kauai, Oahu, and the southern Big Island.

US Drought Monitor one week change map ending February 17, 2026.

The #ColoradoRiver Crisis is Here: States fail to reach a deal; #LakePowell Deadpool appears imminent — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org) #COriver #aridification #megadrought

The Bureau of Reclamationโ€™s latest forecast for the Colorado River predicts Lake Powell will โ€œmost probablyโ€ drop below the critical minimum power pool level before the end of this year, jeopardizing Glen Canyon Damโ€™s structural integrity. In the worst-case scenario, it would do so before summerโ€™s end. This could force the feds to operate the dam as a โ€œrun-of-the-riverโ€ operation to preserve the damโ€™s infrastructure and hydropower output, which would significantly diminish downstream flows and threaten Lower Basin water supplies.

Click the link to read the article on The Land Desk website (Jonathan P. Thompson):

February 16, 2026

Valentines Day wasnโ€™t so lovey-dovey on the Colorado River.

First, the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) released a grimmer-than-ever spring runoff forecast for the Colorado River and its two big reservoirs. Then the seven Colorado River Basin states announced that they once again had failed to reach an agreement on a plan to bring demand into line with diminishing supplies by the Feb. 14 deadline. While the states have blown by other deadlines since negotiations began in 2022, this time was different in that it triggered the federal government to move forward to impose a post-2026 management plan of its own.

On paper, the states still have until the end of the water year, or Oct. 1, to come up with a deal or to implement an alternate plan. But that may be too little too late to keep Lake Powellโ€™s surface level from dropping below minimum power pool โ€” otherwise known as de facto dead pool โ€” later this year. While the negotiations are over the Colorado River, or rather the water in the river, in many ways they pivot around the need to keep Lake Powellโ€™s surface level above 3,500 feet in elevation. That can only be done by releasing less water out of Glen Canyon Dam, or increasing flows into the reservoir, or a bit of both.

The sticking point in the negotiations hinges upon whether the Upper Basin states will take mandatory and verifiable cuts in water use. The Lower Basin states have already taken cuts, and have agreed to take more, but only if the Upper Basin does the same.

Theย Upper Basinย (aka the Headwaters states) points out that while the Lower Basin has maxed out and even exceeded its Colorado River Compact allocation of 7.5 million acre-feet per year, the Upper Basin hasnโ€™t even come close to using all of the water itโ€™s entitled to. Furthermore, Upper Basin water users, especially those with more junior water rights, have grappled with drastic reductions during dry years because the Upper Basin lacks large reservoirs for storing water, meaning their water use is dictated in large part by the riversโ€™ flows. In 2021, for example, many southwestern Colorado farms had their ditchesย cut off as early as June, forcing them to sit the season out.

The Lower Basin states long used their entire 7.5 MAF allocation and then some, while the Upper Basin states use only about 4 MAF per year. In recent years, Arizona and California have cut consumptive use. Source: Bureau of Reclamation.

Itโ€™s also far simpler logistically to reduce consumption in the Lower Basin, where huge water users are served by a handful ofย very large diversions, such as the Central Arizona Project canal (which carries water to Phoenix and Tucson), the All-American Canal (serving the Imperial Irrigation District โ€” the largest single water user on the entire river), and the California Aqueduct (serving Los Angeles and other cities), all of which are fed by Lake Mead and other reservoirs. Dialing back those three diversions alone could achieve the necessary water use reduction. The Upper Basin, on the other hand, pulls water from the river and its tributaries via hundreds of much smaller diversions; achieving meaningful cuts would require shutting off thousands of irrigation ditches to thousands of small water users under dubious authority. (ed. emphasis mine]

Also, proposals to divert and consume more of the Colorado Riverโ€™s water โ€” such as the Lake Powell pipeline โ€” remain on the table, albeit tenuously. If that project were to be realized, which is a big if these days, it would further drain Lake Powell and result in even less water flowing down to the Lower Basin.

The Imperial Irrigation District is the largest single water user on the Colorado River by far. Most of that water goes to irrigating agriculture, including a fair amount of alfalfa and other forage crops. Las Vegas uses about one-tenth the amount of water as the IID. Source: Bureau of Reclamation.

Environmental groups tend to side with the Lower Basin on this issue. If the Upper Basin is forced to pull less water from the river, it would leave more water for the river, riparian ecosystems along the river, and aquatic critters. The Upper Basinโ€™s proposal to release a percentage of the riverโ€™s โ€œnatural flowโ€ from Glen Canyon Dam wouldย leave less water in the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, possibly imperiling endangered fish and rafting.

Meanwhile, the statesโ€™ lack of consensus pushes Glen Canyon Dam closer to the brink of deadpool.

The BoRโ€™sย โ€œPost-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Meadโ€ย offers five alternative scenarios for how to run the river. While it doesnโ€™t give a โ€œpreferredโ€ alternative, officials have indicated that without all of the statesโ€™ approval or congressional action, they are only authorized to go with the Basic Coordination Alternative. That would include a minimum annual release of 7.0 million acre-feet from Glen Canyon Dam, with the largest mandatory cuts being borne by Arizona. But according to the BoRโ€™s latest 24 month projection, that release level would lead to Lake Powellโ€™s surface level dropping below minimum power pool by the end of this year, which is aย really big problem.

The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo. Annotations: Jonathan P. Thompson

Back in 2022, as climate change continued to diminish the Colorado Riverโ€™s flows and Lake Powell shrunk to alarmingly low levels, the damโ€™s operators were faced with the prospect of having to shut down the penstocks, or water intakes for the hydroelectric turbines, and only release water from the river outlets lower on the dam. Not only would this zero out electricity production from the dam, along with nixing up to $200 million in revenue from selling that power, it might also compromise the dam itself. โ€œGlen Canyon Dam was not envisioned to operate solely through the outworks for an extended period of time,โ€ wrote Tanya Trujillo, then-Interior Department assistant secretary for water and science, in 2022, โ€œand operating at this low lake level increases risks to water delivery and potential adverse impacts to downstream resources and infrastructure. โ€ฆ Glen Canyon Dam facilities face unprecedented operational reliability challenges.โ€

In March 2024, a BoR technical decision memorandum verified and clarified those risks, and recommended that dam operators โ€œnot rely on the river outlet works as the sole means for releasing water from Glen Canyon Dam.โ€

The only way to do that is to keep the water level above 3,490 feet in elevation, which could mean shifting Glen Canyon Dam to aย run of the river operationย โ€” where releases equal Lake Powell inflows minus evaporation and seepage โ€” as soon as this fall. That, most likely, will lead to annual releases far below 7 million acre-feet, which will then lead to Lake Meadโ€™s level being drawn down considerably as the Lower Basin states rely on existing storage to meet their needs, thereby threatening Lower Basin supplies. Such a scenario is clearly not sustainable, would put the Upper Basin states in violation of the Colorado River Compact1, and would almost certainly lead to litigation.

An irony here is that Glen Canyon Damโ€™s primary purpose is to allow the Upper Basin to store water during wet years and release it during dry years, enabling it to meet its Compact obligations. Hydropower, silt control, and recreation were secondary purposes. Now the need to preserve the dam could cause the Upper Basin to run afoul of the Compact. Aridification is rendering the dam obsolete, at least as a water storage savings account. Meanwhile, low levels are diminishing hydropower and recreation. It seems that soon, the damโ€™s main purpose will be to prevent Lake Mead from filling up with silt. [ed. emphasis mine]

Mother Nature, or Mother Megadrought, if you prefer, has left few options for moving forward. The states still could come to an agreement, but itโ€™s difficult to see how, given the long-running stalemate so far. The feds could reengineer Glen Canyon Dam to allow for sustained, low-water releases. That would only be a temporary fix, however, unless climatic trends reverse themselves and the West suddenly becomes much wetter and cooler. Somehow, that doesnโ€™t seem too likely.

๐Ÿฅต Aridification Watch ๐Ÿซ


Is all of this Colorado River talk a bit confusing? Do you find yourself lost in the water-wonk weeds? Yeah, me too.ย Thatโ€™s why I put together theย Land Deskโ€™sย Colorado River glossary and primer. Itโ€™s not behind the paywall yet, so even you free-riders can take a look for the next few days. Itโ€™s worth looking at even if you already received the email edition last month, because it is now updated with new terms and more graphics (it didnโ€™t all fit in the email version). Iโ€™ll keep updating it, too, as new questions about what it all means come up. And if youโ€™re not already, you should consider becoming a paid subscriber and break down the archive paywall, allowing you to read the whole list of analysis, commentary, and data dumps Iโ€™ve done on the Colorado River over the last five years.

A Colorado River glossary and primer — Jonathan P. Thompson


1 The Upper Basin and Lower Basin generally disagree on how to interpret the Colorado River Compactโ€™s provision dictating that the Upper Basin โ€œnot cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feetโ€ for any 10-year period. The Upper Basin sees it as a โ€œnon-depletion obligation,โ€ meaning they canโ€™t exceed their 7.5 MAF/year allocation if it causes the Lee Ferry flow to fall below a 7.5 MAF/year average. The Lower Basin believes itโ€™s a โ€œdelivery obligation,โ€ and that the Upper Basin must deliver 7.5 MAF/year no matter what. Which interpretation is correct determines whether run-of-the-river would violate the Compact or not.

The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)

#ColoradoRiver states fail to meet another federal deadline for a deal as disastrous reservoir levels loom: #LakePowell could fall beneath level needed for hydropower as soon as July, new projections show — The #Denver Post #COriver #aridification

The Government Highline Canal, near Grand Junction, delivers water from the Colorado River, and is managed by the Grand Valley Water Users Association. Prompted by concerns about outside investors speculating on Grand Valley water, the state convened a work group to study the issue. CREDIT: BRENT GARDNER-SMITH/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:

February 17, 2026

Negotiators from the seven states along the Colorado River blew pastย yet another federal deadlineย over the weekend without reaching a compromise on how to share its water โ€” even as this winterโ€™sย dismal snowpackย could spell immediate disaster for the river system.

Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map February 18, 2026.

Years-long discussions about how to split the riverโ€™s shrinking water supply, which is relied upon by 40 million people, remained deadlocked as the Saturday deadline for a final deal came and went. It was a deadline set by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The seven basin states are split into two factions that have not agreed on how to divvy up cuts to water supplies in dry years. The Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada lie downstream of Lakes Powell and Mead and rely on releases from those reservoirs for water. The Upper Basin states โ€” Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico โ€” are upstream of the reservoirs and primarily depend on mountain snowpack for their water supplies. Leaders from each basin pointed fingers at the other as the deadline passed. Lower Basin negotiators have repeatedly said that Upper Basin states must โ€œshare the painโ€ and take mandatory cuts in dry years, which have become increasingly common in recent decades. But the Upper Basin states say their water users already take cuts every year because their supplies depend on the amount of water available and are not propped up by supplies in Lakes Powell and Mead. Repeated overuse in the Lower Basin has drained the two reservoirs, theyโ€™ve argued.

โ€œWeโ€™re being asked to solve a problem we didnโ€™t create with water we donโ€™t have,โ€ Coloradoโ€™s negotiator, Becky Mitchell, said in a statement Friday. โ€œThe Upper Divisionโ€™s approach is aligned with hydrologic reality and weโ€™re ready to move forward.โ€

The Bureau of Reclamationโ€™s latest forecast for the Colorado River predicts Lake Powell will โ€œmost probablyโ€ drop below the critical minimum power pool level before the end of this year, jeopardizing Glen Canyon Damโ€™s structural integrity. In the worst-case scenario, it would do so before summerโ€™s end. This could force the feds to operate the dam as a โ€œrun-of-the-riverโ€ operation to preserve the damโ€™s infrastructure and hydropower output, which would significantly diminish downstream flows and threaten Lower Basin water supplies.

As political leaders unleashed a series of pointed statements Friday, the Bureau of Reclamationย released new projectionsย that show one of the river systemโ€™s major reservoirs could be in peril as soon as this summer. The bureauโ€™s new projections show that, if drought conditions remain dire, Lake Powell could fall so low by the end of July that water would no longer flow through Glen Canyon Damโ€™s hydropower system โ€”ย a level called โ€œdead pool.โ€ย Even if snow conditions improve, the reservoir could still reach dead pool in November โ€” a scenario the bureau dubbed its most probable outcome. Theย Colorado River District, an agency created by the Colorado legislature thatโ€™s based in Glenwood Springs and advocates for Western Slope water needs, said it was disappointing that Lower Basin negotiators walked away from discussions on the day the projections were released.

โ€œWith Lake Powell now quickly approaching dead pool, that decision reflects a continued disconnect from hydrologic reality and a clear refusal to confront the core problem: longstanding Lower Basin overuse,โ€ the district said Monday in a statement.

Snowpack across the mountains that feed the Colorado River remained dismal in early February. Above Lake Powell, snowpack on Feb. 1 sat at 47% of the median recorded for that time of year between 1991 and 2020. The water year โ€” which began Oct. 1 โ€” has so far featured record-setting warmth and limited precipitation,ย according to the National Weather Serviceโ€™sColorado Basin River Forecast Center. That could translate to water supplies at 38% of normal, according to the center. Current projections show inflow into Lake Powell will total a meager 2.4 million acre-feet โ€” far less than the 7.5 million acre-feet allocated to the Lower Basin in theย 1922 Colorado River Compact.

Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

Six under-reported factors contributing to the Aridification of the American West

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

While climate change and the general lack of precipitation are the most obvious causes of the aridification of the American West, there are other factors taking place in the background that are contributing to this process.

The ever-expanding shoreline of Utah's Great Salt Lake
The ever-expanding southwestern shoreline of Utah’s Great Salt Lake. Photo credit: Robert Marcos

Dust on Snow: Windblown dust from disturbed desert soils and dry lake bedsโ€”such as the Great Salt Lakeโ€”settles on mountain snowpacks. This “dark topcoat” reduces reflectivity (albedo), causing snow to absorb more solar heat and melt up to three to seven weeks earlier than clean snow. This premature runoff often reaches reservoirs when they are already full or when the ground is still too frozen for agricultural use, effectively wasting the “natural reservoir” of the snowpack.1

Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD): Often described as the “thirst of the atmosphere,” VPD measures the difference between the moisture in the air and how much it can hold. Higher temperatures exponentially increase this demand, sucking moisture directly out of soils and plants even when precipitation levels are normal. In recent years, this “atmospheric thirst” has accounted for roughly 61% of drought severity, outweighing the impact of reduced rainfall.2

Pacific Decadal Oscillation Stagnation: The “PDO” is a long-term ocean temperature pattern that typically flips every 20 years. Since the 1990s, it has remained stuck in a “negative phase,” which brings cooler water to the eastern Pacific and pushes moisture-bearing storms farther north, away from the Southwest. Recent research suggests this prolonged “stuck” phase may be driven by human-caused aerosol and greenhouse gas emissions.3

Soil and Vegetation Feedbacks: Aridification creates a self-reinforcing cycle. As soils dry out, they lose the cooling effect of evaporation, causing solar radiation to heat the ground and the air even further. Additionally, while higher CO2 levels can make plants more water-efficient, this gain is often offset by longer growing seasons and increased plant growth, which ultimately draws more total moisture from the soil through transpiration.4

Land Use and Soil Degradation: Intensive land uses, including livestock grazing and urbanization, remove protective vegetation and destabilize soil. This not only increases wind erosion (leading to more dust-on-snow events) but also reduces the soil’s ability to absorb and retain what little moisture does fall, intensifying the “baking” of the landscape.5

Invasive plants: Cheatgrass, tamarisk, and Russian olive are invasive plants most often named as contributors to the aridification of the American West. Cheatgrass transforms diverse, deepโ€‘rooted native shrubโ€“grass communities into shallowโ€‘rooted, flammable annual monocultures that dry and senesce early, it depletes shallow soil moisture sooner in the growing season, and dramatically increases fire frequency. It creates a cheatgrassโ€“wildfire feedback loop that repeatedly removes perennial vegetation, reduces soil organic matter and carbon storage, accelerates erosion, and leaves soils warmer, drier, and less able to retain water, so landscapes lose both plant cover and hydrologic function and effectively behave more like a hotter, drier, impoverished system even when longโ€‘term precipitation totals have not changed.6

A Seat at the Table: How a County Program Gives the Local Community and its Rivers a Voice — Lisa Tasker and Lisa MacDonaldย (Fresh Water News) #RoaringForkRiver

Click the link to read the article the Water Education Colorado website (Lisa Tasker and Lisa MacDonald):

February 5, 2026

Like much of the West, Coloradoโ€™s water future will be shaped by a warming climate, population growth, and subsequently increasing competition for finite supplies. In conversations about managing our coveted Colorado River headwater resources, it is easy to assume the most influential voices belong to the well-represented on the population-dense Front Range or the well-funded interests far downstream. Yet some of the most consequential water decisions play out in small mountain valleys, often with limited staff, limited funding, and limited political clout.

It was in that context, despite the Great Recession of 2008, that voters approved the creation of Pitkin County Healthy Rivers that November, a sales tax-funded program with a simple but ambitious mandate: protect and enhance the rivers and streams of the Western Slopeโ€™s Roaring Fork Watershed on behalf of the people and the environment.

What few imagined at the time was that this small, locally funded program would become such an effective way to ensure the people and their cherished rivers had a seat at the table in complex, high-stakes water discussions. A โ€œseatโ€ that is not symbolic; itโ€™s practical, persistent and sometimes uncomfortable. Because having local voices is not a luxury โ€” it is essential.

The Power of Showing Up

Healthy Riversโ€™ influence begins with showing up. Showing up ready to listen and engage, recognize partners and advance and fiscally sponsor new alliances, all while emphasizing local knowledge, data, and community-backed priorities. In basin-wide planning efforts, feasibility studies, and project negotiations, Healthy Rivers represents local, place-based interests that might otherwise get overshadowed by far more powerful players, be they up or downstream.

This has meant actively seeking valuable connections, therefore knowledge, daresay wisdom, with hopes of earning a voice that ensures headwaters perspectives are considered at these tables. Think Colorado Basin Roundtable, U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, local and nearby watershed groups, and other environmental non-profits. This outreach has led to critical partnerships and heightened transparency and inclusivity on many water matters. It has also meant supporting technical analyses and funding early-stage studies โ€” most recently for water-quality monitoring on Lincoln Creek, a tributary to the Roaring Fork โ€” so local conditions and risks are understood before decisions are made elsewhere.

And because our funding comes directly from local voters, Healthy Rivers advocates from the position of our constituents who overwhelmingly supported its creation. That matters in rooms where water is discussed in acre-feet and complex legal terms, often far removed from community-specific values. This has allowed Healthy Rivers to elevate community priorities in negotiations around watershed health, elevating environmental values like instream flows.

Small Programs, Real Influence

One misconception about many local programs is that they are too small to matter. In practice, Healthy Rivers has demonstrated that being nimble is an advantage. Healthy Riverโ€™s contributions are rarely flashy, but they have been catalytic, having a role in everything from diversion arbitration, instream flow protections, riparian habitat restoration, and water-quality monitoring.

It has done this by supporting projects like technical studies, restoration efforts, and infrastructure improvements that likely wouldnโ€™t have happened otherwise. And by convening unlikely partners, and stepping into conversations early, before positions harden and options narrow.

For example, Healthy Rivers helped support the pursuit of a Recreational In-Channel Diversion (RICD) on the Roaring Fork River, recognizing instream flow rights alongside recreation as legitimate, community-defining values worthy of legal protection. It is supporting a Wild & Scenic designation for the Crystal River, and investing in beaver-related studies in order to inform projects that restore wetlands, reconnect floodplains, and improve late-season flows.

Translating Complexity for Communities

Another core part of having a seat at the table is translation. Colorado water law, hydrology, and planning processes are famously complex. Without intentional effort, these processes can leave local communities feeling confused, disengaged, or shut out of decisions that directly shape their rivers.

Healthy Rivers sees its role as a bridge. It translates technical concepts into plain language, not to oversimplify, but to make participation possible. This has included helping residents understand what designations like โ€œWild & Scenicโ€ actually do โ€” and donโ€™t โ€” mean, or explaining how instream flow rights function alongside agricultural and municipal uses.

This two-way translation strengthens outcomes. Decision-makers gain local context. Communities gain confidence. And water decisions become more durable because they reflect shared understanding, not just legal compliance.

Collaboration Over Confrontation

A seat at the table does not guarantee agreement. Some of the most meaningful work Healthy Rivers does happens in moments of tension, usually when water supply, ecological health, recreation, and private property interests collide.

Our approach is rooted in collaboration, not advocacy for advocacyโ€™s sake. That means listening carefully, acknowledging tradeoffs, and being honest about constraints. But it also means pushing back when local values are at risk of being overlooked. In projects like renovating the Sam Caudill State Wildlife Area, Healthy Rivers worked alongside CPW, Garfield County, and development partners to balance recreation access, public safety, and river protection, demonstrating how infrastructure investments can serve both people and rivers.

Lessons for Other Communities

This role requires patience. Water decisions typically move slowly, and progress often comes in inches rather than miles. And in a basin as complex as the Colorado River system, no one wins by going it alone. Our experience has reinforced a simple truth: collaboration works best when local voices are present early and consistently, not as an afterthought.

While not every community can replicate Pitkin Countyโ€™s funding model, the underlying principles are transferable:

  • Local funding creates legitimacy. Voter-backed programs carry weight because they represent collective priorities.
  • Consistency builds trust. Showing up over time and building long term relationships matters.
  • Data and stories belong together. Technical rigor and real-world experience are stronger together than apart.
  • Early engagement saves time later. Investing upstream โ€” literally and figuratively โ€” reduces conflict downstream.

Healthy Rivers exists to ensure that when decisions are made about the Roaring Fork Watershed, the people who know and love these rivers are part of the conversation. That seat at the table does not guarantee outcomes, but it guarantees presence. And in water, as in so many things, presence is power.

Roaring Fork River back in the day

Historic valve replacement underway at Blue Mesa Dam: $32 Million Project Ensures Reliable Water Delivery and Hydropower for the future — USBR #GunnisonRiver

In the 1950s, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation built the Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and Crystal dams west of Gunnison as part of the massive regional Colorado River Storage Project. The Bureau of Reclamation is currently in the process of replacing all four original valves at Blue Mesa Dam for the first time. (Photos/National Park Service)

Click the link to read the release on the Reclamation website:

February 12, 2026

 For the first time since its completion in 1966, the Bureau of Reclamation is replacing all four original valves at Blue Mesa Dam, the largest of the three dams that make up the Aspinall Unit on the Gunnison River. This multi-year, $32 million federally funded project is a major milestone in ensuring the reliability and safety of one of Coloradoโ€™s most important water and power facilities.

Standing 390 feet tall, Blue Mesa Dam creates Blue Mesa Reservoir, the largest body of water in Colorado, with a capacity of nearly 941,000 acre-feet. Together with Morrow Point and Crystal dams, the Aspinall Unit provides water storage, flood control and hydropower generation. Blue Mesaโ€™s power plant alone produces 86 megawatts of electricity, helping power homes and businesses across the region.

Crews help guide the removed ring follower gate to a flatbed truck so it can be transported to California for refurbishment. Reclamation photo

The project will replace two ring follower gate valves and two butterfly valves, critical components that control how water moves through Blue Mesa Dam.

  • Ring follower gates, located in the damโ€™s outlet works, allow water to bypass the turbines during maintenance or emergencies, ensuring uninterrupted flows to the Gunnison River.
  • Butterfly valves, located inside the penstocks, act as flow-control and isolation devices for water entering the turbines to generate hydropower.

Work began in January with the removal of the first ring follower gate, a massive assembly measuring 18 feet long by 7 feet wide and weighing about 14 tons. The hydraulic hoist system adds another 12 tons. Before safely removing the gate, crews first installed a blind flange, a heavy steel plate that temporarily seals the opening and holds back water.

The gate and its components are now in California for refurbishment and will return for installation in August. Later this fall, once irrigation demands ease, the blind flange will be removed and normal operations restored. After this first gate is complete, crews will move on to the second ring follower gate, followed by the two butterfly valves.

โ€œThis work is complex,โ€ said Blue Mesa Plant Supervisor Eric Langely. โ€œWe must maintain minimum river flows downstream, avoid disruptions at Morrow Point and Crystal dams, and manage drought-related constraintsโ€”all while working inside a dam built nearly 60 years ago.โ€

The project is being led by a skilled team of Reclamation engineers, plant operators, and technical specialists. Their expertise ensures this upgrade will keep Blue Mesa Dam operating safely and efficiently for decades to come.

Crews weld the temporary blind flange into place inside Blue Mesaโ€™s penstock. Courtesy photo/USBR)

#Snowpack news February 17, 2026

Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map February 16, 2026.
Colorado SNOTEL basin-filled map February 16, 2026.

Seasonal #snowpack update — Becky Bolinger (ClimateBecky.com) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Climate Becky website (Becky Bolinger):

February 16, 2026

A multi-day storm system is dropping big totals across the western U.S. this week. The Sierra Nevadas are likely to get over 3 feet of new snow, while the Interior Rockies and Cascades will see between 1-2 feet.

72-hour snowfall forecast for the western U.S., as of February 16, 2026. Map from the Weather Prediction Center.

This storm is a welcome relief for many drought-stricken areas, especially given the near record low snowpack so far this season. NRCS snowpack is below to well-below average for most of the west. A startling number of SNOTEL sites in Colorado and Utah are reporting levels below the 5th percentile (meaning they are drier than 95% of historical records for this date).

Current snowpack conditions across the western U.S. as of February 16, 2026. Map from NRCS SNOTEL.

At the Colorado Headwaters, snowpack is record low for this time of year. With only 56 days to go till normal peak snowpack, new accumulations would have to be record-breaking to get the basin to near-average levels. A much below average peak and early melt are much more likely. This has major implications for water supply, agriculture, and wildfire risk across the region.

Projected peak snowpack for the Colorado Headwaters, as of February 17, 2026. Data from NRCS.

These concerningly low snowpack accumulations are evident in the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center’s water supply forecasts. The April-July runoff forecast for Lake Powell (the Upper Colorado River Basin’s largest reservoir) is 38% of average, about a 4-million acre-foot deficit.

April-July runoff forecast for Lake Powell. Official forecast values from February 1, 2026. Data from the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center.

While we can expect snowpack and forecasted runoff to improve with the current storm, the overall outlook for the season remains concerning. Additional late season snows and colder temperatures could minimize further deteriorating conditions and the risk of large wildfires this summer. Stay tuned over the next couple of months!

Accelerated #GlobalWarming Could Lock #Earth Into a Hothouse Future: Scientists say warming is increasing faster than at any time in at least 3 million years. There is no guide for what comes next — Bob Berwyn (InsideClimateNews.com)

Climate tipping points are key thresholds in Earth systems like oceans, ice sheets, and forests, where warming can push the climate into a new state. Once crossed, these changes can be hard to reverse and can start a chain reaction that affects ecosystems, weather extremes and the global climate. Credit: ESA

Click the link to read the article on the Inside Climate News website (Bob Berwyn):

February 11, 2026

If you think of Earthโ€™s climate system as a backyard swing thatโ€™s been gently swaying for millennia, then human-caused global warming is like a sudden shove strong enough to disrupt the usual arc and buckle the chains.

And if humans keep heating the planet with greenhouse gas pollution, the climate swing could lock Earth into a hothouse trajectory, as parts of the system feed on their own momentum, even if emissions are reduced later, an international team of scientists warned Wednesday in a new paperpublished in the journal One Earth. 

Their analysis covers 16 key Earth systems, including oceans, ice sheets and forests, that are likely to destabilize if the planet continues to warm. If large parts of the Amazon rainforest and tropical coral reefs die, they absorb less carbon dioxide, triggering a dangerous chain reaction of warming.

If Earthโ€™s climate starts on a hothouse trajectory, it would represent a โ€œglobal tipping pointโ€ as the heating sustains itself even if greenhouse gas emissions drop, said lead author William Ripple, a distinguished professor of ecology at Oregon State University and a leading researcher on climate tipping points.

In the backyard, thatโ€™s the moment when the push is so hard that the swing hesitates at the top, just long enough to show that the ride may not be under control anymore and the chains are being tested.

โ€œWhat typically took thousands of years is now happening in decades,โ€ Ripple said, adding that human-caused warming is already nudging the climate system out of 11,000 years of relative stability with good conditions for farming and societal development.

Earth could be entering a period of unprecedented climate change on a one-way trajectory, in which processes such as ice-sheet collapse can continue even if the average global temperature is stabilized, he said.

In a new paper, William Ripple, an ecologist and climate researcher at Oregon State University, warns that human-caused warming could put Earth on a hothouse trajectory. Credit: Courtesy of William Ripple

Recent observations suggest that the climate may be responding more strongly than some models predicted, Ripple added. โ€œWe are concerned that policymakers and the public may not yet be aware of these recent developments.โ€

In late January, another group of leading climate scientists urged policymakers to adopt a climate goal of limiting human-caused warming to 1 degree Celsius above the pre-fossil fuel era, which is more ambitious than the 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius target set in the Paris Agreement. Theyโ€™ve also recently reported that Earth is losing its reflective sheen, which amplifies warming, and that key ocean currents are changing in ways that destabilize the entire global climate system. 

But itโ€™s not clear if the scientific warnings are making a difference in โ€œa post-truth era in which too many people prefer pleasant lies over unpleasant truths,โ€ said Reinhard Steurer, a professor of climate policy and governance at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna who studies how climate science and policy interact. He said that new studies outlining disastrous scenarios are unlikely to have much impact in the current political climate, but that researchers should keep speaking out, and not surrender to โ€œtechno illusions or hopium.โ€

The authors of the new paper stressed that a self-sustaining hothouse trajectory is not the same as a Hothouse Earth state, which would be when the global climate rebalances at a much hotter average temperature.

No Good Analog Climates

Instead of offering a single new climate forecast, the paper synthesizes decades of research revealing how different parts of the climate system influence one another. When one part of the system is destabilized, they wrote, it can amplify stress in others, pushing the planet along a self-reinforcing warming pathway. 

Earth has had hothouse climates in the ancient geological past. But the authors of the new paper said there may not be a parallel to whatโ€™s happening now, at least not during the past 3 million years, co-author Johan Rockstrรถm, co-director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said via email. 

That amount of warming goes beyond current expectations and would devastate ecosystems and communities globally. Many other current climate projections suggest that, under current policies, warming would level off somewhere between 2.7 and 3 degrees Celsius.

Human-caused warming is happening much faster than any other warming documented in the paleoclimate record, and itโ€™s also unprecedented because itโ€™s driven by a single dominant force, Rockstrรถm added: human greenhouse gas emissions. Under these conditions, research has documented that Earth is already losing some of the natural buffers that dampened climate swings in recent millennia.

โ€œWe now see worrying signs that the Earth system is losing resilience,โ€ Rockstrรถm said. Recent extremes, he added, are a sign that the climate system โ€œmay respond more strongly to the same amount of warming than it did before.โ€

#ColoradoRiver states tell feds ‘no deal’ on water shortage plan — AZCentral.com #COriver #aridification

Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral.com website (Branson Loomis). Here’s an excerpt:

February 13, 2026

Key Points

  • The seven Colorado River Basins states failed to reach a shortage-sharing agreement in time for a Feb. 14 deadline set by the federal government.
  • State officials say negotiations have yielded “almost no headway” toward a compromise over who will give up water.
  • The Interior Department has said it will impose its own plan, but that prospect could trigger a lengthy legal battle as states move to protect their water allocations.

The prospect of a costly and prolonged interstate lawsuit over rights to the Colorado River looms now that the states using the water are blowing past a Valentineโ€™s Day deadline with no water-sharing deal in hand. With no agreement among the states, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the federal government could no longer delay action andย would move forwardย with work onย a set of alternativesย outlined late last year.

โ€œNegotiation efforts have been productive,” Burgum said in a statement Feb. 14. “We have listened to every stateโ€™s perspective and have narrowed the discussion by identifying key elements and issues necessary for an agreement. We believe that a fair compromise with shared responsibility remains within reach.”

[…]

The dispute has largely hinged on whether states in the headwaters region would agree to mandatory cuts [ed. no one has the authority to order mandatory cuts in Colorado and likely in the entire upper basin] to their overall supply in especially dry years โ€” a commitment they have so far rejected in part because they do not use their full allocation as the more developed Southwest does…

“As I talk with people throughout Southern Nevada, I hear their frustration that years of negotiations have yielded almost no headway in finding a path through these turbulent waters. As someone who has spent countless nights and weekends away from my family trying to craft a reasonable, mutually acceptable solution only to be confronted by the same tired rhetoric and entrenched positions,” [John] Entsminger said, “I share that frustration.”

Feds will finalize operating guidelines for #ColoradoRiver reservoirs: The seven compact states failed to meet a February 14th deadline for agreement on how to reduce their own usage of water to save the river — AlamosaCitizen.com #COriver #aridification

The Colorado River passes through the Grand Canyon in Arizona. Credit: USGS

Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website:

February 15, 2026

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has released a February 24-month study showing inflow to Lake Powell declining by 1.5 million acre-feet since January as the federal agency highlights the worsening hydrologic conditions across the Colorado River Basin.

The study of the most probable forecast for the Colorado River under current conditions was released on Friday, just as the seven compact states remained at a stalemate and failed to meet a Feb. 14 deadline for agreement on how to reduce their own usage of water to save the river.

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced on Saturday, Feb. 14, that the federal government is moving forward with finalizing operating guidelines for the Colorado River reservoirs by Oct. 1. His announcement adds pressure to Colorado and the other compact states to find compromise or face guidelines forced onto them by the federal government. 

โ€œWhile the seven Basin States have not reached full consensus on an operating framework, the Department cannot delay action,โ€ the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said in its announcement that the federal government was moving forward.

Colorado River Basin. Credit: USGS

The lack of agreement among the compact states and the idea of federal intervention raises the prospect of litigation that would be drawn out and ultimately end with the U.S. Supreme Court. The current Rio Grande Compact dispute between Texas and New Mexico that has taken 12 years to reach a proposed settlement, now filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, gives an indication to the slow-evolving nature of U.S. water law.

โ€œI am disappointed that the seven Basin States could not reach a consensus agreement on the future management of the Colorado River by the U.S. Department of the Interiorโ€™s Feb. 14 deadline,โ€ said Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who added that Colorado is prepared for litigation to protect Coloradoโ€™s rights and interests.

โ€œColorado will continue to work with our fellow Upper Division States to provide comments on the federal governmentโ€™s draft environmental impact statement, which sets forth a range of possible solutions. The Upper Division States will have to cut back their usage of water from the Colorado River โ€” by 40 percent or more โ€” in the face of an historic drought,โ€ he said.

U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper said the low snowpack this winter is adding an exclamation point to the dire conditions of the Colorado River Basin. โ€œIf we donโ€™t address this problem together โ€” head-on and fast โ€” our communities, farms, and economies will suffer,โ€ Hickenlooper said.

โ€œThe best path forward is the one we take together. Litigation wonโ€™t solve the problem of this long-term aridification. No one knows for sure how the courts could decide and the math will only get worse.โ€

BLMโ€™s February 24-month study shows a loss of 1.5 million acre-feet is equivalent to approximately 50 feet in elevation in Lake Powell.

โ€œThe basinโ€™s poor hydrologic outlook highlights the necessity for collaboration as the Basin States, in collaboration with Reclamation, work on developing the next set of operating guidelines for the Colorado River system,โ€ said Acting BLM Commissioner Scott Cameron. โ€œAvailable tools will be utilized and coordination with partners will be essential this year to manage the reservoirs and protect infrastructure.โ€

The water year inflow is now estimated at just 52 percent of average, and as a result, the February 24-Month Study projects, for the first time, that Lake Powell could decline (based on most probable projections) to:

โ€œThe basinโ€™s poor hydrologic outlook highlights the necessity for collaboration as the Basin States, in collaboration with Reclamation, work on developing the next set of operating guidelines for the Colorado River system,โ€ said Acting BLM Commissioner Scott Cameron. โ€œAvailable tools will be utilized and coordination with partners will be essential this year to manage the reservoirs and protect infrastructure.โ€

The water year inflow is now estimated at just 52 percent of average, and as a result, the February 24-Month Study projects, for the first time, that Lake Powell could decline (based on most probable projections) to:

3,490 ft โ€“ minimum power pool in December 2026; below this level Glen Canyon Damโ€™s ability to release water is reduced and it can no longer produce hydropower.

3,476 ft โ€“ in March 2027; the lowest elevation on record since filling further constraining the ability to release water from Glen Canyon Dam.

Colorado River managers estimate that around 4 million acre-feet of cuts are needed to bring the basin back into balance โ€“ an amount equal to more than a quarter of the Colorado Riverโ€™s annual average flow.

โ€œThere needs to be unbelievably harsh, unprecedented cuts,โ€ Brad Udall, a senior water and climate research scientist at the Colorado Water Center, told The Guardian media outlet.

 โ€œMother Nature is not going to bail us out,โ€ Udall said.

Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall

Flows in the Colorado River are down 20 percent over the last century and precipitation has shrunk by about 7 percent with rising temperatures as aridification takes hold across the southwest. 

โ€œThe chickens are coming home to roost,โ€ Udall said. โ€œClimate models have underestimated how much warming we are going to get, and humans are not stepping up.โ€

Jack Schmidt, director of the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University, likened the negotiations among the seven compact states to the final scene in โ€œThelma and Louise.โ€ โ€œSeven people have their hands on the steering wheel driving toward the edge of a cliff โ€” and no one is working the brakes,โ€ he reportedly said.

Fossil Point | Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Interior Department moves forward on guidelines for #ColoradoRiver absent full state consensus — USBR #COriver #aridification

Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall

Click the link to read the release on the Reclamation website:

February 14, 2026

The Department of the Interior is moving forward with the Post-2026 NEPA process to finalize operating guidelines for Colorado River reservoirs by Oct. 1, 2026. While the seven Basin States have not reached full consensus on an operating framework, the Department cannot delay action. Meeting this deadline is essential to ensure certainty and stability for the Colorado River system beyond 2026.

โ€œNegotiation efforts have been productive; we have listened to every stateโ€™s perspective and have narrowed the discussion by identifying key elements and issues necessary for an agreement. We believe that a fair compromise with shared responsibility remains within reach,โ€ said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. โ€œI want to thank the governors of the seven Basin States for their constructive engagement and commitment to collaboration. We remain dedicated to working with them and their representatives to identify shared solutions and reduce litigation risk. Additionally, we will continue consultations with Tribal Nations and coordinate with Mexico to ensure we are prepared for Water Year 2027.โ€

Prolonged drought conditions over the past 25 years and the most recent forecast showing inflow to Lake Powell declining by 1.5 million acre-feet since January underscore the ongoing challenges. The inflow reduction could result in Lake Powell dropping to an extremely low level, threatening water delivery and power generation.

The Colorado River is managed and operated under compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts and guidelines known collectively as the โ€œLaw of the River.โ€ This apportions the water and regulates the use and management of the river among the seven Basin States โ€“ Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming โ€“ and Mexico. The Colorado River Compact is the cornerstone of the โ€œLaw of the River.โ€ The 1944 Treaty with Mexico governs the sharing of the Colorado River between the two nations. 

The Colorado River is a vital resource as it provides economic stability and enhances the quality of life across the basin. The river:

  • provides water to approximately 40 million people for municipal use.ย 
  • supports the generation of hydroelectric energy, producing more than 8 billion kilowatt-hours annually powering the needs of approximately 700,000 homes.
  • sustains 5.5 million acres of farmland and agricultural communities where a significant share of the fruit and vegetables consumed in the United States are grown.ย 
  • serves as a vital resource for 30 Tribal Nations and two Mexican states.
  • supports seven National Wildlife Refuges, four National Recreation Areas, and 11 National Parks.ย 

The Post-2026 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead is available for public review, and comments are being accepted until March 2, 2026. Reclamation has hosted two public meetings and is consulting with Basin tribes to discuss the draft EIS. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared to evaluate the impacts of a range of operational alternatives to inform the Secretaryโ€™s decision on operations beginning on Oct. 1, 2026. 

โ€œThrough collaboration among the Department and Reclamation, states, Tribal Nations, Mexico and other key partners, we can create more opportunities for innovation and develop stronger tools to address drought and growing water demands,โ€ said Assistant Secretary – Water and Science Andrea Travnicek. โ€œWorking together ensures that we combine expertise and resources to build solutions that benefit everyone and secure the future of the Colorado River.โ€

To learn more about this initiative, please visit the Colorado River Post-2026 website.

Colorado River Post 2026 Website

John Leary, RiversEdge West, and the White River Partnership

John Leary, Senior Restoration & GIS Project Manager at RiversEdge West.

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

I met John Leary in the parking lot of a Tractor Supply in Rangely Colorado. There was something about the vehicles in that lot that made me think it might not be the best place to park a Toyota Yaris with California plates, so I parked around the corner, then moved my video gear into the back of John’s white utility truck.

John is a Senior Restoration & GIS Project Manager at RiversEdge West, a non-profit organization that’s leading the White River Partnership – a coalition of public, private, and nonprofit entities that are working to conserve and to restore riparian ecosystems along the White River and its tributaries.1

John had volunteered to show me some of the restoration work he and his teams had been doing on the riverbanks west of Rangely. The river had officially been designed as being “over-appropriated” in 2025. When a river is classified as being over-appropriated, it means that the total amount of water legally promised to water rights holders exceeds the supply of water that’s available in the river system at some or all times of the year.2 The designation acts as a formal recognition of water scarcity, where the demand for water is higher than the supply, often exacerbated by drought, climate change, and increased development.

John and his teams were working to reduce the number of invasive tamarisk and Russian olive trees that had crowded the White River’s banks, at the expense of wildlife and native vegetation like willows and cottonwoods. One of the methods John and his teams used was the application of tamarisk beetles. Tamarisk beetles originated in Eurasia – specifically central Asia, China, Kazakhstan, Greece, Uzbekistan, and Tunisia, and were introduced to North America as a biological control agent for invasive tamarisks. The beetles defoliate tamarisk trees by feeding on their leaves and on new growth, until the trees either weaken or die altogether.3

Since their introduction tamarisk beetles have spread across the Western U.S., including Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and even parts of Arizona, and in some areas have resulted in an 80% mortality rate for the invasive tamarisks.4 This removal method sounds better than what I witnessed in California’s Coachella Valley, where miles of tamarisk trees had been intentionally burned by the Southern Pacific Railroad – which planted the trees in the early 1900s to keep sand off their railroad tracks.5

John Leary showing young native cottonwoods that are growing in an area previously occupied by tamarisks. Video link.

John and I drove west along the river and then finally parked. We hiked to a spot where John showed me a stand of native cottonwoods had sprouted up after his team removed tamarisks which had previously occupied that area. During the interview I filmed with John he repeatedly credited RiversEdge West and their partners in the White River Partnership, which included the Bureau of Land Management, Canyon Country Discovery Center, Colorado Northwestern Community College, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Town of Meeker, Colorado,Town of Rangely, CO, Uintah County Utah, Utah Conservation Corps, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah State University, Western Colorado Conservation Corps, the White River Alliance, and most importantly many ranchers and private land owners who supported the restoration efforts being carried out on their own riverfront property.6

February 2026 Most Probable 24-Month Study — USBR #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Western U.S. streamflow forecast February 14, 2026. Map credit: Colorado Basin River Forecast Center

Click the link to read the release on the USBR website:

Here’s the full package.

February 13, 2026

The operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead in the February 2026 24-Month Study is pursuant to the December 2007 Record of Decision on Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead (Interim Guidelines),1ย the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Near-term Colorado River Operations Record of Decision (2024 Interim Guidelines SEIS ROD),2ย and reflects the 2026 Annual Operating Plan (AOP). Pursuant to the Interim Guidelines, the August 2025 24-Month Study projections of the January 1, 2026, system storage and reservoir water surface elevations set the operational tier for the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead during 2026.

The August 2025 24-Month Study projected the January 1, 2026, Lake Powell elevation to be less than 3,575 feet and at or above 3,525 feet and the Lake Mead elevation to be at or above 1,025 feet. Consistent with Section 6.C.1 of the Interim Guidelines, and Section 6.E of the 2024 Interim Guidelines SEIS ROD, the operational tier for Lake Powell in water year (WY) 2026 is the Mid-Elevation Release Tier and the water year release volume from Lake Powell is projected to be 7.48 million acre feet (maf). To protect a target elevation at Lake Powell of 3,525 feet, adjustments to Glen Canyon Dam monthly volume releases have been incorporated into the December 2025 24-Month Study and include an adjusted monthly

release volume pattern for Glen Canyon Dam that will hold back a total of 0.598 maf in Lake Powell from December 2025 through April 2026. 3ย That same amount of water (0.598 maf) will be released later in the water year. Given the hydrologic variability of the Colorado River System, the actual WY 2026 operations, and being consistent with Section 6.E of the 2024 Interim Guidelines SEIS ROD, the projected release from Lake Powell in WY 2026 may be less than 7.48 maf. Consistent with Section 6.E of the 2024 Interim Guidelines SEIS ROD, Reclamation will consider all tools that are available during the interim period to avoid Lake Powell elevation declining below 3,500 feet. The August 2025 24-Month Study projected the January 1, 2026, Lake Mead elevation to be below 1,075 feet and above 1,050 feet. Consistent with Section 2.D.1 of the Interim Guidelines, a Shortage Condition consistent with Section 2.D.1.a will govern the operation of Lake Mead for calendar year (CY) 2026. In addition, Section III.B of Exhibit 1 to the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) Agreement will also govern the operation of Lake Mead for CY 2026. Lower Basin projections for Lake Mead take into consideration additional conservation efforts under the LC Conservation Program.

Current runoff projections into Lake Powell are provided by the National Weather Serviceโ€™s Colorado Basin River Forecast Center. The observed unregulated inflow into Lake Powell for the month of January was 0.265 maf or 79% of the 30-year average from 1991 to 2020. The February 2026 unregulated inflow forecast for Lake Powell is 0.260 maf or 71% of the 30-year average. The 2026 April through July unregulated inflow forecast for Lake Powell is 2.40 maf or 38% of average. The WY 2026 unregulated inflow forecast for Lake Powell is 5.02 maf or 52% of average.

Due to changing Lake Mead elevations, Hooverโ€™s generator capacity is adjusted based on estimated effective capacity and plant availability. The estimated effective capacity is based on projected Lake Mead elevations. Unit capacity tests will be performed as the lake elevation changes. This study reflects these changes in the projections.

For questions on Upper Colorado River Basin (UCB) reservoir operations, please contact Alex Pivarnik, the UCB River Operations Group Supervisor atย apivarnik@usbr.gov. For questions on Lower Colorado River Basin (LCB) reservoir operations, please contact Noe Santos, the LCB River Operations Manager atย nsantos@usbr.gov.

Hoover, Davis, and Parker Dam historical gross energy figures come from Power, Operations, and Maintenance reports provided by the Lower Colorado Regionโ€™s Power Office,

Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada. Questions regarding these historical energy numbers can be directed to Rebecca Rogers (rrogers@usbr.gov) or Kyra Cubi(kcubi@usbr.gov).


1 For modeling purposes, simulated years beyond 2026 assume a continuation of the 2007 Interim Guidelines including the 2024 Supplement to the 2007 Interim Guidelines (no additional SEIS conservation is assumed to occur after 2026), the 2019 Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plans, and Minute 323 including the Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan. With the exception of certain provisions related to Intentionally Created Surplus recovery and Upper Basin demand management, operations under these agreements are in effect through 2026. Reclamation initiated the process to develop operations for post-2026 in June 2023, and the modeling assumptions described here are subject to change.

2 2024 Interim Guidelines SEIS ROD is available online at: https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/NearTermColoradoRiverOperations/20240507-Near-termColoradoRiverOperations-SEIS-RecordofDecision-signed_508.pdf.

3 Consistent with the Drought Response Operating Agreement and Framework.

References

The 2026 Annual Operating Plan is available online at: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/aop/AOP26.pdf.

The Interim Guidelines are available online at: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf.

The Colorado River Drought Contingency Plans are available online at: https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/dcp/finaldocs.html.

The Upper Basin Hydrology Summary is available online at: https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/studies/24Month_02_ucb.pdf.

Information on the LCB Conservation Program is available online at: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/LCBConservation.html.

Information on the 2024 Interim Guidelines SEIS ROD is available online at: https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/interimguidelines/seis/index.html.

Information on reservoir inflow observations and forecasts is available online at: https://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/product/hydrofcst/hydrofcst.php

ten tribes
Graphic via Holly McClelland/High Country News.

Unpacking the Controversy over Glen Canyon Dam’s “River Outlet Works”

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

The controversy surrounding Glen Canyon Dam’s River Outlet Works (ROW) centers on a critical design vulnerability: the dam may soon be unable to reliably release water if Lake Powell drops below the minimum power pool (3,490 feet). 1

Aerial photo of the Glen Canyon Dam near Page, Arizona. Photo by Alexander Heilner/The Water Desk, with aerial support by LightHawk.

While the dam usually releases water through high-elevation penstocks to generate hydropower, the ROWโ€”four 8-foot-wide steel pipesโ€”is the only way to move water once levels drop too low for the turbines. Recent inspections by the Bureau of Reclamation revealed significant damage to these pipes, including cavitationโ€”a process where high-velocity water creates vapor bubbles that implode, eroding the steel.2

Reliability Gap: The ROW was designed for temporary use (e.g., flood control), not for the continuous, long-term operation that a “dead pool” scenario would require. A March 2024 memo from the Bureau of Reclamation warned that they should not be relied upon as the sole means of sustained water delivery.3

Legal & Economic Threat: If the ROW fails or its capacity is restricted to prevent further damage, the Upper Basin states may be unable to meet their legal obligation to deliver water to 30 million people in the Lower Basin (Arizona, Nevada, California).4

Safety Buffer: Due to the damage, the Bureau recently determined they can only safely operate the ROW at levels at least 24 feet above dead pool (3,370 feet), effectively raising the “failure point” of the dam’s plumbing.5

Proposed Fixes: Environmental groups, such as the Utah Rivers Council, advocate for drilling new, lower-level bypass tunnels around the dam to ensure water can flow even at riverbed levels. However, these modifications are costly and could take over a decade to implement.6

#Snowpack woes add pressure and urgency to sluggish #ColoradoRiver negotiations — Scott Franz (KUNC.org) #COriver #aridification

Meadows in north Routt County, Colorado, were bare in spots on Feb. 9 after a slow start to this winter’s snowpack. Scott Franz/KUNC

Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Scott Franz):

February 13, 2026

This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.

Jay Fetcher and other ranchers in northwest Colorado measure snowpack each winter using their barbed wire stock fences.

A healthy level is called a three wire winter, when the snow piles up past the third wire above the ground. But on Feb. 9, the region was experiencing a zero wire winter.

โ€œWe just have no snow, and I have never seen it, in my 75 years here, I have never seen this,โ€ Fetcher said Monday as he navigated patches of mud on his ranch in the Elk River valley north of Steamboat Springs.

Jay Fetcher poses on his ranch in northwest Colorado on Feb. 9. Low snowpack is adding pressure to negotiations on how to conserve the dwindling Colorado River. Scott Franz/KUNC

Many of the hills and meadows surrounding his ranch were brown and bare. The thermostat on Fetcherโ€™s truck read 50 degrees, and the last patch of snow was melting fast off the roof of a barn.

This year, Fetcherโ€™s ranch is on the frontlines of record-low snowpack across the West that is adding a sense of urgency among seven states to finalize a plan for how to conserve the dwindling Colorado River.

The snow in the nearby Zirkel wilderness melts into the Elk River and irrigates Fetcherโ€™s fields before the water eventually joins the Colorado River and flows to millions of people downstream.

But things have been changing near Fetcherโ€™s ranch over the past decade, and it could have implications for states competing for the water supply.

Since 1951, the Fetchers have tracked how long the snow stays on their meadows by marking the date in a little red journal. The data shows the snow is melting sooner in the valley.

โ€œIn the past 10 years, the snow leaving the meadow has moved up by 12 days,โ€ he said. โ€œThis winter is a real indication of climate change, with bare meadows in the middle of February. I mean, what date am I going to write down for (when) snow left the meadow this year? Did it ever come?โ€

Jay Fetcher walks through a barn door on his ranch in Routt County, Colorado. Scott Franz/KUNC

The dwindling water supply in the Colorado River basin is driving intense negotiations among the seven states over how to share it in the future. Some forecasts predict water levels at Lake Powell could get so low this year that its dam would stop producing electricity. States have until Saturday to come to an agreement and the pressure has been building.

If they donโ€™t, they might end up fighting each other in the Supreme Court.

Downstream states, including California and Arizona, say Colorado and states in the upper basin should pitch in with mandatory water restrictions during dry years.

But leaders in the Rocky Mountains are digging in.

They say ranchers and cities are already enacting conservation plans, and more cuts should not be forced on them.

โ€œIf we don’t choose how to live within the river’s limits, the river will choose it for us, and she will not be gentle,โ€ Becky Mitchell, Coloradoโ€™s top river negotiator, said in a speech to a water conference in January. โ€œOperations (of the riverโ€™s reservoirs) must be supply based, not demand based, not entitlement justified, and not built on a hope that the next big year will save us.โ€

Negotiators in the lower basin are calling for compromise. J.B. Hamby is Californiaโ€™s water negotiator.

โ€œItโ€™s going to take everyone chipping in and making the necessary (water) reductions to balance the supply with the demand we have moving forward,โ€ he said during a speech last month.

The Yampa River in downtown Steamboat Springs was mostly ice free on Feb. 9 as temperatures rose above 50 degrees. Scott Franz/KUNC

Sitting on a patio on his ranch in northwest Colorado, Fetcher said Monday heโ€™s not confident the lower and upper basins will resolve their differences anytime soon.

He said heโ€™s willing to donate some water he doesnโ€™t use each year downstream to California, but under current regulations, he would risk losing his water rights under a โ€˜use it or lose itโ€™ system.

โ€œI know that we will be able to irrigate these meadows just fine, because of our water rights, because of where we are, because of the ranch being on the Elk River. So from a personal standpoint, I’m okay with it,โ€ he said. โ€œThe challenging question is, what happens with the lower basin? They’re just going to have to think about how to get by with less water and not have so many golf courses out there.โ€

The deadline for the seven states to agree on a long-term plan for how to conserve the Colorado River is Saturday.

Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map February 12, 2026.

#Drought news February 13, 2026: Some locations in western #Colorado show Snow Water Equivalent values in the lowest 15th percentile, with numerous locations in the single digits for this time of year #snowpack

Click on a thumbnail graphic to view a gallery of drought data from the US Drought Monitor website.

Click the link to go to the US Drought Monitor website. Here’s an excerpt:

This Week’s Drought Summary

The Lower 48 states and Alaska only saw degradations this week. There was a strong east-to-west temperature gradient again this week, with below-normal temperatures across much of the East and above-normal temperatures across the West. Another week of localized precipitation that missed large portions of the country led to expanding precipitation deficits. Degradations were also scattered across the West, from the Pacific Northwest into the northern and central Rockies, including portions of Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and western Colorado. Although some mountain snow fell, critically low snowpack with snow-water equivalent levels below the 15th percentile continues to dominate much of the region and support ongoing drought expansion. Across the High Plains and into the western Midwest, one-class degradations followed another mostly dry week. In the Northeast, despite colder-than-normal temperatures, a continued lack of meaningful precipitation contributed to worsening conditions in parts of Pennsylvania and southern New England. Degradations were also seeing across the South, from the eastern southern Plains of Oklahoma and Texas eastward into the Lower Mississippi Valley and the western Carolinas. Despite scattered precipitation in some locations, short- to mid-term precipitation deficits continue to grow, with drying soils and low streamflows supporting intensification. In southern Georgia and Florida, fire danger continues to rise, with parts of Florida reporting Keetch-Byram Drought Index values between 500 and 700.

In Hawaii, strong trade winds brought heavy precipitation and wind to the windward slopes of Molokai, Maui and the Big Island, where 4 to 10 inches of rain fell at lower elevations and snow at higher elevations, supporting one-class improvements in those areas…

High Plains

The High Plains saw little to no meaningful precipitation this week, with most of the region receiving less than 25 percent of normal and many locations at or below 5 percent of normal precipitation. Any snowfall was light and offered minimal liquid-equivalent benefit. In eastern Wyoming and eastern Colorado, precipitation deficits continue to deepen with soil moisture percentiles declining, and recent above-normal temperatures led to drying where snow cover is limited. This led to expansion of moderate (D1) and severe drought (D2) across parts of eastern Wyoming and Colorado into the southwest South Dakota, the Nebraska Panhandle and the western Nebraska Sandhills. Similarly, growing short- to medium-term precipitation deficits, below-normal soil moisture percentiles and elevated evaporative demand led to the introduction of extreme drought (D3) to Nebraskaโ€™s Panhandle. Eastern Nebraska also saw the expansion of abnormal dryness (D0) as the lack of precipitation has led to drying conditions. Across Kansas, degradations occurred primarily in the northwest, south and along the Missouri border in eastern Kansas following another dry week which, like the rest of the region, added to the growing precipitation deficits and drying soil moisture…

Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending February 10, 2026.

West

Precipitation across the West this week was light and uneven. Most low-elevation areas in California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and western Colorado received little to no measurable liquid precipitation, with seven-day totals generally below 0.25 to 0.50 inches. Mountain snow did fall in portions of the northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest, but accumulations were locally light and patchy. Snowpack and Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) percentiles remain well below normal at many SNOTEL sites: much of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and western Colorado show SWE values in the lowest 15th percentile, with numerous locations in the single digits for this time of year.

Temperatures were above normal across broad areas of the interior West, especially in the Great Basin, central and eastern Wyoming, and northern Colorado, where daytime highs ran 5 to 15 degrees above average at times. These warmer temperatures limited snow accumulation in some basins and contributed to surface drying where snow cover was sparse or absent. 

Across the Pacific Northwest, isolated precipitation helped maintain existing conditions in parts of western Washington, Oregon and northern California. However, low SWE percentiles and expanding short- to mid-term precipitation deficits led to the expansion of abnormal dryness (D0) and localized moderate drought (D1) in Washington. Despite seeing precipitation this week, areas of Montana still saw degradations where short- to mid-term precipitation deficits, low soil moisture percentiles and poor snowpack continue to be of concern. Across Utah, Nevada and western Colorado, persistent 2 to 4 month precipitation deficits combined with declining soil moisture and very low SWE percentiles (snow drought) led to further degradations. Many SNOTEL sites in the central Rockies and Great Basin continue to report levels below the 10th percentile for snowpack, with Colorado experiencing its worst snowpack-to-date on record, according to Denver Water and 9NEWS…

South

Drought conditions across the South continued to deteriorate this week, as much of the region received little to no meaningful precipitation. Most areas recorded below 50 percent of normal rainfall, with many locations under 25 percent of normal. Portions of middle and northeastern Tennessee received 0.5 to 1 inch of precipitation, but amounts were insufficient to offset ongoing 30- to 90-day precipitation deficits. Degradations occurred across the southern Plains into the Lower Mississippi Valley as short- to mid-term precipitation deficits continue to grow across Louisiana, Arkansas and portions of Texas and Oklahoma, with many areas 2 to 6 inches below normal over the past few months. Soil moisture percentiles remain below normal across much of the region and are particularly low in central Louisiana, southern Arkansas and parts of western Oklahoma and South Texas. Streamflows in several basins continue to run below seasonal averages, with some gauges in low percentiles following weeks of limited recharge.

In Deep South Texas, long-term dryness continues to intensify. From August 14, 2025, through February 10, 2026, Rio Grande City ranks as the fifth warmest and third driest on record dating back to 1928, while McCook ranks as the second warmest and sixth driest since 1942 according to NWS and NOAA. A nearby Texas Mesonet site near Hebbronville recorded just 3.81 inches over the past 180 days, and another Mesonet site along the Starr and Jim Hogg County line recorded 11.5 inches, with only 0.33 inches falling during December and January combined. Persistent six-month precipitation deficits and continued warmth reinforced long-term hydrologic stress across the lower Rio Grande Valley…

Looking Ahead

Over the next five to seven days (Feb. 12โ€“17), a widespread and active precipitation pattern is forecast across much of the western and southern U.S. The heaviest totals are expected from eastern Texas into Arkansas, where widespread amounts of 3 to 5 inches are forecast, with locally higher totals possible. Additional areas of 1 to 3 inches are expected across much of the lower Mississippi Valley, central Gulf Coast, and into portions of the Southeast. Farther west, widespread precipitation is forecast across California, the Great Basin, and into the central and northern Rockies, where liquid-equivalent totals of 1 to 3 inches are expected, with locally higher amounts in favored terrain. Lighter but still meaningful precipitation is forecast across portions of the Midwest and into parts of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. In contrast, much of the northern Plains is expected to remain relatively dry during this period.

The Climate Prediction Centerโ€™s 6-10 day temperature outlook (Feb. 17โ€“21) favors above-normal temperatures across much of the central and eastern U.S., including the Plains, Midwest, Ohio Valley and Southeast. The strongest probabilities for above-normal temperatures are centered over the central Plains and lower Mississippi Valley. In contrast, below-normal temperatures are favored across much of the West Coast and portions of the Great Basin. Alaska favors below-normal temperatures across much of the mainland, while Hawaii is favored to see above-normal temperatures.

The CPC 6-10 day precipitation outlook (Feb. 17โ€“21) favors above-normal precipitation across much of the western United States, including California, the Great Basin, and the northern and central Rockies. Above-normal precipitation is also favored across parts of the northern Plains and Upper Midwest. In contrast, below-normal precipitation is favored across the southern tier from southern Texas eastward across the Gulf Coast and into Florida. Much of the central United States, including portions of the Tennessee and Ohio Valleys, is favored to see near-normal precipitation during this period.

US Drought Monitor one week change map ending February 10, 2026.

All of the reasons #Coloradoโ€™s horrible #snowpack is so problematic — Shannon Mullane (Fresh Water News)

Loveland Pass in Summit County on Dec. 24, 2025. The lack of snow is clearly visible on the higher peaks. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Shannon Mullane):

February 12, 2026

Biologist David Inouye spent part of his Tuesday afternoon harvesting Jerusalem artichokes from his garden in the 1,400-person town of Paonia in western Colorado.

โ€œItโ€™s been so warm and dry here that my gardenโ€™s ready to plant,โ€ Inouye said. โ€œI was actually thinking about maybe planting some spinach or peas this week.โ€

Even with current snowstorms, Coloradoโ€™s snowpack this year is, frankly, horrible. The entire state has been in a snow drought with a record-low snowpack. The signs are everywhere: Skiers see it when they hit the slopes. Water providers keep an eye on their reservoir levels and talk about summer watering restrictions. Wildland fire experts gauge fire risk this summer and push people to remove flammable brush from their properties.

Two weeks ago, Inouye skied up to the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory near Gothic, where he and other scientists have been conducting research for over 50 years, and saw exposed dirt patches at 9,500 feet of elevation โ€” areas that would normally be buried by snow. Bees, wildflowers, marmots and more could all be affected by this seasonโ€™s thin, weak snowpack.

Snow showers in this weekโ€™s forecast offer a dose of relief, but they wonโ€™t be enough to get the state out of a tough, dry year. The Colorado Sun sought out experts from around the state to see whatโ€™s going on โ€” and what we need to watch for looking ahead.

Coloradoโ€™s winter has been unseasonably warm with so few snowstorms that the mountain snowpack is the lowest itโ€™s been since 1987.

Climatologists are scouring data from high-elevation federal weather stations, called SNOTEL stations, to gauge what this yearโ€™s water supply is going to look like. Stations were built over the years until, by 1987, there were enough to provide a comprehensive look at statewide snowpack.

As a headwaters state, snowmelt from Coloradoโ€™s mountains runs in all directions to provide water to communities in 19 downstream states before it reaches the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

This year is not quite as bad as two terrible winters in recent memory: 1976-77 and 1980-81. But some smaller watersheds in the state have been dry enough to break even those records, according to state climatologists at Colorado State Universityโ€™s Colorado Climate Center who analyzed hand-gathered measurements that date back to 1940.

What has really set this water year apart is how warm itโ€™s been, according to the climate center. Colorado just had the third warmest November and the warmest December in over 130 years of records.

Colorado is over 60% of the way through its snow season, which means thereโ€™s still some time to avoid a historically bad, record-breaking year statewide. But the chance of getting a normal snowpack becomes slimmer every day, said Peter Goble, assistant state climatologist at the climate center.

The winter storms this week will help, he said. But even if Colorado had a repeat of 2019 โ€” an above-average snow year โ€” from February through April, its snowpack would still be just below normal.

โ€œWe have not yet had a year when we were running really low at this point and then just had a magical second half of the snow season and got all the way back,โ€ Goble said.

Visitation is down at ski resorts

The poor snow year has already taken a toll on ski resorts and local economies.

Vail Resorts last month told investors that visitation to its 37 North American ski areas was down 20% through Jan. 4 compared with the previous season. Company CEO Rob Katz pointed to โ€œone of the worst early-season snowfalls in the Western U.S. in over 30 yearsโ€ โ€” with snowfall at the companyโ€™s Rocky Mountain ski areas in Colorado and Utah down 60% from 30-year averages โ€” as the main reason behind the decline.

The companyโ€™s Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Keystone and Vail ski areas account for more than a quarter of resort visitation in Colorado, the most trafficked ski state in the country. Vail Resorts is among several resort operators across the state that are cutting hours for workers as visitation ebbs and the lack of snow limits open terrain.

Colorado Ski Country has indicated its 20 members are seeing visitation declines in the โ€œsizable double digits.โ€

Sales tax reports and end-of-season visitor counts are not due for a few months but several mountain communities are reporting lodging occupancy declines for the season around 10% as the snow-starved season limps further into February.

Meanwhile, the historic drought across the West has led to resort closures. In Oregon, Hoodoo, Mount Ashland and Mount Hood Skibowl have suspended operations as they wait for snow and Willamette Pass ski area is closed for two days midweek.

The thin snowpack left Coloradoโ€™s backcountry slopes with low avalanche danger in the middle of the winter, and thatโ€™s unusual, Ethan Greene, director of the Colorado Avalanche Information Center, said.

Since Nov. 1, CAIC has counted 31 people caught in avalanchesresulting in three injuries and no fatalities. That compares to 28 people caught in avalanches through mid-February in the 2024-25 season, resulting in three injuries and zero deaths. In the same span of the 2023-24 winter, CAIC tallied 47 people caught in avalanches, with three injuries and two deaths.

For winter sports enthusiasts, more dry days wonโ€™t be a great outcome, Greene said. More storms increase avalanche danger, but they also improve riding conditions.

This weekโ€™s winter storms bumped the danger level in northern Colorado to moderate and considerable levels Wednesday, up from a low danger rating Tuesday, based on the centerโ€™s avalanche danger map.

โ€œWe have a very thin and very weak snowpack,โ€ Greene said. โ€œItโ€™s not posing a lot of danger right now, but if we go into a really active weather pattern that could change pretty substantially.โ€

City water also increasingly in doubt

Near-term droughts are a golden opportunity for Colorado water agencies to tap their long-standing signs declaring the need for more reservoir storage.

Aurora announced the final site choice for the proposed Wild Horse Reservoir in South Park on Tuesday, and pointed straight at the current drought as an urgent reason for building up emergency supplies for the Front Range.

The water providerโ€™s reservoirs are at 60% of capacity, which is lower than the city wants to see for this time of year, particularly with a record-low snowpack, Aurora Water spokesperson Shonnie Cline said. The region would have to get all of its normal snowfall โ€” plus another 50% โ€” over the next two months to get back to average.

The city council will soon decide whether it will declare deeper drought restrictions for this summer, she said. Restrictions arenโ€™t out of the question for another big Front Range water provider, Denver Water, which serves 1.5 million people in Denver and surrounding suburbs.

Denver Water draws 90% of its water supply from the mountain snowpack in the Colorado River and South Platte basins. The snowpack near its water diversion tunnels and pipelines in these basins was 55% and 42% respectively as of Monday.

Northern Water, which serves community water agencies and ditches for 1.1 million people and 615,000 acres, said reservoir storage levels for its Colorado-Big Thompson Project are higher than in previous looming snowpack droughts.

That project โ€œwas built for years just like this one โ€” where a low water supply threatened the ability of the farms and cities in our region to produce the economic benefits expected,โ€ Northern Water spokesperson Jeff Stahla said. โ€œWhat that means is that we have enough water in storage right now to ensure crops get out of the ground and cities can produce the materials needed for this upcoming high-demand season.โ€

Northern Water has also been in talks for months with members who had bought into a $2.7 billion, two-reservoir and pipeline plan to add storage along the Poudre and South Platte rivers. Some communities have signaled they will drop out because of the massive projectโ€™s rising costs, while Northern Water has pointed to communities that stayed in because they need supply for future growth and stability.

The dozen-plus community water agencies receiving Northern Water this year, though, will have to consider drought savings measures.

โ€œWe anticipate that communities within our boundaries will likely put in place policies to ensure we donโ€™t waste any water and can ensure that we use the stored water for as long as possible,โ€ Stahla said.

On Thursday, Northern Waterโ€™s board will hear a proposal to tap into an additional pool of water, called the administrative pool, that wasnโ€™t used last year. The board will have to consider the possibility that this yearโ€™s drought might last longer than one season as it considers how much to draw from reserves, Stahla said.

A deep drought from 2000 to 2002 cut into their reservoir storage and supplies, depleting it so much that it took seven years to recover, he said.

โ€œWe recognize that we should be thinking about many variables as we look to release water for 2026,โ€ Stahla said.

It could get too cold for the pikas

The low snowpack could have impacts on critters in the high country.

โ€œPikas depend on snowpack to insulate them from cold winter temperatures at high elevations, so the low snowpack could potentially make it harder for them to survive the winter,โ€ said Megan Mueller, a conservation biologist with nonprofit Rocky Mountain Wild.

Through the Colorado Pika Project, a partnership between the nonprofit and the Denver Zoo, community scientists collect data in Coloradoโ€™s mountains in the summer to help scientists better understand the pika population and how it is being impacted by climate change.

Because the surveys take place in the summer, Mueller said itโ€™s not yet clear what consequences this yearโ€™s dry weather will have on pikas. But existing research shows pika populations have gone extinct at sites where winter snowpack was insufficient for insulating them from the extreme cold.

Volunteers seeking to help scientists better understand the impact of this yearโ€™s snowpack on Coloradoโ€™s pikas can sign up online to join the Pika Patrol.

Ground squirrels, marmots, chipmunks, bears and other mountain mammals might have to use more energy to stay warm in their habitats without that snowy insulation. Burning energy faster could mean some will starve or emerge from hibernation earlier, according to Inouye with the Rocky Mountain Biological Center.

And just like mammals, insects and plants struggle in warm, dry winters.

Colorado has about 1,000 species of native bees, many of which spend winter underground and depend on the snowpackโ€™s insulation.

Inouye has been watching how wildflowers, like aspen sunflowers and larkspurs, bloom in different conditions since 1973. Flowers start to bloom as soon as snow melts. With a thin snowpack, that melt could happen in mid-April, especially on sunnier, south-facing slopes. Wildflowers will start to bloom early and could be stunted by hard freezes that can typically appear through early June.

An early, sparse bloom affects pollen resources, which are key for bumblebees and migrating hummingbirds as they nurture larval bees or lay eggs, Inouye said.

โ€œItโ€™ll certainly be a very early season for the blooming of the wildflowers,โ€ he added. โ€œThatโ€™s typically associated with lower numbers of flowers.โ€

Fire managers fear early start to fire season, severe wildfires

This yearโ€™s low snowpack has wildfire managers fearing an early start to fire season and severe fires as the temperatures rise, especially along the Front Range.

โ€œWe havenโ€™t seen anything quite like this in 30 years,โ€ the state fire divisionโ€™s planning section Chief Rocco Snart said.

The lack of snowpack this year reminds Snart of the conditions that led to the โ€œhorrific fire seasonsโ€ in 2000, 2002 and 2012.

โ€œThey were in the same realm as where weโ€™re at today. But now weโ€™re worse than those,โ€ he said.

n those years, more than a dozen notable wildfires ignited amid extremely dry conditions. Hundreds of thousands of acres burned across the state and hundreds of homes were destroyed. In 2000, two human-caused fires destroyed 80 homes on the Front Range, while another fire sparked by lightning scorched 23,607 in Mesa Verde National Park, according to the National Weather Service.

In 2002, six massive fires sparked across the state, including the arson-caused Hayman fire that charred more than 137,000 acres across five Front Range counties and became the largest wildfire in Colorado history at the time. Five firefighters died and more than 600 structures were destroyed.

Waldo Canyon Fire

And in 2012, six massive wildfires rapidly spread amid extreme drought. Among them was the Waldo Canyon fire, which scorched 18,000 acres near Colorado Springs and destroyed 346 structures. Two people died.

If Colorado doesnโ€™t start to see more precipitation soon, Snart said he fears wildfires will begin igniting much earlier than previous years, in March or April, and be fueled by winds. Vegetation will be dry as no new growth will have sprouted by then.

Snart sees wildfire risk along the Front Range as โ€œespecially problematicโ€ because it picks up down-sloping winds from the mountains which are a โ€œprime driverโ€ of early season fires.

Fire risk is also very high along parched lower elevations of the Western Slope, he said.

Residents can take advantage of the warmer weather and start mitigating areas around their homes and being cautious of any activity that could cause sparks, especially on windy days, Snart said.

Amid โ€œgrimโ€ outlook, farmers eye snowpack, forecasts

Jared Gardner apologizes for the interrupting beeps from his tractorโ€™s GPS system as he makes his way across the familyโ€™s 3,500-acre farm near Rocky Ford. But he explains that itโ€™s a different technology โ€” the data on his smartphone โ€” that grabs his attention multiple times each day as he considers the fate of the fields where he cultivates alfalfa, corn, sorghum and a mix of watermelons, cantaloupes and pumpkins.

Snowpack numbers, harvested from SNOTEL sites, influence planting in this agricultural corridor of the Lower Arkansas Valley. Snowpack determines runoff, which determines the flows of the Arkansas River, which determines what to grow and what to avoid.

When Gardner Farms plots out a two-year plan for crop rotation, it begins with a best-case scenario of conditions, untethered to limitations of drought. Closer to planting time, lower water estimates may steer operations to a Plan B, which might mean trimming back acreage for the thirstiest crops.

โ€œMy brother and I are probably on Plan C or D already, looking at this snowpack,โ€ Gardner said. โ€œIt would take a small miracle to turn this thing around in a fashion that youโ€™d say I have an ample supply of water. So for us, the first thing I do is pull corn back, to grow something with the yields that you need to break even in this marketplace. Thereโ€™s not a lot of wiggle room for failure.โ€

A little more than an hour east on U.S. 50 near Lamar, Dale Mauch pays less attention to the snowpack numbers than the long-range weather forecasts, which he checks two or three times a day to gauge the fortunes of his 4,000 acres of hay, corn, wheat, oats and sorghum.

He, too, depends on replenishment of the Arkansas River. He pays special attention to the current windy, drying effects of a La Niรฑa system and the promise of moisture from El Niรฑo.

โ€œThe transition is supposed to be coming, but it may not be here till May, which could be too late for this yearโ€™s snowpack,โ€ Mauch said, noting that his planting plans remain uncertain amid some forecasts that predict up to four feet of snow over the next few weeks.

Colorado Drought Monitor February 10, 2026.

โ€œThe silver lining for us down here by Lamar is weโ€™ve had some storms with pretty good moisture,โ€ he added. โ€œSo as far as being dry, weโ€™re not in that bad of shape. Weโ€™re in better shape than the mountains right now.โ€

Overall, experts say the outlook for farmers โ€” and ranchers, whose livestock rely on the same snowpack โ€” leans away from optimism.

โ€œItโ€™s pretty grim,โ€ said Kristen Boysen, managing director of the state Agriculture Departmentโ€™s Office of Drought and Climate Resilience. โ€œProducers are definitely bracing for the worst, but I donโ€™t think anyone has changed their plans yet.โ€

Final decisions on what crops to plant, the size of cattle herds based on available water, and where to find extra grazing pastures or hay supplies all need to be made at most farms and ranches within a month, Boysen said. Even if agriculture sees snow over the mountains in the next few weeks, she added, the growing season may already be compromised.

โ€œAcross the state, weโ€™ve seen so little moisture, so the soil is really dry,โ€ Boysen said. โ€œSo any runoff we get from the mountains will just get sucked up so fast by the soil. And I think peak runoff will be very early. I think theyโ€™re crossing their fingers that it rains on their farm.โ€

Back in Rocky Ford, Gardner remains hopeful that a cold front forecast for the coming days might generate moisture to fulfill a farmerโ€™s innate optimism. But even a foot or so of snow in the mountains probably wonโ€™t translate, in the long run, to much relief.

โ€œUnless we just get an epic blizzard in the mountains, that sort of snow is kind of a Band-Aid for a bullet hole right now,โ€ Gardner said. โ€œAnd Colorado knows that. I think everyone in Colorado understands what a lack of snowpack means to the state, whether you ski on it, or irrigate with it, or just want to drink it.โ€

Colorado Sun reporters Olivia Prentzel, Michael Booth, Kevin Simpson and Jason Blevins also contributed to this report.

More by Shannon Mullane

Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map February 12, 2026.

Updated #climate indicators graphics, now including 2025 — Ed Hawkins

Updated climate indicators graphics, now including 2025ed-hawkins.github.io/climate-visu…

Ed Hawkins (@edhawkins.org) 2026-02-13T11:33:03.948Z

The latest #ElNiรฑo/Southern Oscillation (#ENSO) diagnostic discussion is hot off the presses from the #Climate Prediction Center

Click the link to read the discussion on the Climate Prediction Center website:

February 12, 2026

ENSO Alert System Status: La Niรฑa Advisory

Synopsis: A transition from La Niรฑa to ENSO-neutral is expected in February-April 2026 (60% chance), with ENSO-neutral likely persisting through the Northern Hemisphere summer (56% chance in June-August 2026).

La Niรฑa continued in January 2026, with below-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) observed in the east-central equatorial Pacific Ocean. The latest weekly Niรฑo-3.4 index value was -0.9ยฐC, with the westernmost (Niรฑo-4) and easternmost (Niรฑo-1+2) indices at -0.4ยฐC and 0.0ยฐC, respectively. The equatorial subsurface temperature index (average from 180ยฐ-100ยฐW) significantly increased, reflecting the strengthening and expansion of above-average subsurface temperatures across the Pacific Ocean. Atmospheric anomalies weakened due to subseasonal variability, but still reflected aspects of La Niรฑa. Low-level westerly wind anomalies were present over the western equatorial Pacific, and upper-level westerly wind anomalies continued across the east-central equatorial Pacific. Suppressed convection was weakly evident near the Date Line and over the equatorial Maritime Continent, with enhanced convection located off the equator. The traditional and equatorial Southern Oscillation indices were positive. Collectively, the coupled ocean-atmosphere system remained consistent with La Niรฑa.

The North American Multi-Model Ensemble (NMME) average, including the NCEP CFSv2, favor the onset of ENSO-neutral in February-April 2026. The team consensus also reflects this outcome, with ENSO-neutral persisting through the Northern Hemisphere summer 2026. For the late summer and beyond, there is a 50-60% chance of El Niรฑo forming, though model uncertainty remains considerable and forecasts made this time of year tend to have lower accuracy. In summary, a transition from La Niรฑa to ENSO-neutral is expected in February-April 2026 (60% chance), with ENSO-neutral likely persisting through the Northern Hemisphere summer (56% chance in June-August 2026.

Utah’s Great Salt Lake threatened by declining snowmelt

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

Mountain snowmelt is the lifeblood of the Great Salt Lake, providing the vast majority of its fresh water. On average the mountains around the lake contribute approximately 1.9 to 2.1 million acre-feet of surface runoff annually.1 However on February first of this year – with Utah’s snowpack in near record-poor condition, Utah’s Natural Resources Conservation Service released a report that forecast a reduction in snowmelt that ranges from 21% to 77% of average.2

This (potentially) dramatic drop in snowmelt forces our attention to the Great Salt Lake’s other major source of water, the Bear River, and there the news is equally alarming. The Bear River in Utah faces a variety of environmental threats primarily from human activities like agriculture, water management, and development. These impact water quality, habitats, and flows into the Great Salt Lake. The following list of challenges the river faces are ranked in order of prevalence and severity, from reports like wetland studies and conservation plans.3

A serene sunset over a calm sea, reflecting the sun and clouds on the water's surface with rocky formations visible in the foreground.
Clusters of microbialites, potentially thousands of years old, are endangered by The Great Salt Lake’s declining water levels and the water’s rising salinity. Video by Robert Marcos.

Water Diversions: Proposed and existing diversions, such as the Bear River Development project, threaten to reduce flows by up to 220,000 acre-feet annually, lowering Great Salt Lake levels by 8.5-14 inches and exposing lakebed dust with toxins like arsenic. This exacerbates drought effects and harms migratory birds reliant on Bear River Bay wetlands.4

Agricultural Runoff: Runoff from intensive farming affects 83% of wetlands, delivering excess nutrients, sediments, and pollutants that cause eutrophication, algal blooms, and oxygen depletion. The Bear River is impaired throughout the study area due to these inputs, worsened by upstream sources in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.5

Hydrologic Alteration: Dams, irrigation, and impoundments alter flow timing and flooding, impacting nearly all wetlands and degrading riparian habitats. Reservoirs like Cutler divert spring runoff, leading to inconsistent river flows and wetland desiccation.6

Invasive Species: Non-native plants like Phragmites australis cover 11% of wetlands, outcompeting natives and reducing biodiversity, especially in disturbed mudflats. Agricultural species such as foxtail and clover invade via forage planting.7

Sediment and Pollution: Erosion from tributaries and livestock causes siltation, while point sources (69% of wetlands) and nanoparticles from boat paints add contaminants. Legacy issues like high alkalinity and industrial wastes persist.8

The coming failure of Glen Canyon Dam: As #ColoradoRiver negotiations build toward a February 14, 2026 deadline, few are talking about design flaws in the dam that holds back #LakePowell — Wade Graham (High Country News) #COriver #aridification

A photo of Glen Canyon Dam from 2022, when the dam’s intake points were 33 feet away from minimum power pool. The top of the grate-like penstocks can be seen in this photo.ย Luna Anna Archey / High Country News

Click the link to read the article on the High Country News website (Wade Graham):

February 11, 2026

Floyd Dominy, the commissioner of the federal Bureau of Reclamation in the 1960s, was largely responsible for the construction of Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River. In 1963, when the dam was completed, he could not have foreseen the climate situation we find ourselves in today, with declining snowpack, record-high temperatures and alarmingly low water levels in Lake Powell, year after year. But he and his engineers could have, and should have, foreseen that the way they designed the dam would leave little room to maneuver should a water-supply crisis ever impact the river and its watershed.

Indeed, a state of crisis has been building on the Colorado for decades, even as the parties that claim its water argue over how to divide its rapidly diminishing flows. Lately, things have entered a new and perilous phase. Last Nov. 11 was a long-awaited deadline: Either the states involved โ€” California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming โ€” would have to agree on a new management plan, or else the federal government would impose its own, something none of the parties would welcome. Meanwhile, the 30 tribes that also hold claims to the river have historically been and continue to be excluded from these negotiations. 

Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall

That deadline came and went, and instead of acting, the government punted, this time to Feb. 14. Nobody was surprised: Unmet deadlines and empty ultimatums have been business as usual on the river for years. Decades of falling reservoir levels and clear warnings from scientists about global warming and drought have prompted much hand-wringing and some temporary conservation measures, but little in the way of permanent change in how water is used in the Colorado River Basin.

The downstream face of Glen Canyon Dam, which forms Lake Powell, Americaโ€™s second-largest water reservoir. Water is released from the reservoir through a hydropower generation system at the base of the dam. Photo by Brian Richter

For decades, the seven Basin states have used more water than the river delivers by drawing their entitlements from surpluses banked in reservoirs during the wet 1980s and โ€™90s, chiefly in Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Never mind that those entitlements were based on an over-estimate of river flows in 1922, when the Colorado River Compact was established, rendering the โ€œpaperโ€ water of the entitlements essentially a fiction, not to mention a source of continual conflict. That savings account has now been drained: Mead and Powell are each below 30% full, and the trend is steadily downward. Global warming has only accelerated the decline: So far this century, the riverโ€™s flow has fallen 20% from its long-term annual averages, and scientists forecast more of the same as the climate continues to heat up.

The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo. Annotations: Jonathan P. Thompson

Meanwhile, the physical infrastructure that enables Colorado River water management is on the verge of its own real and potentially catastrophic crisis โ€” and yet Reclamation has barely acknowledged this, with the exception of an oblique reference in an unpostedย technical memorandumย from 2024. The falling reservoir levels reveal another, deeper set of problems inside Glen Canyon Dam, which holds back the Colorado and Lake Powell. The 710-foot-tall dam was designed for a Goldilocks world in which water levels would never be too high or too low, despite the well-known fact that the Colorado is by far the most variable river in North America, prone to prodigious floods and extended droughts. But the Bureau, bursting with Cold War confidence โ€” or hubris โ€” chose to downplay the threat. In the record-breaking El Niรฑo winter of 1983, the Bureau almost lost the dam to overtopping, due to both its mismanagement and its design, because the dam lacks sufficient spillway capacity for big floods. Only sheets of plywood installed across its top and cooler temperatures that slowed the melting of that yearโ€™s snowpack saved Glen Canyon Dam.

The four 96-inch diameter steel pipes of the River Outlet Works. If the damโ€™s penstocks are closed, these pipes are the only remaining way to pass water through the dam, and are unsafe to use for extended intervals.
Luna Anna Archey / High Country News
Gus Levy, Glen Canyon Damโ€™s plant facility manager, walks past hydropower turbines. In 2022, due to the low water level of Lake Powell, only five of the eight turbines operated on a daily basis, though all eight were kept in working order.
Luna Anna Archey / High Country News

Today, the dam is threatened not by too much water but too little. In March 2023, the water level of Lake Powell dropped to within 30 feet of the minimum required for power generation, known as โ€œminimum power pool.โ€ At 3,490 feet above sea level, minimum power pool is 20 feet above the generatorsโ€™ actual intakes, or penstocks, but the damโ€™s eight turbines must be shut down at minimum power pool to avoid cavitation โ€” when air is sucked down like a whirlpool into the penstocks, forming explosive bubbles which can cause massive failure inside the dam.

Even more worrisome is what would happen next. At minimum power pool, the penstocks would have to be closed, and the only remaining way to pass water through the dam is the river outlet works, or ROWs: two intakes in the rear face of the dam leading to four 96-inch-diameter steel pipes with a combined maximum discharge capacity of 15,000 cubic feet per second. However, the ROWs, also known as bypass tubes, have a serious design flaw: They are unsafe to use for extended intervals, and start to erode when the reservoir is low.

In 2023, when the ROWs were used to conduct a high-flow release into the Grand Canyon at low-reservoir levels, there was, in fact, damaging cavitation, and the Bureau has warned that there would likely be more in the event of their extended use. In practice, safe releases downstream may only be a fraction of their claimed capacity โ€” and if the tubes begin to experience cavitation, flows may need to be cut off entirely. Such a scenario would compromise the damโ€™s legal downstream delivery requirements, or, to put it bluntly, its ability to deliver enough water to the 25 million people downstream who rely on it โ€” as well as the billions of dollarsโ€™ worth of agriculture involved. This means that Lake Powell โ€” and with it, the entire Colorado River system โ€” is perilously close to operational failure.

If reservoir levels drop to the ROWsโ€™ elevation of 3,370 feet above sea level, Lake Powell would reach โ€œdead pool,โ€ where water would pass through the dam only when the riverโ€™s flow exceeded the amount of water lost to evaporation from the reservoir. No other intakes nor spillways exist below the ROWs. There is no โ€œdrain plug.โ€ Yet there is more dam โ€” 240 feet more before the bottom of the reservoir, effectively the old riverbed. This not-insignificant impoundment โ€” about 1.7 million acre-feet of water โ€” would be trapped, stagnant and heating in the sun, prone to algal blooms and deadly anoxia. The lake would rise and fall wildly, as much as 100 feet in a season, because of the martini-glass shape of Lake Powellโ€™s vertical cross section.

Illustration from the report, <a href=”https://utahrivers.org/blog-post/2022/8/9/lenapost“>Antique Plumbing & Leadership Postponed</a> from the Utah Rivers Council, Glen Canyon Institute and the Great Basin Water Network. Courtesy of Utah Rivers Council

Insufficient or no flows through Glen Canyon Dam would be a disaster of unprecedented magnitude, affecting vast population centers and some of the biggest economies in the world, not to mention ecosystems that depend on the river all the way to the Gulf of California in Mexico. The Lower Basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada warned as much in a recent letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, saying that Reclamationโ€™s failure to mention the damโ€™s plumbing problems in its current environmental impact statement for post-2026 operations is against federal law. The letter reads: โ€œAddressing the infrastructure limitations may be the one long-term measure that would best achieve operation and management improvements to the Glen Canyon Dam.โ€

To date, however, the Bureau has made no formal response.

One thing is clear: Glen Canyon Dam will need to be modified to meet its legal and operational requirements. In the process, the health of the ecosystems in Glen Canyon, above the dam, and in Grand Canyon, below it, must be considered. The best way to avoid operational failure and the economic and ecological disasters that would follow is to re-engineer the dam to allow the river to run through it or around it at river level, transporting its natural sediment load into the Grand Canyon.

Sketches by Floyd Dominy show the way he’d end the Glen Canyon Dam. From the article “Floyd Dominy built the Glen Canyon Dam, then he sketched its end on a napkin” on the Salt Lake Tribune

As it happens, Floyd Dominy himself provided us with a simple and elegant plan for how to do it. In 1997, the former commissioner sketched on a cocktail napkin how new bypass tunnels could be drilled through the soft sandstone around the dam and outfitted with waterproof valves to control the flow of water and sediment. What it prescribes is treating the patient โ€” the Colorado River, now on life support โ€” with open-heart surgery, a full bypass. Dominyโ€™s napkin, which he signed and gave to my colleague Richard Ingebretsen, the founder of Glen Canyon Institute, is effectively a blueprint for a healthier future for the Colorado River and the people and ecosystems that depend on it.

But the window for action to avoid dead pool is dauntingly narrow and closing fast, especially given the time that would likely be required for the government to study, design and implement a fix. The Trump administrationโ€™s gutting of federal agency expertise and capacity adds yet more urgency to the issue. Whatever may or may not get decided on Feb. 14, the feds and the basin states need to look beyond the water wars and start building a lasting, sustainable future on the Colorado River.

We welcome reader letters. Emailย High Country Newsย atย editor@hcn.orgย or submit aย letter to the editor. See ourย letters to the editor policy.

A high desert thunderstorm lights up the sky behind Glen Canyon Dam — Photo USBR

Misunderstandings on the #ColoradoRiver: Change is coming, and it won’t be easy, espcially for the Lower Basin states — Ken Neubecker (Ken’s Substack) #COriver #aridification

Back of Hoover Dam. Photo credit: Ken Neubecker

Click the link to read the article on the Ken’s Substack website (Ken Neubecker):

February 8, 2026

The seven states that take water from the Colorado River have a deadline of February 14 to come up with a river management plan that they can all agree on. And every day that passes it looks as if that deadline, not the first one they have faced, will also be missed. Valentines Day may not be one of shared love by all.

The Colorado River basin is experiencing the greatest drought and loss of flows in the past 1200 years and the various agreements crafted to deal with deepening drought, particularly the 2007 Interim Guidelines and subsequent Drought Contingency Plans, are set to expire at the end of this year.

The major sticking point is centered around how water diversions from the river will be cut, and there will be substantial cuts. Most of that burden will fall on the Lower Basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada. They are the largest users of Colorado River water. Cuts for the four Upper Basin states; Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico are not considered in either the previous guideline and agreements nor in the recently released Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead by the Bureau of Reclamation. The DEIS only looks at the river below the upper reaches of Lake Powell.

This has the Lower Basin up in arms. They are demanding mandatory, verifiable and enforceable cuts by the river diversions in the Upper Basin. The Upper Basin is refusing this demand, and Arizona in particular is threatening to unleash its historical use of litigation to try and get what it wants.

Underlying this, however, is a very fundamental misunderstanding of how water diversions work between the Lower and Upper Basins. Iโ€™m starting to think that misunderstanding is deliberate, primarily to mislead the public constituents within the Lower Basin states. [ed. emphasis mine]

Tom Buschatzke, director of Arizonaโ€™s Department of Water Resources, has said, โ€œWe need certainty there are reductions in upper basin usage because that is one of the two tools that we haveโ€ฆ You canโ€™t make it snow or rain. But you can reduce your demandโ€.

But in the Upper Basin that is not as easy as it sounds.

I have read that the true skill of a good negotiator is in being able to truly understand the other sides position. There are skilled and knowledgeable negotiators in the Lower basin, but I donโ€™t think that they truly understand the Upper Basins position. They have been accustomed, some would say addicted, to the reliable delivery of stored water for all their needs since Hoover Dam was built and began releasing stored water some 90 years ago. Only until very recently, even in the face of an unrelenting drought, have they had to deal with shortages. For the Upper Basin shortage is an annual reality.

The Lower Basin takes water from the Colorado River mainly through a small handful of very large diversions such as the All American Canal, which provides water for Imperial and Coachella Valley agriculture, the Central Arizona Project (CAP) providing water for Pheonix, Tucson, Tribes, and Arizona agriculture and the California Aqueduct, which provides water for Los Angeles, San Diego and most Southern California cities. While distribution from these few large diversions to individual contract uses may be complicated by drought, reducing the intake at their diversion points isnโ€™t.

That situation is very different in the Upper Basin. In Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico there are many thousands of small diversions taking water from the Colorado River, the Green River and their myriad headwater tributaries. There are a few large diversions in the Upper Basin, primarily for water taken out of the basin to Coloradoโ€™s East Slope cities and farms and to Utahโ€™s Wasatch Front, but these diversions are still quite small compared to those in the Lower Basin.

The largest reservoirs in the Upper Basin are those built through the Colorado River Storage Act (CRSP, 1956), such as Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa and Navajo. These reservoirs were not built to supply Upper Basin water needs, but to provide a โ€œbank accountโ€ for Colorado River Compact compliance. In other words, for the benefit of the Lower Basin. Releases from these reservoirs are contemplated in the Post-2026 DEIS to maintain water elevations in Lake Powell that protect vital dam infrastructure and hydropower generation.

Lake Powell is also an Upper Basin reservoir in the CRSP Act of 1956. It was built entirely for Compact compliance and water deliveries to the Lower Basin. It has no water supply benefit to the Upper Basin other than as a Compact savings account.

A major wrinkle in any mandatory curtailments in Upper Basin diversions is simply in administrative logistics. It would be a complete nightmare for water administration and the State water engineers offices. And in Colorado it would be in the Water Courts as well.

A little legal background is needed here as well.

See Article 6.

All of the Colorado Basin states have Prior Appropriation as the bedrock doctrine for their water laws. California has a bit of a mix with Riparian law, but as far as the Colorado River diversions are concerned prior appropriation rules. Prior appropriation is the doctrine of โ€œfirst in time, first in rightโ€ to divert the available water. Colorado was the first to codify prior appropriation in its state constitution, in 1876. Article 16, Section 6:

The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial usesย shall never be denied. Priority of appropriation shall give the better right as between those using the water for the same purpose; but when the waters of any natural stream are not sufficient for the service of all those desiring the use of the same, those using the water for domestic purposes shall have the preference over those claiming for any other purpose, and those using the water for agricultural purposes shall have preference over those using the same for manufacturing purposes.

In Colorado you donโ€™t actually need a court decreed right to divert water to a beneficial use. Just a shovel and a ditch. However, you are still subject to prior appropriation and can be the first cut off if a call is placed on the stream. There are a lot of such small diversions without an adjudicated right. I used to water my lawn in Eagle that way.

The Colorado River Compact of 1922 was created to avoid prior appropriation between the states. The US Supreme Court had decided that when there is a dispute over water between States that held prior appropriation as their foundational water law, seniority applies across state lines. Southern California was starting to grow at a much more rapid pace than the other states, greatly alarming the headwater, Upper Basin states. The Compact was crafted so that water from the river could be allocated โ€œequitablyโ€, allowing each state to grow and develop its water at its own pace. The Compact became the foundation of what is now known as the Law of the River. Laws based on prior appropriation still govern water use and administration within each State.

Arizona and California began arguing and litigating almost immediately, with Arizona usually on the losing end. That changed in 1963 when the US Supreme Court handed down a decision that once and for all set the water allocations for the Lower Basin, based on the allocations created in the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, which finally ratified the Compact and paved the way for Hoover Dam, Lake Mead and the All American Canal.

Then the seniority picture between states changed with the passage of the 1968 Colorado River Projects Act that authorized construction of Arizonaโ€™s long fought for dream of the Central Arizona Project. To get passage, Arizona had to subordinate its water rights to California, making it the junior and first to take cuts in times of drought.

Upper Colorado River Basin map via the Upper Colorado River Commission.

None of that extended into the Upper Basin, where the States had been getting along just fine, mostly, since the Compact was signed. These four states drafted their own Upper Colorado River Basin Compact in 1948, mainly so they could get more money from the Federal Government to build water storage and delivery projects. They did something novel, allocating each states share by a percentage of the rivers flow, not by set volumes of water as the 1922 Compact had done.

Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall

Everything was fine so long as the major reservoirs of Lakes Mead and Powell were full. That has changed considerably since the onset of the current mega, or Millennial drought began in 2000. The two reservoirs have dropped to very low levels, levels never anticipated or planned for.

Here is the crux of the matter. The Lower Basin is demanding mandatory cuts from Upper Basin uses so that more water can flow downstream for their use. The 1922 Compact says clearly that the Upper Basin states โ€œwill not cause the river flow at Lee Ferry to be depleted below and aggregate of 75,000,000 acre feet for any period of ten consecutive yearsโ€ฆโ€. The Lower Basin states argue that this constitutes an โ€œobligationโ€ to deliver that much water to them. The Upper Basin states say no, there is no delivery obligation. It is a non-depletion requirement, that through diversions and actual consumption the states canโ€™t let those flows drop below 75 million acre feet (maf) in a ten year running average.

That has never been a problem, until now. The 1922 Compact and its non-depletion requirement is a priority right in itself. Any water right in the Upper Basin that was adjudicated, perfected by actual use and consumption, after 1922 is subject to curtailment for fulfilling the non-depletion requirement. Any and all rights perfected prior to November 1922 are exempt.

So far, as of 2026, the required flows over a ten year running average have not yet hit that non-depletion trigger of 75 maf running average over ten years. Not yet, but it could be getting close.

The Upper Basin states live by a โ€œrun of the riverโ€ system as there are no large storage units dedicated to their use as the Lower Basin has with Powell and Mead. There are many small reservoirs used for a single irrigation season, filled with the spring runoff and then empty by the end of the growing season. But they also are subject to how much water comes in the spring and downstream senior calls.

Every year, especially since this mega drought and increased aridification began, Upper Basin irrigators are curtailed each summer as the streams shrink and the small reservoirs are drained. Some years this curtailment includes water rights that are senior to the Compact as well.

The Upper basin, in short, is forced to live within its means, with what it has and no more than Mother Nature provides with the winter snowpack. As Tom Buschatzke said, โ€œYou canโ€™t make it snow or rain. But you can reduce your demandโ€. The Upper Basin does exactly that every year, especially in years like this with a record low snowpack.

The mandatory, verifiable and enforceable cuts demanded by the Lower Basin would be more than difficult to achieve. And again, it would be an administrative and legal nightmare for those assigned the task on the thousands of relatively small, individual diversions that make up the Upper Basinโ€™s water use from the Colorado River. There are those larger trans-basin diversions to the Colorado East Slope and cities, but even if they took substantial cuts, it would still be a pretty small amount of water. No where near the amounts that the Lower Basin has become accustomed to.

Right now the Upper Basin uses roughly half their Compact allocation, roughly around 4 maf a year, while the Lower Basin has historically used more than their full Compact allocation. To their credit, the Lower Basin has made substantial cuts, some voluntary and some enforced by agreements and obligations. California was forced to cut their water use by 800,000 acre-feet with the 2007 Interim Guidelines, back to their actual decreed limit, a cut some claim as an example of how much โ€œsacrificeโ€ they have made. They and Arizona have made additional cuts as well, now taking around 6 maf, from a historic high near 10 maf per year.

I agree that the Upper basin needs to work harder at conservation, and they have been trying hard over the last few years. They havenโ€™t been hording water or ignoring the needs of the Lower Basin or those spelled out in the Compact and subsequent agreements as some in the Lower Basin claim. But โ€œmandatoryโ€ cuts beyond those already happening each and every summer will require significant changes with state water law and administration. In Coloradoโ€™s case it could well require a change to Article 16, Section Six, of the stateโ€™s constitution which has held unaltered since 1876.

We live now in a very different world from the 1800โ€™s and 1922 when the Compact was drafted, using highly optimistic flow calculations that they already knew were wrong. But the men who drafted it were boosters, as were their fathers, seeing the West as they wanted to, not as it really was. Americaโ€™s westward expansion has always been driven by dreams of abundance, and for a while the river was able to provide that through massive engineering, a still small but growing population and some pretty wet years. Many still hold on to that misguided dream of abundance in an increasingly arid region.

That has all evaporated. All water users in the West, especially the Colorado River basin, expect certainty and reliability, as Tom Buschatzke declared. Weโ€™ve built an entire system, and an entire economy based on those principals. Certainty and reliability are now fading rapidly in the rear view mirror, if we dare to look. Many wonโ€™t. The Colorado River has made the desert bloom and let us build great cities. But its dwindling supply is placing all that in jeopardy. We need to adapt. The only certain and reliable future is one with less water, greater aridity and warmer and much drier climate.

Maybe our great civilization built on a desert river will go the way of the Hohokam who filled the valley Pheonix now inhabits with irrigation canals and a thriving population. Maybe. We can change that scenario if we adapt to the new reality. That will be both hard and painful. Parochial self-interest must be balanced with regional ties and interests, and that is never easy. Nor is it politically palatable. The Lower Basin is railing against the Upper Basinโ€™s refusal to provide water it just doesnโ€™t have. The Upper Basin is living within its means while honoring its commitments to the Compact as best it can.

The Bureau of Reclamation in its DEIS for Post-2026 river management introduced a new concept, at least new for Colorado River management. Decision making under Deep Uncertainty, or DMDU. Many, seemingly, arenโ€™t familiar with that concept. Even the Bureauโ€™s recommendations may not go far enough with that concept. They donโ€™t seriously engage the reality that both Powell and Mead are headed for deadpool, meaning that the only water available from either reservoir will be what flows in. There will be no storage to rely on. None. That will have far more devastating impacts than what any of the alternatives contemplate. [ed. emphasis mine]

But when the well runs dry there isnโ€™t much we can do. A few years ago the concept of stationarity in climate norms, basing predictions within the parameters of historical extremes, was declared dead. The ideas of certainty and reliability are now headed for the same graveyard.

Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

Assessing the Global Temperature and Precipitation Analysis in January 2026 — NOAA

Click the link to read the assessment on the NOAA website:

February 11, 2026

January Highlights:

  • The global surface temperature was the fifth-warmest January on recordโ€”the smallest temperature departure since 2023.
  • Snow cover extent was below average for North America and near average for Eurasia.
  • Sea ice extent was near record low for the Arctic and below average for Antarctica.
  • Global tropical cyclone activity was above normal with 11 named storms.
Map of global notable weather and climate anomalies and events in January 2026.

Temperature

January 2025 ranked as the fifth-warmest January in NOAAโ€™s 177-year record, with a global surface temperature 2.02ยฐF (1.12ยฐC) higher than the 20th-century baseline. All 10 of the warmest Januarys on record have occurred since 2007, with the most recent five years (2022โ€“26) among the top 10. 

Land and Ocean Temperature Percentiles for January 2026. Red indicates warmer than average and blue indicates colder than average.

In January 2026, unusually high temperatures prevailed across much of the Earthโ€™s surface. The most notable high temperature departures were observed across the Arctic, Greenland, the western U.S., Canada, Africa, southern and eastern Asia and parts of Australia, where temperature departures were at least 3.6ยฐF (2.0ยฐC) above average. Several regions across the globe experienced their warmest January on record, including parts of Greenland, Africa, Asia, the Atlantic and parts of the Pacific and Southern Oceans. Notably, Africa experienced its warmest January on record, while North America, South America and Oceania had a top 10 warm January.

In contrast, notable below-average temperatures were observed in Alaska, the eastern U.S., Europe, northern Asia and across parts of Antarctica and the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. However, no land or ocean areas experienced record-cold January temperatures.

Snow Cover

In January 2026, snow cover extent across North America and Greenland was 150,000 square miles below average, tying with 2002 for the 12th-smallest January extent on record. Meanwhile, Eurasia saw near-average coverage at 11.48 million square miles. Overall, Northern Hemisphere snow cover for January was slightly below average at 18.12 million square miles.

Regionally, snow deficits were most pronounced across the western half of the contiguous U.S. and central Asia extending into China. In contrast, above-average snow cover was observed in the south-central U.S. extending towards the Northeast, central and eastern Europe, Japan and parts of northern and northeastern China.

Sea Ice

Global sea ice extent was the fifth smallest for January in the historical record at 550,000 square miles below the 1991โ€“2020 average. The Arctic sea ice extent was below average by 340,000 square miles, tying with 2025 as the second-smallest January extent in the 48-year record. The Antarctic sea ice extent for January was the 13th smallest at 210,000 square miles below average.

Map of the Antarctic (left) and the Arctic (right) sea ice extent in January 2026.

Tropical Cyclones

Global tropical cyclone activity in January was above normal, producing 11 named storms. Four of these reached tropical cyclone strength, and two intensified into major tropical cyclones. Most of the activity occurred in the Southern Hemisphere (South Indian, Australian and Southwest Pacific basins), with one named storm in the West Pacific. No storms formed in the North Atlantic, East Pacific or North Indian basins, which is typical during January.

Notably, Tropical Cyclone Fytia, in the Southern Indian basin, made landfall in northern Madagascar at the end of the month as a strong cyclone, bringing heavy rainfall and widespread flooding. The storm caused at least 12 deaths, displaced thousands and damaged or destroyed thousands of homes.


For a more complete summary of climate conditions and events, see ourย January 2026 Global Climate Reportย or explore ourย Climate at a Glanceย Global Time Series.

More than 8,500 daily heat records have been tied or broken in the West this winter (2025-2026). “I have not seen a winter like this,” said National Snow and Ice Data Center director Mark Serreze, who has been in #Colorado almost 40 years

Why Lake Powell’s exposed sediment puts the Gold King Mine spill back in the spotlight

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

The Gold King Mine spill happened on August 5, 2015, when EPA contractors accidentally released approximately 3 million gallons of contaminated wastewater into Cement Creek – a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado. The plume, containing heavy metals, flowed into the Animas and San Juan rivers. 1 The USGS – in cooperation with the EPA, gathered streamgage data in order to confirm the origin of the stream flow spike at Cement Creek and the volume of the spike estimated at three million gallons. USGS also took water and sediment samples and provided both current and historical water quality data to EPA.2

Four months later during her address to a House Committee on Natural Resources, the Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said, “As is so often the case, it is unfortunate that an incident like this has to happen to highlight an issue that land managers in both the state and federal governments have been grappling with for years โ€“ that addressing abandoned mine lands is a nationwide problem, and mitigating toxic substances released from many of them is a significant undertaking. Abandoned mine lands are located on private, state, federal, and tribal lands. There are tens of thousands of abandoned hardrock sites on federal lands alone. Many of these abandoned mine land sites were mined prior to the implementation of federal surface management environmental laws that require reclamation and remediation to take place. For those mine sites where no viable potentially responsible party can be determined, the federal government, and ultimately the taxpayer, often bears the burden of addressing these threats to public safety, human health, the environment, and wildlife, rather than the entities that developed and profited from the operations.”3

In 2018 the U.S. Geological Survey, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and National Park Service, initiated the Lake Powell Coring Project.4 Its purpose was to retrieve and analyze hydraulic piston cores from Lake Powell sedimentsโ€”primarily targeting the San Juan River deltaโ€”to reconstruct the history of sediment and contaminant deposition, including assessing whether material from the 2015 Gold King Mine spill had been sequestered there. Cores taken from 40 holes penetrated up to the pre-Glen Canyon Dam surface to evaluate metal concentrations, distribution, and bioavailability for water quality impacts.5

Preliminary results shared by USGS scientists in late 2021 shared significant findings: while the 2015 Gold King Mine spill caused detectable spikes in lead and zinc, much larger and “more concerning” spikes were identified from mining waste disasters that occurred in the 1970s. The following contaminants were found in core samples:6

Lead: Found in significant spikes, particularly in deeper sediment layers corresponding to mid-20th-century mining disasters.

Zinc: Often found in conjunction with lead; used as a primary indicator of mine waste runoff.

Arsenic: A major concern in the San Juan River delta, often naturally occurring but concentrated by mining processes.

Cadmium: A toxic metal frequently associated with zinc mining that was identified in the core samples.

Copper: Present in the sediment, reflecting the region’s extensive copper mining history.

Mercury: Studied due to its ability to bioaccumulate in the food chain (fish), though much of the mercury in the system is attributed to atmospheric deposition and older mining practices.

Now as Lake Powell’s water levels continue to recede amid prolonged drought and heavy upstream water use, vast expanses of toxic sedimentsโ€”laden with heavy metals like arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, selenium, and zinc from historical mining discharges including the 2015 Gold King spillโ€”are increasingly exposed. This drying creates a heightened risk of human exposure through direct contact during boating, fishing, or shoreline recreation, as well as inhalation of windblown dust carrying bioavailable toxins, potentially leading to respiratory issues, skin irritation, and chronic health effects with repeated exposure. Without expanded monitoring or mitigation measures, these once-submerged hazards now pose an urgent public safety threat to the millions of annual visitors in this popular Southwestern reservoir. 7

Denver Water #snowpack and water supply update: February 9, 2026, #snowpack update for #Denver Waterโ€™s collection areaย — DenverWater.org

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website:

February 9, 2026

Denver Water depends on mountain snowpack for 90% of its water supply, which serves 1.5 million people in Denver and surrounding suburbs. 

Snowpack as of Feb. 9, 2026, was near record lows: The Colorado River Basin within Denver Waterโ€™s collection system was at 55% of normal. The South Platte River Basin within Denver Waterโ€™s collection area was 42% of normal. In Denver Waterโ€™s decades of records for its watershed collection areas, as of Feb. 9, the Colorado River snowpack ranked among the worst, and the South Platte River snowpack ranked the worst.

No matter what, Denver Waterโ€™s annual summer watering rules will always be in place during the irrigation season. And, it is possible that we will need to implement additional drought response measures this year. Denver Waterโ€™s response to drought conditions uses a tiered approach, including the potential for additional watering restrictions, in order to preserve water supplies. Denver Water will move closer to developing recommendations for its Board of Water Commissioners on a potential drought response over the next couple of months.

Since 2000, Denver Waterโ€™s response to dry conditions in previous years included issuing a Drought Watch (voluntary restrictions) in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2012 and 2013. In some of those years (2002, 2003, 2004, 2013), Denver Water levied additional drought restrictions as part of declaring a Stage 1 level response, which required mandatory reductions in outdoor water use. 


Denver Water snowpack update for Feb. 9, 2026 

  • Conditions remain highly concerning. Poor snowfall combined with warm temperatures have left us roughly 4 feet of snow short of where weโ€™d prefer to be in the Denver Water collection area.ย 
  • Reservoir storage conditions are below average, but in reasonably good shape: 81% full versus an average of 85% full for this time. Those levels are also artificially affected by the need to keep Gross Reservoir low duringย construction to raise the dam, a project designed to increase the storage capacity of the reservoir.ย 
  • Denver Water has been here several times over roughly 50 years of reliable records. On the positive side, we have experienced years that started dry and conditions dramatically improved in March, April and May. This year, however, we are running out of time to build a healthy winter base.
  • Weโ€™re reminding customers to do their part byย making water-efficient upgrades, inside and outside, including rethinking their yards. These steps preserve water supplies and create moreย adaptable and drought-resilient landscapesย that fit naturally into our climate.ย 
  • No matter what, Denver Waterโ€™sย annual summer watering rulesย will always be in place during the irrigation season.ย Additional drought restrictions, voluntary or mandatory, will depend in part on how the rest of the snow season shapes up and will be aimed at preserving water supplies in case this unusually dry stretch deepens into a multiyear drought. ย 
  • Comment from Nathan Elder, Denver Waterโ€™s manager of water supply:ย 
  • โ€œWe are running out of winter. Conditions are highly concerning, and as we continue to hope for relief in the spring months, we also are preparing recommendations for our drought response. We encourage customers to think about conservation even now, with smart indoor use and potential changes in landscapes that would reduce outdoor use in the irrigation season.
  • “Water is a precious resource that supports our way of life across Colorado, from the mountains to the ski resorts to our communities on both sides of the Continental Divide. We all have a role to play in using water responsibly.ย 
  • “If youโ€™ve been up skiing, youโ€™ve likely seen the low snowpack firsthand, and โ€” if conditions donโ€™t improve โ€” when that snow melts, it wonโ€™t be enough to completely fill our reservoirs this spring and summer.โ€

This chart shows the cumulative snowpack on Feb. 9, 2026, in the area of the Colorado River Basin where Denver Water captures its water supply. The snowpack is 55% of normal, which ranks among the lowest on record for Feb. 9. Image credit: U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service.
This chart shows the cumulative snowpack on Feb. 9, 2026, in the area of the South Platte River Basin where Denver Water captures its water supply. The snowpack is 42% of normal, which ranks as the lowest on record for Feb. 9. Image credit: U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service.

To learn more about the work Denver Water employees do to monitor the snowpack, read this TAP story about Denver Water employees snowshoeing into the forest near the top of Vail Pass in late January 2026 to conduct a monthly โ€œsnow survey.โ€

Additional information on Denver Waterโ€™s drought planning can be found here. Additional information on Denver Water reservoir levels, customer water use and snowpack can be found in the Water Watch Report, which is updated regularly during winter, spring and summer.

Prolific #SnowDrought Leads to Below Normal Streamflow Forecasts — NRCS

Click the link to read the release on the NRCS website:

Warm and dry conditions during January drove Colorado snowpack to record low levels statewide. Late month snowfall was insufficient to change overall conditions, increasing the likelihood of below normal peak SWE and reduced spring runoff across most river basins.

February 10th, 2026 โ€“ Warm and dry conditions persisted across Colorado during most of January, which has led to record low snowpack for much of the state. Every major river basin across Colorado received below normal precipitation in January, ranging from 58 percent of median in the Upper Rio Grande river basin to 76 percent of median in the Arkansas river basin. Although there were a series of storm systems during the first and last week of January which delivered snowfall across the state, this was not enough to improve overall conditions. Based on the 1991-2020 median, current statewide snow water equivalent (SWE) is 55 percent of normal, and ranges from 48 percent of normal in the Arkansas river basin to 64 percent of normal in the Laramie-and-North Platte river basin. Since January 13th, snowpack across Colorado has been at record low levels when compared to the 30-year normals, and with only a couple more months left in the typical snow accumulation season, it looks less likely that we will receive enough snowfall by April 1st to achieve normal peak SWE. It would take consistent, record-breaking snowfall for the rest of the season to reach normal peak SWE, and with the long-term outlooks, that is looking highly unlikely. Based on projection plots, even if the state receives average snowfall (50% projection) for the rest of the season, we would end up around 70 percent of median peak SWE (figure 1).

Figure 1: SNOTEL projection plot showing anticipated peak SWE values based on historical data percentiles. Credit: NRCS

Current statewide reservoir storage is 86 percent of median, slightly lower than this same time last year which was 94 percent of median. Itโ€™s certainly not ideal to have low reservoir storage during these dry years. With basins below normal reservoir levels will likely face more severe water shortages this upcoming runoff season. All major river basins currently have below normal reservoir storage, except the Upper Rio Grande, South Platte, and Arkansas river basins which are at 120 percent, 102 percent and 100 percent of normal. February 1, 2026 streamflow forecasts at the 50 percent exceedance probability show similar spatial trends as snowpack and precipitation. Current streamflow forecasts are predicting below normal streamflow across the entire state. They range from 28 percent of normal for Sangre de Cristo Creek to 91 percent of normal for the Big Thompson River at Canyon Mouth. Notably, the combined Laramie-North Platte and Colorado Headwaters river basins have the lowest streamflow forecasts in the state at 50 percent and 58 percent of normal. Overall, the record warm and dry conditions that have persisted for much of the 2026 water year have been detrimental for Coloradoโ€™s water supply outlook. All current indications are pointing to well-below normal streamflow across the state.

Coloradoโ€™s Snowpack and Reservoir Storage as of February 1st, 2026. Credit: NRCS

* San Miguel-Dolores-Animas-San Juan River basin

* *For more detailed information about February mountain snowpack refer to the  February 1st Colorado Water Supply Outlook Report. For the most up to date information about Colorado snowpack and water supply related information, refer to the Colorado Snow Survey website

If the #Colorado #snowpack numbers from SNOTEL stations (52% of median) aren’t low enough for you, they get even worse when looking at data across all elevations — Russ Schumacher (Colorado Climate Center)

if the Colorado snowpack numbers from SNOTEL stations (52% of median) aren't low enough for you, they get even worse when looking at data across all elevations. Using the University of Arizona's SWE dataset, we're now below one-third of the usual snowpack (32.5%) as of February 9. #cowx

Russ Schumacher (@rschumacher.cloud) 2026-02-10T20:52:21.058Z

The February 1, 2026 #Colorado Water Supply Outlook report is hot off the presses from the NRCS

Click the link to read the report on the NRCS website (and to access major basin information). Here’s an excerpt:

The Hard Facts about Lake Mead’s impact on Las Vegas’ appliances

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

As evaporation rates increase and inflow from the Colorado River falls, Lake Meadโ€™s water volume will shrink but the total mass of dissolved minerals will remain relatively stable. This creates a concentration effect where minerals like calcium, magnesium, and salts, become more densely packed in the remaining water. Without sufficient fresh inflow to dilute these minerals, the water becomes increasingly “hard,” reaching salinity levels that pose significant challenges for regional water management.1

This increasingly hard water is a silent but growing threat to household appliances owned by residents of Las Vegas, because when hard water is heated or left to evaporate, minerals like calcium and magnesium precipitate out of the liquid, forming a rock-hard crust known as limescale. This buildup acts as an insulator in water heaters, forcing them to work harder to heat water, and clogs the delicate internal components of dishwashers and washing machines. Over time, these deposits restrict water flow and corrode seals, leading to premature mechanical failure and leaks.2

The financial burden of these mineral-heavy waters translates to shorter lifecycles for major appliances and higher utility bills. Residents may find themselves replacing water heaters every 8 years instead of the typical 12 to 15, and the efficiency loss from scale buildup can increase energy costs for water heating by as much as 25%. Between more frequent appliance replacements, the cost of professional plumbing repairs, and the potential need for expensive water softening systems, the long-term economic impact on a single household can reach thousands of dollars.3

While drinking water with elevated TDS is generally considered safe by regulatory standards, it can have some noticeable effects. Very high concentrations of minerals like sulfates can cause a laxative effect or gastrointestinal discomfort in sensitive individuals or those unaccustomed to the water. While the body requires minerals like calcium and magnesium, excessive levels can affect the water’s smell and its taste, which may motivate residents to rely more on bottled water or on in-home filtration units like reverse-osmosis, which incrementally drives up the cost of living.4

Special master OKs #RioGrande Compact decree: Resolution of longstanding #Texas-#NewMexico water dispute will go to U.S. Supreme Court for final approval — AlamosaCitizen.com

Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website:

February 9. 2026


A 2013 complaint that Texas was being deprived by New Mexico of its equitable apportionment of Rio Grande Compact water has finally been resolved and the compact decree approved by the special master in the case.

In a Fourth Interim Report dated Feb. 6, Hon. D. Brooks Smith agreed with the negotiated settlement by the states and the federal government that specifies how much compact water released by Colorado ends up with New Mexico and how much with Texas. 

The proposed compact decree, which has to be accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, employs use of the โ€œEffective El Paso Index (โ€˜Indexโ€™),โ€ which provides a means of tracking the movement of water below Elephant Butte Reservoir for Texasโ€™ accounting.

โ€œMuch like the river whose water the parties have quarreled over for decades, this original action has proceeded in a meandering fashion. First articulated by Texas in its 2013 Complaint, the dispute, in some sense, began about 8,000 years ago, in ancient Mesopotamia, when the Sumerians invented the concept of irrigation and incited a run on Earthโ€™s navigable waterways,โ€ Smith wrote in his report to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For its part, New Mexico countered that it was โ€œexcess water consumption in Texasโ€ that interfered with the compact reporting. The standoff between the two states, with Colorado as a third party, lasted until July 3, 2023, when then-Special Master Michael J. Melloy issued a Third Interim Report (โ€œTIRโ€) on the matter, which began: โ€œTexas, New Mexico, and Colorado . . . have filed a joint motion to enter a consent decree compromising and settling โ€˜all claims among them arising from the 1938 Rio Grande Compact.โ€™โ€

The proposed 2023 compact decree was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected it at the request of the federal government, and appointed a new special master in Smith. He brought the states and federal government back together for another round of talks, and in June of 2025 visited the lower Rio Grande to talk to farmers and to familiarize himself with the features of the basin.

โ€œI am grateful to the parties, the amici, and all of counsel for their cooperative efforts in organizing and carrying out what was a highly informative and comprehensive real-time view of both the waters of the Lower Rio Grande and the Project,โ€ Smith wrote in his report.

The Effective El Paso Index (โ€œIndexโ€), which is a feature of the proposed compact decree, measures compliance based on the amount of water that actually passes through the El Paso Gage.

โ€œI am pleased that the Special Master has recommended the U.S. Supreme Court accept the partiesโ€™ proposed settlement of the Rio Grande Compact litigation. The settlement is the result of collaboration between Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, and the United States; it includes entry of a proposed Compact Decree and dismissal of the United Statesโ€™ claims,โ€ said Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.  โ€œI appreciate the Special Masterโ€™s thoughtful engagement in the matter and his recommendation supporting this collaborative result. His recommendation gets even closer to the finish line.โ€

The last step will be a decision from the Supreme Court, which Weiser said he hopes to receive by June.

Map showing new point to deliver Rio Grande water between Texas and New Mexico, at an existing stream gage in East El Paso. (Courtesy of Margaret โ€œPeggyโ€ Barroll in the joint motion)

How does this year compare to the snow droughts of the past? — Russ Schumacher (#Colorado #Climate Center) #snowpack #drought

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Climate Center website (Russ Schumacher):

February 9, 2026

Coloradoโ€™s mountain snowpack is in bad shape this year. Itโ€™s been extremely warm, and snowstorms have been few and far between. Based on data from the SNOTEL network, the amount of water stored in the snow is the lowest at this point in the winter since at least 1987. Sometimes when one part of the state is lacking for snow, another region is doing ok, but not this year. Essentially all of Colorado is in aย snow drought.

Graph of snow water equivalent for the state of Colorado as of February 7, 2026, based on 115 automated SNOTEL stations. The current year (2026) is in black, and as of early February is lower than all other years going back to 1987. Graph from USDA/NRCS.

Snow droughts have beenย getting more commonย in Colorado in the 21st century. But those who have been around Colorado longer than I have may also remember two other terrible winters for snow: 1976-77 and 1980-81. In fact, some photos sit on my desk from former state climatologist Nolan Doesken from tours through the mountains in those years. At that time, snowmaking was uncommon at the ski resorts, and there were serious concerns about whether the ski industry would survive through those two historic snow droughts. (This storyย from 2012 by Jason Blevins, then at the Denver Post, now at the Colorado Sun, has some relevant background.) Weโ€™ve been fielding quite a few questions about how the snowpack this winter compares to those brutal years, so letโ€™s take a closer look.

Slides of photos of โ€œDrought, 1/21/81โ€, provided by Nolan Doesken
Photo from 1/21/1981, approaching Dillon, provided by Nolan Doesken

First, a bit about snow measurements

Because of the importance of mountain snow to water supplies, the federal government (specifically, the Department of Agriculture) has for decades collected snowpack data across the western US. The USDA snow survey was established in the 1930s, with routine โ€œsnow courseโ€ measurements in the winter and spring. These are manual measurements of the snow depth, snow water equivalent, and so on. (Hereโ€™s some archival footage of snow surveying. I believe that smoking a pipe while taking the measurements is discouraged these days.)

Photos of USDA staff taking snow measurements. From the Colorado Snow Survey website.
The Bear Lake SNOTEL station in Rocky Mountain National Park in May 2022, photo by Russ Schumacher.

Measuring snow this way takes a lot of time and effort, however. So the 2nd pillar of the USDAโ€™s snow survey program, the โ€œSnow Telemetryโ€ or SNOTEL network, was established starting in the 1960s. These are automated stations that use a โ€œsnow pillowโ€ to measure the weight of the snow, and convert that into an amount of liquid water, among other measurements. SNOTEL data allow agricultural producers, water managers, climatologists, and the public to keep tabs on the snowpack in near-real-time. The snow course measurements have the advantage of a longer period of record to compare to, but are only collected once a month from February through May; the SNOTEL data are available daily from over 100 stations but with a shorter period of record.

What do the data show for this winter?

The graph up at the top shows that in the SNOTEL era, Coloradoโ€™s snowpack is the worst on record as of early February. However, there werenโ€™t yet any SNOTEL stations in Colorado for the 1976-77 winter, and the network was still being built out as of 1980-81. So, if we want to compare the current snowpack to those two years, weโ€™ll have to take a look at the tried-and-true snow course measurements, which the USDA has been collecting for the first time this season over the last week or so.

When comparing the snow water equivalent on February 1st at 62 snow courses with more than 50 years of data, there are eight sites where this year (2026) is the lowest on record. They are shown with the dark brown circles on the map below. Another fourteen sites have either the 2nd or 3rd lowest snowpack on record, and many more are in the bottom 10 years historically.

Rank of February 1 snow water equivalent at snow course sites with more than 50 years of observations. The color shading in the background shows elevation, with blue/white colors representing higher elevations. Credit: Colorado Climate Center

We can also look at which years had the lowest SWE as of February 1. At the locations where this year isnโ€™t the worst snowpack, the worst February conditions were generally either in 1977 or 1981 (with some dishonorable mention to 2018 in the southern mountains.)

Water year with the lowest snow water equivalent at snow course sites with more than 50 years of records. Credit: Colorado Climate Center

Using data from 20 snow course sites in Colorado with consistent data back to at least 1940, we can see that this year has the lowest snow water equivalent since the two terrible years of 1977 and 1981, and lower than any of the other years in the record.

February 1 snow water equivalent at 20 snow courses in Colorado, as a percent of the 1991-2020 median. Data from USDA/NRCS. Credit: Colorado Climate Center

So, itโ€™s fair to say that this year so far has the worst snowpack in Colorado in over 40 years. But in most locations itโ€™s not quite as bad as the conditions were in 1976-77 and 1980-81.

However, obviously a lot of things have changed since the late 1970s! Nearly all ski areas now have robust snowmaking operations, which allow them to keep terrain open even when thereโ€™s not much snow falling from the sky. On the flip side, the population of Colorado has grown immenselyโ€”approximately twice as many people live in the state now as did in 1980. Which means that the demand for water (and for winter recreation) is much greater, and thus the potential impacts of a snow drought are much greater as well.

What has really set this water year apart thus far is how warm itโ€™s been. For Colorado statewide, we just had the 3rd warmest November and the warmest December in over 130 years of records. January was very warm as well. Official numbers for January will be released this week (make sure youโ€™re signed up to get our monthly summaries), but it clearly ranked among the top 20 warmest Januarys, and early February has continued the streak of warmth. The warmest start to a water year weโ€™ve ever seen, combined with a lack of the snowstorms we typically see in winter, has brought us to the worst mid-winter mountain snowpack in decades. 

We do still have about 2 months to go before the mountain snowpack typically hits its peak, which means there is still time to chip away at the deficit. Looking back at the major mid-winter snow droughts discussed above, in 1977 it remained dry in late winter and spring, and that season still holds the record for worst April 1 snowpack at many locations in Colorado. In contrast, the spring of 1981 was fairly active; at least enough to emerge above record-low territory for much of the state.

This week, the pattern will finally shift away from warm and sunny conditions to more consistent chances for snowfall. However, itโ€™s too early to say how long the incoming pattern will stick around, and unfortunately there arenโ€™t any blockbuster storm cycles on the horizon in the near term. An active spring would certainly be very welcome, but the odds of rebounding to near normal peak snowpack conditions are dwindling. More realistically, we are just hoping to get enough snow to avoid a historically bad year.

*special thanks to Brian Domonkos of the USDA/NRCS Colorado Snow Survey for providing useful details about this yearโ€™s snow course measurements

Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map February 9, 2026.

Navajo Unit operations update February 10, 2026: Bumping down to 300 cfs

The outflow at the bottom of Navajo Dam in New Mexico. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

From email from Reclamation Western Colorado Area Office:

The Bureau of Reclamation has scheduled a decrease in the release from Navajo Dam from 350 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 300 cfs for Tuesday, February 10th, at 8:00 AM.ย 

Releases are being made through the 4×4 gates while the powerplant is down for maintance.

Releases are made for the authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit, and to attempt to maintain a target base flow through the endangered fish critical habitat reach of the San Juan River (Farmington to Lake Powell). The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program recommends a target base flow of between 500 cfs and 1,000 cfs through the critical habitat area. The target base flow is calculated as the weekly average of gaged flows throughout the critical habitat area from Farmington to Lake Powell.

This scheduled release change is subject to changes in river flows and weather conditions. ย If you have any questions, please reply to this message, call 970-385-6500, or visit Reclamationโ€™s Navajo Dam website atย https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/nvd.html

Map of the San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado River, in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, USA. Made using USGS National Map data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47456307

#Snowpack news February 9, 2026

Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map February 9, 2026.
Colorado snowpack basin-filled map February 9, 2026.

A truly awful #ColoradoRiver #snowpack so far in 2026 — John Fleck (InkStain.net) #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the post on the InkStain website (John Fleck):

Optimism but no deal after governors attend โ€˜historicโ€™ DC meeting about #ColoradoRiverโ€™s future — Scott Franz (KUNC.org) #COriver #aridification


U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, center, speaks during a gathering with governors from six states in the Colorado River basin on Friday, Jan. 30, 2026. Photo credit: Lowell Whitman/Department Of Interior

Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Scott Franz):

February 2, 2026

This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.

Governors and negotiators from the seven Colorado River basin states met behind closed doors for about two hours in Washington on Friday [January 30, 2026] to talk with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum about the dwindling waterwayโ€™s future.

After they left the meeting, governors were quick to issue statements praising the gathering as โ€˜productiveโ€™ and โ€˜meaningful,โ€™ but no deal among the states was announced by Monday afternoon.

โ€œThere isโ€ฏstill a lot of work ahead to get to an agreement, but everyone wants an agreement, and weโ€™ll work together to create a pathway forward,โ€ New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs said she was โ€œencouraged to hear Upper Basin governors express a willingness to turn water conservation programs into firm commitments of water savings.โ€

Upriver in Colorado, Gov. Jared Polis said in a statement he โ€œdefended our mighty Colorado River.โ€

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis speaks Friday, Jan. 30 at a meeting about the future of the Colorado River at the Interior Department in Washington. Photo credit: Lowell Whitman/Department Of Interior

โ€œI always fight to defend our water, whether itโ€™s at the Department of Interior, Congress, or the courtroom,โ€ he said.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said he left the meeting โ€œhopeful that weโ€™ll avoid the path of litigation.โ€

โ€œNo one wins going down that path,โ€ he said in a statement.

And Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon issued perhaps the most optimistic statement of the group.

โ€œI am wholeheartedly encouraged by our conversation and believe there is a definitive pathโ€ toward a deal, he said.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom missed the meeting, but his natural resources secretary, Wade Crowfoot, was in the room.

Crowfoot said in a statement afterward that he was โ€œcautiously optimistic that an agreement is possible, and weโ€™re working hard to make it happen.โ€

Negotiators from the lower and upper basins entered the meeting at a yearslong impasse over how water restrictions should be managed during dry years.

They now have less than two weeks until a federal Feb. 14 deadline to reach an agreement.

Pressure to reach a deal is building.

Forecasts for the water supply from the Colorado River continue to grow worse as snowpack lags far behind normal across the West.

And negotiators from the basins have said there are โ€œsticking pointsโ€ that remain in the negotiations in recent weeks that even marathon talks have failed to resolve.

“Some in the lower basin wanted some sort of guaranteed supply, irrespective of hydrologic conditions,โ€ Becky Mitchell, Coloradoโ€™s top negotiator, told KUNC last week on the eve of the DC summit. โ€œAnd I think asking people to guarantee something that cannot be guaranteed is a recipe that cannot get to success.โ€

Californiaโ€™s negotiator, J.B. Hamby, said during a recent speech that โ€œcontinued back and forth between the basins havenโ€™t really been moving the ball forward.โ€

He welcomed potential federal intervention to help strike a deal.

โ€œThe administrationsโ€ฆhave this important role in sometimes knocking heads together, sometimes encouraging consensus, and having diplomatic discussions between the states to be able to move conversations forward,โ€ he said.

#ColoradoRiver Districtโ€™s annual State of the River address is coming to a watershed near you: The district will host 12 meetings on river forecasts, system updates, local water projects and moreย — The #GlenwoodSprings Post-Independent

The Colorado River Water Conservation District spans 15 Western Slope counties. Colorado River District/Courtesy image

Click the link to read the article on the Glenwood Springs Post-Independent website (Ali Longwell). Here’s an excerpt:

February 3, 2026

As part of its spring tradition, the Colorado River District will give its State of the River address to a dozen Western Slope communities starting in March. Each State of the River will provide information on river forecasts, local water projects and key challenges impacting Western Slope water users. The events will take place everywhere from the Upper Yampa, Roaring Fork and the Middle Colorado river basins down to the Lower Gunnison and Uncompahgre river basins. While each programโ€™s agenda will vary slightly and is tailored to reflect local water priorities, key topics at all events will include:

  • River flow forecasts, snowpack, and drought summaries
  • Updates on the Colorado River system and interstate negotiations
  • Shoshone Water Rights Preservation Project updates
  • Local water projects and priorities

Each event will also include a complimentary light dinner and an opportunity for residents to ask questions of water experts. While it is free to attend, the River District requests that all attendees register in advance atย ColoradoRIverDistrict.org/2026-State-of-the-River-Meetings.

As clock ticks on #ColoradoRiver talks, #Arizona wants to steer away from the courtroom — KJZZ #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the KJZZ webdsite (Howard Fischer). Here’s an excerpt:

February 4, 2026

Gov. Katie Hobbs said Monday that unless Upper Basin states actually offer up some firm commitments to conserve water she won’t agree to any deal for Arizona to cut its own withdrawals from the Colorado River. And that would lead to either Interior Secretary Doug Burgum imposing his own solution on the seven states that draw water from the river โ€” or the situation having to be hashed out in court. Only thing is, Burgum has so far refused to do more than bring the governors of the affect states together, as he did on Friday. And Terry Goddard, president of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, which oversees the state’s Colorado River supply, said the options put forward by the Interior Department “are not palatable to Arizona or California,” one of the two other Lower Basin states.

“All Burgum’s done is set us up for litigation,” he told Capitol Media Services. “And I think that’s sad.”

Still, [Governor Hobbs] said she thinks it doesn’t necessarily have to wind up in court, even though Arizona already has set aside $3 million for litigation.

“While we didn’t leave with a lot of specifics โ€” the details are to be worked out through negotiation โ€” I think that we came away with hearing that nobody wants to end up in litigation,” Hobbs said. “We want to find a way to get to a deal.”

But Hobbs said that means recognizing that Arizona, which already has agreed to give up 27% of the water it has been getting from the Colorado River, won’t give up a drop more unless there are firm and enforceable promises that the Upper Basin states will share in the burden.

Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

#Breckenridge plans for water treatment plant rehabilitationย that could cost upwards of $50 million — The SummitDaily.com #BlueRiver

Goose Pasture Tarn. Photo credit: City of Breckenridge

Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website (Kit Geary). Here’s an excerpt:

February 4, 2026

A 54-year-old water treatment plant in Breckenridge has reached the end of its life, and preliminary cost estimates put rehabilitating it at $54 million.ย Breckenridge town staff members presented Breckenridge Town Council with plans for a series of projects to help the Gary Roberts Water Treatment plant reliably meet current demand at a Tuesday, Jan. 27, meeting.ย The Gary Roberts Water Treatment is located at the Goose Pasture Tarn. A staff memo stated the town first evaluated improvements and rehabilitation options in 2014, but they put those on hold to prioritize Goose Pasture Tarn dam repairs. The memo noted the continued aging of the plant now makes it a critical project. It included photos of the plan demonstrating pitting, corrosion and leaks in the water tanks at the plant…The project is currently proposed to be phased from 2027 to 2029. Staff members said there are no anticipated impacts to residentsโ€™ water service. While preliminary cost estimates put the project at $54 million, the budget the town planned for was $50 million. Officials asked staff members what tools were at the townโ€™s disposal to make the project stay within a reasonable budget.ย 

Grants available through #GunnisonRiver Basin Foundation — The #Gunnison Country Times

Gunnison River Basin. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69257550

Click the link to read the article on The Gunnison Country Times website:

The Gunnison River Basin Roundtable recently announced grants of up to $1,500 for water education through its public education, participation and outreach committee. The 2026 Water Education Grant is now accepting applications. Funds are available to anyone engaged in water education, including public and private schools, libraries, scout troops, homeschoolers, 4-H clubs and other organizations offering programming for children up to 18 years old in the Gunnison Basin. Applications are due at 5 p.m. on Feb. 23. For more information, visit gunnisonriverbasin.org/.

Water outlook: โ€˜worse and worseโ€™: State water resources report has dire predictions for spring #runoff, reservoir storage and warming temperatures — AlamosaCitizen.com #SanLuisValley #RioGrande

Division engineer Craig Cotten, left, and Pat McDermott of the Colorado Division of Water Resources, deliver the state water resources report on the final day of the 2026 Southern Rocky Mountain Ag Conference. Credit: The Citizen

Click the link to read the article on The Alamosa Citizen website:

February 6, 2026

A โ€œpoorโ€ spring runoff.

Reservoir storage that is โ€œnot well.โ€

An unconfined aquifer that is getting โ€œworse and worse,โ€ not better.

Such is the reality of the situation for the Upper Rio Grande Basin and warnings given to the San Luis Valley farming and ranching community on the final day of the 2026 Southern Rocky Mountain Ag Conference.

If youโ€™re a praying sort, it isnโ€™t too early in 2026 to fold your hands together toward the heavens. If not, a good wish or two would be fine as well.

The outlook is that dire. Except for the hope that a changing weather pattern from La Niรฑa to El Niรฑo at some point this year will deliver the goods and avoid even more of a collapse.

โ€œWe do anticipate at this moment, at this date that itโ€™s going to be a poor runoff in 2026,โ€ said Pat McDermott of the Colorado Division of Water Resources. It is customary for him and state division engineer Craig Cotten to provide a look back at the recent water year and a look ahead to the next spring runoff.

McDermott typically attempts a positive spin for the large audience that fills the main conference room at the Outcalt Center of the Ski Hi Complex in anticipation of the state water resources report. He did his best by pointing to a rosier outlook in the 2026 Farmerโ€™s Almanac, the last annual edition.

It is the state, after all, that governs groundwater pumping in the San Luis Valley and has metrics Valley farmers are required to meet to stay in business. One is the recovery of the unconfined aquifer through buy-and-dry and reduced groundwater pumping strategies.

โ€œIt just kind of gets worse and worse every year that we look at it,โ€ said Cotten in referencing the storage levels of the Upper Rio Grandeโ€™s unconfined aquifer and the greater level of recovery efforts crop producers in Subdistrict 1 are facing as a result.

โ€œUnfortunately itโ€™s going in the wrong direction and it has been for quite some time here,โ€ Cotten said in referencing the latest five-year average for storage.


THE NUMBERS

Rio Grande 2025

493,000 acre-feet โ€“ Annual index flow or 80 percent of long-term average past 30 years

125,000 acre-feet โ€“ Obligation to New Mexico and Texas under Rio Grande Compact 

Rio Grande saw an increase of 95,000 acre-feet due to October 2025 rain.

Conejos River 2025

205,000 acre-feet โ€“ Annual index flow or 68 percent of the long-term average of 300,000 acre-feet

46,900 acre-feet โ€“ Obligation to New Mexico and Texas 

Conejos River saw an increase of 15,000 acre-feet due to October 2025 rain.

Februaryโ€™s current conditions 

Statewide snowpack: 55 percent of median

Upper Rio Grande snowpack: 48 percent of median

Warmest December on record for nine western states based on 131 years of temperature data.


Nathan Coombs and Heather Dutton, both key players in the water conservation world locally and at the state level, gave further explanation on the changing weather patterns that are impacting the basin and the amount of water available for irrigation.

Coombs pointed to the problem of overnight temperatures in the late fall and winter months, and the fact the Valley just isnโ€™t getting the sub-zero temperatures it used to. 

Look at December 2025, which saw an average daily low for the month of 11 degrees โ€“ double digits overnight โ€“ when the normal low for December is 0.8 degrees. January of this year had an average daily low of 4 degrees instead of the -1 that is a normal overnight low temperature for the month. It would have been higher than 4 degrees were it not for sub-zero overnight lows in 5 of the last 7 nights of January.

โ€œWeโ€™re not sunburning that much harder, weโ€™re just losing the cold,โ€ Coombs said to his fellow farmers.

The timing of when the moisture comes is off, too. Look at the past two water years โ€“ 2024 and 2025 โ€“ when heavy rains in October came through and added to the total overall amount of water in the Rio Grande and Conejos River systems. 

Too late to help irrigators, but good enough to help the amount of water in the Rio Grande and Conejos River, overall.

โ€œLook at how itโ€™s changing,โ€ Coombs said. โ€œUseful water for irrigation is changing in more ways than just volumes. Weโ€™re seeing timing change. So thatโ€™s part of what this is. Mother Nature is playing a big role in this. Weโ€™ve got to figure that component out a little better. We donโ€™t need to look across the fence at what our neighbors are or arenโ€™t doing. Letโ€™s figure out how we correct to that.โ€

Rio Grande and Pecos River basins. Map credit: By Kmusser – Own work, Elevation data from SRTM, drainage basin from GTOPO [1], U.S. stream from the National Atlas [2], all other features from Vector Map., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11218868