This year’s predicted spring runoff into Lake Powell has decreased yet again as the impacts of a dry winter begin to show. Hydrologists at the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center said Wednesday that the amount of water flowing into Lake Powell between April and July this year is expected to be 55% of average. “Average,” in forecasting, refers to the average runoff between 1991 and 2020. That prediction follows a decline in forecasted flows since the start of winter…In terms of actual water, 55% of the average runoff translates to about 3.5 million acre-feet of water making it into Lake Powell…That’s lower than the runoff in 2022, which was a little over 3.7 million acre-feet, but better than 2021’s 1.85 million acre-feet. Spring runoff in 2023 and 2024 were well above what is forecasted this year. The snowpack above Lake Powell, which is the second-largest reservoir in the U.S., has already begun to melt. At the start of April, the snowpack was 89% of the 1991-2020 median. As of May 1, it has shrunk to 71% of the median.
Homestake Creek is a tributary of the Eagle River. CREDIT: BRENT GARDNER-SMITH/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Click the link to read the article on the Vail Daily website (Zoe Goldstein). Here’s an excerpt:
May 8, 2025
Every year brings different water conditions in Eagle County. With climate change, the promise of full rivers in the summer may become even less certain. To prepare for future drought years, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority have a new water shortage response plan.
“The goal of this plan is to provide water security, to ensure that we can provide our core services,” said Justin Hildreth, the district’s water resources engineer, when presenting the plan to the district board for approval on April 10. Among the core services included in the list are safe drinking water and water for structure fire suppression…According to the plan, “a water shortage occurs when the (district/authority) lacks the physical or legal water supplies needed” to provide their services and maintain required streamflow levels. This can happen when there are extended calls from older water rights, (like the Shoshone water rights on the Colorado River), when stream flows are low for long periods and when local reservoirs (Eagle Park Reservoir and the Black Lakes) have low supply. The district and authority boards approved the plan during their April 10 meetings after learning about the plan during Feb. 27 work sessions…
One of the best early predictors of a drought scenario is if the snow water equivalent measure has not reached an average of 15 inches across the Vail, Fremont Pass and Copper SNOTEL stations by April 1. “That directly relates to Eagle Park Reservoir, that relates to the flows in Gore Creek and the flows in the Eagle River,” Hildreth said. This year, the average was just shy of 16 inches across the three stations on April 1.
Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Times website (Robert Tann). Here’s an excerpt:
Perched above the Dillon Reservoir on the side of a mountain road in Summit County, Gov. Jared Polis on Thursday signed into law three bills aimed at bolstering the state’s water infrastructure. The measures come amid the backdrop of chronic drought and increased water demand in the West which have made finding a path towards water sustainability more urgent. Speaking amid on-and-off snow flurries and bouts of sunshine, Polis said the bills signed on Thursday will help “build a sustainable, livable future” by “securing our water for the state of Colorado.”
State voters’ decision to approve a tax on sports betting in 2019 has provided a critical funding source for water projects, delivering as much as $30 million a year for infrastructure and conservation efforts. House Bill 1311 takes that a step further by eliminating a tax exemption for revenue generated from free sports bets…
A view of the popular Pumphouse campground, boat put-in and the upper Colorado River. Photo credit: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
Finding solutions to funding woes
While taxes on sports betting have helped shore up state spending on water projects, its other key funding stream risks running dry…Under Senate Bill 40, the state will commission a nine-member task force within the Department of Natural Resources to study the future of severance tax revenue and come up with solutions to better fund the state’s water needs. The task force will be required to submit a final report to the legislature in July 2026, with lawmakers hoping to turn those ideas into policy.
Grays and Torreys, Dillon Reservoir May 2017. Photo credit Greg Hobbs.
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
May 13, 2025
By a Colorado Supreme Court vote of 5 to 2, Boulder and Boulder County won the right to move forward with their lawsuit against two fossil fuel companies. their climate change lawsuit on Monday in the Colorado Supreme Court.
But if the vigor of the writing were the deciding factor, the dissent authored by Justice Carlos Samour Jr. with concurrence of Justice Boatright would carry the day.
That’s not how the law works, of course. The written opinion – echoing what was verbally decided several weeks ago – found that federal law did not preempt Boulder’s claims under state law in this case. In other words, the argument by the city and county against Exxon Mobil and Colorado Suncor can be heard in a Colorado district court.
“We express no opinion on the ultimate viability of the merits of Boulder’s claims,” said the majority in an opinion written by Justice Richard J. Gabriel.
Many similar lawsuits have been filed in the United States by local jurisdictions, and this is only the second one, after a Hawaii Supreme Court decision in 2023 – that has been deemed to move forward. In New York, justices ruled against a similar climate change lawsuit.
Boulder and Boulder County along with San Miguel County originally sued Suncor and Exxon in April 2018. They allege they have and will continue to incur costs and losses as a result of climate harms, such as increased costs for wildfire abatement, and for decades of misinformation.
A state district court rejected the attempt by the two companies to have the lawsuit dismissed. Exxon then directly petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court to overturn the result.
San Miguel County’s case in Denver District Court has been on hold, although this decision sets a precedent for it.
The lawsuit pivots upon several arguments, most notably the federal Clean Air Act, the law passed by Congress in 1970. In dispute was whether this law precludes efforts in Colorado to seek claims from the fossil fuel companies.
Boulder alleges that it has incurred and will continue to incur millions of dollars in costs to protect its property and residents from the impacts of climate change.
Along with the county, it asserts that the fossil fuel companies, “because they knowingly caused and contributed to the alteration of the climate by producing, promoting, refining, marketing and selling fossil fuels at levels that have caused and continue to cause climate change,” should be forced to share the costs.
They also accuse the two companies of “concealing and/or misrepresenting the dangers associated with fossil fuels’ intended use.”
The local jurisdictions also have various public nuisance, private nuisance and trespass claims. Under the latter heading is the “invasions of its property in the form of floodwaters, fires, hail, rain, snow, wind and invasive species.”
But again, this case did not decide the merits of those complaints. It was to decide whether a district court in Colorado had standing to hear the case. The oil companies argued that the Clean Air Act preempted state authority in the matter.
As in other cases heard in other states, the district court judge in Colorado found no language in the Clean Air Act that expressly pre-empted state common law tort claims. Nor, said the justice, did that federal law completely occupy the field of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Suncor refinery lies northeast of downtown Denver. Photo/Allen Best
Congress has the power to preempt state law — on that the two factions of the Colorado Supreme Court agree. Their disagreement come down to whether the Clean Air Act expressly allowed for state authority in this area of pollution — or even whether it needed to offer a green light. Indeed, according to the majority opinion, the federal law itself makes clear that “air pollution prevention … and air pollution control at its source is (sic) the primary responsibility of states and local governments.”
The majority opinion goes on for nearly three-dozen pages, so you might want to read it yourself. Here’s a key passage:
“At root, defendants appear to be arguing that a vague federal interest over interstate pollution, climate change, and energy policy must preempt Boulder’s claims,” it said. But a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court opinion had held that “invoking some brooding federal interest or appealing to a judicial policy preference should never be enough to win preemption of a state law; a litigant must point specifically to ‘a constitutional text or federal statute’ that does the displacing or conflicts with state law.”
Did the oil companies point to a federal state or constitutional text that preempts Boulder’s claims? No, said the state justices.
True, in New York’s Second Circuit ruled otherwise. But that court had engaged in backwards reasoning, said the Colorado state justices.
The arguments also involved whether Boulder and Boulder County are trying to set foreign policy, which is a no-no. Again, the majority of the justices found that the arguments of the oil companies fell short.
In his dissent, Justice Samour, who was joined by Justice Boatright, came to different conclusions in almost every point.
“We are but one individual nation. Yet, the majority in this case gives Boulder, Colorado, the green light to act as its own republic,” he wrote in a nod to a colloquial reference to Boulder. “More specifically, the majority concludes that Boulder may prosecute state-law claims that both effectively regulate interstate air pollution and have more than an incidental effect on foreign affairs. And, alarmingly, the majority’s decision isn’t cabined to Boulder – all other Colorado municipalities may bring such claims. Indeed, at least one (San Miguel County) already has.”
Added Samour in a later section. “I am concerned that permitting Boulder to proceed with its claims will interfere with both our federal government’s regulation of interstate air pollution and our federal government’s foreign policies regarding air pollution.” This has produced a worry that “we are headed for regulatory chaos.”
Samour’s dissent is fun to read as he talks about Bolder whistling past the federal-common-law graveyard, or the attempt by the Boulder jurisdictions to “treat federal common law as chopped liver.”
His bottom line is that the question is not whether the Clean Air Act expressly allowed states to have authority in this area. It did not, he says. It’s a flip side of the coin of the majority opinion.
In a footnote, he says that he would not rule out the possibility that Boulder could bring suit under Colorado law to recover damages allegedly caused by emissions resulting from the energy companies’ activities within Colorado. “But that’s a far, far cry from what Boulder is seeking to do here – with the majority’s blessing, no less.”
Again, it comes back to the Clean Air Act. It does not, he says, gives states authority to independently regulate or otherwise control out-of-state sources of pollution.”
Precipitation fell across much of the U.S. this week, with heavier amounts (> 1 inch) falling from portions of the central and southern Plains eastward to the East Coast, and also in parts of the West, Hawaii, and southern Alaska. Much of the Southeastern U.S., from eastern Texas to North Carolina, reported weekly rainfall totals between 2 to 10 inches, while similar amounts (2 to 6 inches) were reported in parts of the Northeast. Above-normal precipitation supported drought improvements across large portions of the South, Southeast and Northeast, and in parts of the Southwest and High Plains. Conversely, weekly precipitation totals were below normal across much of the West to the Midwest. Drought and abnormal dryness were expanded or intensified in northern portions of the West and Midwest, as well as parts of the Southwest and High Plains. Temperatures were above normal across much of the U.S. this week, with areas of the north-central U.S., from central Montana to Minnesota, reported temperatures 9 to 20 degrees above normal. Below-normal temperatures were observed from the southern Plains to parts of the eastern Midwest, where departures were up to 10 degrees F below normal, with the largest departures being reported in parts of Texas…
Warm temperature dominated the High Plains this week, with departures ranging up to 20 degrees F above normal, especially along the northern portions of the region, while cooler-than-normal temperatures were observed along the southern border. Precipitation fell across the western and southern portions of the region this week; however, in most areas, amounts were insufficient for significant improvement. Beneficial heavy precipitation (1 to 3 inches) in eastern Colorado and Kansas led to improvements in moderate to severe drought (D1-D2) and abnormal dryness (D0) in these areas. Conversely, dry conditions resulted in the introduction and expansion of drought. Extreme drought (D3) was introduced in western Nebraska, and moderate to extreme drought (D1-D3) expanded in western Colorado and eastern Nebraska. Abnormal dryness was also expanded in southern Wyoming this week…
Drought Monitor one week change map ending May 13, 2025.
Average temperatures were above normal across nearly the entire region this week, while below-normal temperatures were observed across much of New Mexico, and in parts of Arizona and along the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California, where temperatures were between 1 to 6 degrees F below normal. Conversely, Montana observed temperatures ranging between 3 to 15 degrees F above normal this week. Precipitation varied across the region this week, with beneficial amounts falling in parts of the Southwest and southern Montana. Exceptional drought (D4) was improved along the Nevada-Arizona border, while extreme drought (D3) was trimmed back in southern Utah, southern Nevada, eastern California, and western Arizona. Severe drought (D2) was improved in parts of Utah, Arizona, while moderate drought (D1) was reduced in Montana. Conversely, above-normal temperatures and below-normal precipitation resulted in the expansion of exceptional drought in southern New Mexico, severe drought in Montana, and moderate drought in northern portions of Washington, Idaho and Montana. Abnormal dryness (D0) was also expanded in western Washington, northeast Oregon, northern and southern Idaho, and in southern California this week…
Cooler temperatures dominated the South this week, with departures ranging up to 9 degrees F below normal. However, small areas of Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Tennessee observed temperatures slightly above normal this week, with temperatures between 1 to 3 degrees F above normal. Precipitation varied across the region this week, with heavier amounts (1 to 8 inches) falling across much of Louisiana and Mississippi, and in parts of Oklahoma, Texas, and southern Arkansas. Moderate to exceptional drought (D1-D4) was improved in parts of western, central, and southern Texas, while moderate to severe drought (D1-D2) was improved in western Oklahoma. Improvements to abnormal dryness (D0) were made in Oklahoma and Texas, and abnormal dryness was removed from southern Mississippi and southern Louisiana. Drought reduction and improvements were based on precipitation totals, short-term SPI/SPEI, NDMC short-term blends, and improvements to streamflow and soil moisture data…
Looking Ahead
During the next five days (May 13–17, 2025), the slow moving upper low across the Southeast U.S. will be weakening and evolving into an open trough by Thursday as it exits the East Coast. Another upper trough and closed low across the Northern Rockies mid-week will sustain a surface low crossing the Northern Plains and then into south-central Canada by the end of the week, with heavy rain for the Dakotas/Minnesota and late season mountain snow for the northern Rockies. Going into Thursday, the heavier rainfall reaches eastern North Dakota into northern Minnesota, with some of the guidance indicating the potential for 1-2 inch rainfall totals with some embedded convection. Very warm weather will continue across the Upper Midwest for the middle of the week, with highs reaching 85-90 degrees on Wednesday across the eastern Dakotas and much of Minnesota. The anomalous warmth then shifts eastward to the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley regions to close out the week, and much of the East Coast Friday into Saturday ahead of the cold front. Very hot conditions are expected across southern Texas for the entire forecast period with highs exceeding 100 degrees near the Rio Grande, and HeatRisk reaching the major category for these areas. In contrast, chilly conditions are likely for the Intermountain West and Northern Rockies with highs running 5-15 degrees below average with the upper level trough and increased cloud cover.
The Climate Prediction Center’s 6-10 day outlook (valid May 18–22, 2025) favors above-normal precipitation across most of the U.S., with below-normal precipitation favored in portions of the West Coast states and the Florida Peninsula. Increased probabilities for above-normal temperatures are forecast for Hawaii, from the southern Plains to the Southeast, and in parts of California, Nevada, and southern Alaska.
US Drought Monitor one week change map ending May 13, 2025.
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:
May 13, 2025
Key Points
Arizona has “real skin in the game” as negotiations continue over shares of a smaller Colorado River, Gov. Katie Hobbs said. Now she wants other states to step up.
The seven Colorado River states are trying to reach a shortage-sharing agreement this year, but are also looking to the new Trump administration to see if there are alternatives.
Arizona officials say other parts of the state, such as Yuma, may have to take cuts. Tribes say they expect the state to honor settlements.
Arizona is doing its part and taking its hits to conserve the Colorado River, Gov. Katie Hobbs said, and it’s time for upstream states to do the same. The governor assembled a roundtable of water users and officials on May 13 to present what she called a unified front among the state’s interests in defending Arizona’s share of the Colorado River as time runs short for reaching a deal with other states that use the water. So far, states upstream from Arizona have not offered cutbacks beyond the limits that a paltry snowpack naturally extracts from their farmers.
“It’s been more than a little frustrating,” Hobbs said. “We’ve come to the table with real solutions, with real proposals. We have real skin in the game,” she said, including billions of dollars in water infrastructure upgrades and in conservation agreements that keep water in the river’s reservoirs. “The upper states need to be willing to take their share as well.”
[…]
So far, the Rocky Mountain states known collectively as the Upper Basin have declined to specify new cuts they might take, because they say they already suffer the consequences of a reduced snowpack that shortchanges their farmers every year. The federal government has paid some Lower Basin farmers and others to cut back on their demands from Lake Mead’s storage bank, and the four Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming argue that their year-in, year-out hardship is unrewarded and largely invisible to water users in the Southwest.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Following a day of testimony on May 6, Denver Water has been asked by U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello to provide the court with the utility’s final summary highlighting its position following the witness testimony and exhibits. There isn’t a specific timetable set for this yet.
The focus of the hearing was for the judge to determine if construction can safely stop while Denver Water moves forward on an additional permitting review as the court ruled on April 3. Here is Denver Water’s statement on the risk presented by delaying construction:
Denver Water has already started the appeal process with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. As part of this, the project has been allowed to continue (under a temporary stay) while legal proceedings are underway.
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
The Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in southwest Nevada harbors four endangered species, including the Amargosa pupfish, a tough little fish that has been around since the Pleistocene. The Wyoming toad, which makes its home in southeast Wyoming’s Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge, is one of North America’s most endangered amphibians. And the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge protects one of the world’s largest onshore denning sites for polar bears.
All these bumpy, feathery, furry and increasingly rare species are part of the astonishing biodiversity in the United States that helps keep our planet alive and healthy. Now, every bit of that biodiversity — the fish and wildlife and the land and water that they all need to survive — face what conservation advocates call an existential crisis owing to draconian budget cuts proposed in the name of improving government efficiency.
An employee descends stairs to Devils Hole, home of Devils Hole pupfish, in a remote unit of Death Valley National Park near Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. Luna Anna Archey/High Country News
President Donald Trump’s recently released federal budget asks Congress to slash more than $900 million from the National Park System, $564 million from the U.S. Geological Survey’s science and research programs and almost $200 million from the Bureau of Land Management, along with $170 million in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conservation grants. And while the president’s budget is far from final — Congress ultimately controls the power of the purse — advocates say the past 100 days of Trump’s presidency have shown that the current Republican-led Congress is either unable or unwilling to stand up for public lands and wildlife protections. In fact, a House committee voted shortly before midnight Tuesday to begin selling off hundreds of thousands of acres of public land in Utah and Nevada.
If Trump’s current proposals become reality, advocates warn that the West as we know it will be permanently changed, home to neglected and shrinking public land with fewer national parks, diminished fish and wildlife, and increasingly out-of-control wildfires.
“This is short-term thinking at its absolute worst,” said Walt Gasson, a fourth-generation Wyoming hunter and outdoorsman. “We are standing by letting people make decisions for us that don’t reflect our own legacy, what we want to leave for our grandkids.”
“No more hiking, no more biking, no more grazing”
The proposed cuts to the National Park Service are some of the most alarming so far, and a shocking omen for anyone that goes outdoors.
Slashing $900 million from the agency budget is the equivalent of closing 350 national park sites, said Kristen Brengel, with the National Parks Conservation Association. And, in fact, Trump’s budget calls for “transferring smaller, lesser visited parks to state and tribal governments.”
The White House cannot unilaterally sell off parks, but it can cut staffing, and that is something that has Brengel seriously worried. This year alone, the Park Service has already lost at least 2,700 employees through buyouts and deferred resignations, and she expects more layoffs soon.
“They will make it impossible to open the parks to the public,” she said.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum signed an executive order in early April saying that parks and historic sites would remain fully open, but Brengel noted that this contradicts the White House’s priorities, which include shuttering those sites and transferring control of them to the states. And while Burgum promised to fully staff parks for the coming summer, many remain critically short, some still lacking superintendents and maintenance chiefs.
The White House’s proposed cuts will hit more than the parks, though: They will impact all federally owned public lands, including wildlife refuges, said Christian Huntof Defenders of Wildlife. A leaked Department of Interior strategic plan called for national monuments to be “correctly sized” and “heritage lands and sites returned to states.”
A ranger-led sunset walk at White Sands National Park, New Mexico, in 2019. This year, the Park Service has already lost at least 2,700 employees through buyouts and deferred resignations. Luna Anna Archey/High Country News
Meanwhile, the House Natural Resources Committee voted late Tuesday night to sell public land in Nevada and Utah, at the same time requiring massive increases in timber production and coal, oil and gas extraction while deeply cutting the royalty rates companies pay to lease public lands. Estimates vary but the total acreage includes several hundred thousand acres across the two states.
“In the dead of night, 26 members of Congress, with no debate or explanation, voted to sell off public land that belongs to all Americans,” wrote Aaron Weiss with the Center for Western Priorities. “Once these lands are gone, they’re gone forever — that means no more hiking, no more biking, no more grazing, no more habitat for wildlife.”
All the changes to public lands and public-land agencies come on top of deep cuts to scientific research. The president’s proposed budget would also likely cancel out all cooperative fish and wildlife units and focus instead on “achieving dominance” in energy and critical minerals. And some worry those cuts will come even before Congress considers the president’s recommendations; sources tell High Country News that 1,000 employees in the USGS Ecosystem Services will be laid off soon.
The scientists whose jobs are on the chopping block identify and map big game migrations and figure out the best locations for constructing the wildlife over- and underpasses that save countless human and animal lives. They monitor grizzly bear numbers and perform annual migratory bird counts to set hunting limits, said Ed Arnett, CEO of The Wildlife Society. They are critical to maintaining healthy fish and wildlife populations.
Part of a plan
To Land Tawney, all this is part of a plan to “dismantle, defund and divest” federal public lands. It’s why the president’s budget calls for consolidating all wildland firefighting operations under the Interior Department, he said, which is currently being managed by DOGE operative Tyler Hassen.
“Chaotic is one word for this,” said Tawney, co-founder of American Hunters and Anglers, “but crisis is another.”
Regardless of political party, the general public does not, as a rule, support transferring national parks, historic sites or wildlife refuges to states or reducing permit oversight on oil, gas and mining development. But if public lands are mismanaged badly enough for long enough, Tawney said, selling them off may become inevitable. And selling places like national wildlife refuges will mean no more homes for fragile — and not so fragile — fish and wildlife populations, including the Wyoming toad and Nevada pupfish.
While Tawney said this is one of the darker periods in U.S. history, he hopes that all the federal staff firings, cuts to scientific research and other efforts to devalue and sell public lands will finally galvanize anyone who cares about the outdoors and conservation.
“I think we’re starting to coalesce around pushing back on these ill-fated ideas,” he said. “And collectively, not just the hunting and fishing community, but the entire outdoors community.”
The Palisades Fire, photographed here from Palisades Drive, ignited Jan. 7, 2025, in the Santa Monica Mountains of Los Angeles County. It spread rapidly because of hurricane-force Santa Ana winds, burning for 24 days, consuming more than 23,000 acres and destroying 6,837 structures. Photo credit: Ariam23, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0
One of the initial concerns during the series of tragic Los Angeles wildfires that burned in January 2025 was whether fire hydrants were ready to combat the inferno that left so much destruction in its wake.
To be clear, and as Denver7 highlighted in January, public water systems are designed to help firefighters battle urban fires.
For instance, Denver Water’s system includes built-in redundancies to ensure it can meet water demand, and the utility continually invests in the system to keep it that way.
Denver Water’s distribution system includes 31 treated water storage tanks across the metro area (many of which have been upgraded in recent years), more than 3,000 miles of pipe and 22,000 fire hydrants, along with dedicated mechanics who focus on maintaining those hydrants and keeping them in top condition.
During a fire in the Denver Water service area, its operators can analyze and adjust the operation of the distribution system so that firefighters have the water pressure they need to fight the blaze. The utility also will send experts to the scene to help maintain pressure.
The system of hydrants is not designed, however, to provide sufficient flows for a long enough period to effectively battle long-lasting, wind-driven, large-scale wildfires. Hydrants are pressurized and are crucial to fighting structure fires, but they can only do so much. And when many hydrants are in use in the same area at the same time, water pressure is going to weaken.
While Denver Water can store millions of gallons of drinking water in dozens of large water storage tanks around town to accommodate increases in demand, there are limits — like being able to provide enough water to fight a wildfire.
Fortunately, much of Denver Water’s service area is in a different environment compared to Los Angeles. But that doesn’t mean the area is immune, as there are portions that blend wildland environments with urban communities.
In fact, just last summer a string of wildfires ignited during the same week in the foothills along the Front Range. The fires required aggressive coordination from fire departments up and down the corridor, alongside state and federal agencies, to extinguish, with a focus on wildland firefighting. Wildland fire responders cleared fire lines and fought the fires from the air.
A plane pulls in water from Chatfield Reservoir to help fight the Quarry Fire, a wildfire that ignited in summer 2024 in Jefferson County, Colorado. The fire required a multi-jurisdictional effort to extinguish. Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Urban fire hydrants were not the focus.
Ultimately, when a fire like the tragic blazes in Los Angeles occurs, it is always going to require a coordinated, multijurisdictional effort, often across city, state and even international lines.
So, what can be done?
Colorado Public Radio in January spoke with Colorado State Forest Service wildfire mitigation program specialist Chad Julian, who discussed the importance of focusing on the right topics when analyzing any fire.
“If we focus on increasing budgets, more water storage, more fire trucks, it’s not going to change the outcome of the next event. It would take the engagement of homeowners to really work on the resistance to ignition and hardening those buildings, the vegetation and the yards,” he said.
“Ninety-five percent of it was likely still caused by land use patterns, how we build, how we interact with the ecosystem, whether we adapt to it or not. And unfortunately, that’s not the focus at the moment,” he said.
But this was the focus in Colorado after the devastating Marshall Fire of 2021, leading to new legislation:
In Louisville, an ordinance took effect in December 2024 requiring implementation of wildfire-resistant measures in buildings. (Boulder is considering something similar.)
Many new construction sites in Denver include 5-foot vegetation barriers around new structures in their landscape planning.
The Wildfire Resilient Homes Grant Program, created by Colorado’s state legislature, encourages homeowners to make their properties more resistant to wildfire.
Julian says these are the types of changes that can make a real difference.
Denver Water has long focused on investing in the resiliency of its watersheds and system, and plans to invest about $1.8 billion over the next 10 years.
When customers pay their water bill, the money goes to building a reliable system, which includes regular infrastructure inspection and maintenance programs to ensure pipes, hydrants and storage tanks are ready to protect communities during urban fires.
Water bills also fund watershed resiliency projects that protect the lands and facilities that collect and store Denver’s drinking water.
The From Forests to Faucets partnership alone has committed more than $96 million to reduce wildfire risk in critical areas, from 2010 through planned work into 2027. Half of that money has come from Denver Water. The risk of wildfire in Denver Water’s watersheds remains the greatest risk to Denver’s water supply, making this investment crucial to the resilience of the system.
A Ponsse tree harvester works to thin a 40-acre section of forest in Breckenridge in August 2020, as part of the From Forests to Faucets partnership. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water’s 10-year investment plan also includes expanding Gross Reservoir in western Boulder County, which will improve water supplies on the north side of the metro area and make the system more balanced and resilient in the face of increasing impacts from climate change, drought and wildfire.
This improvement on the north side of the metro area will prove pivotal should wildfire inhibit resources that deliver water on the south side of the region, via the South Platte River, where wildfires have struck consistently over the past 20 years.
These are just a few examples of investments and partnerships already underway, but challenges lie ahead.
As Salazar noted in his column published in The Denver Post (which can also be found on Denver Water’s TAP news site), climate change continues to impact the environment and, as the wildland-urban interface continues to merge, even more investment and collaboration will be crucial.
As summer approaches, millions of Americans begin planning or taking trips to state and national parks, seeking to explore the wide range of outdoor recreational opportunities across the nation. A lot of them will head toward the nation’s wilderness areas – 110 million acres, mostly in the West, that are protected by the strictest federal conservation rules.
When Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964, it described wilderness areas as places that evoked mystery and wonder, “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” These are wild landscapes that present nature in its rawest form.
Regardless of whether Americans visit their public lands or know when they have crossed a wilderness boundary, as environmentalhistorians we believe that everyone still benefits from the existence and protection of these precious places.
This belief is an idea eloquently articulated and popularized 65 years ago by the noted Western writer Wallace Stegner. His eloquence helped launch the modern environmental movement and gave power to the idea that the nation’s public lands are a fundamental part of the United States’ national identity and a cornerstone of American freedom. https://public.tableau.com/views/Wilderness_17462162884870/CombinedMap?:language=en-US&:sid=&:redirect=auth&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link&:showVizHome=no&:embed=true
One of the commission’s members was David E. Pesonen, who worked at the Wildland Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley. He was asked to examine wilderness and its relationship to outdoor recreation. Pesonen later became a notable environmental lawyer and leader of the Sierra Club. But at the time, Pesonen had no idea what to say about wilderness.
However, he knew someone who did. Pesonen had been impressed by the wild landscapes of the American West in Stegner’s 1954 history “Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West.” So he wrote to Stegner, who at the time was at Stanford University, asking for help in articulating the wilderness idea.
Stegner’s response, which he said later was written in a single afternoon, was an off-the-cuff riff on why he cared about preserving wildlands. This letter became known as the Wilderness Letter and marked a turning point in American political and conservation history.
Pesonen shared the letter with the rest of the commission, which also shared it with newly installed Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall. Udall found its prose to be so profound, he read it at the seventh Wilderness Conference in 1961 in San Francisco, a speech broadcast by KCBS, the local FM radio station. The Sierra Club published the letter in the record of the conference’s proceedings later that year.
But it was not until its publication in The Washington Post on June 17, 1962, that the letter reached a national audience and captured the imagination of generations of Americans.
In the letter, Stegner connected the idea of wilderness to a fundamental part of American identity. He called wilderness “something that has helped form our character and that has certainly shaped our history as a people … the challenge against which our character as a people was formed … (and) the thing that has helped to make an American different from and, until we forget it in the roar of our industrial cities, more fortunate than other men.”
Without wild places, he argued, the U.S. would be just like every other overindustrialized place in the world.
In the letter, Stegner expressed little concern with how wilderness might support outdoor recreation on public lands. He didn’t care whether wilderness areas had once featured roads, trails, homesteads or even natural resource extraction. What he cared about was Americans’ freedom to protect and enjoy these places. Stegner recognized that the freedom to protect, to restrain ourselves from consuming, was just as important as the freedom to consume.
Perhaps most importantly, he wrote, wilderness was “an intangible and spiritual resource,” a place that gave the nation “our hope and our excitement,” landscapes that were “good for our spiritual health even if we never once in ten years set foot in it.”
Without it, Stegner lamented, “never again will Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste.” To him, the nation’s natural cathedrals and the vaulted ceiling of the pure blue sky are Americans’ sacred spaces as much as the structures in which they worship on the weekends.
Stegner penned the letter during a national debate about the value of preserving wild places in the face of future development. “Something will have gone out of us as a people,” he wrote, “if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed.” If not protected, Stegner believed these wildlands that had helped shape American identity would fall to what he viewed as the same exploitative forces of unrestrained capitalism that had industrialized the nation for the past century. Every generation since has an obligation to protect these wild places.
Stegner’s Wilderness Letter became a rallying cry to pass the Wilderness Act. The closing sentences of the letter are Stegner’s best: “We simply need that wild country available to us, even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in. For it can be a means of reassuring ourselves of our sanity as creatures, a part of the geography of hope.”
This phrase, “the geography of hope,” is Stegner’s most famous line. It has become shorthand for what wilderness means: the wildlands that defined American character on the Western frontier, the wild spaces that Americans have had the freedom to protect, and the natural places that give Americans hope for the future of this planet.
Death Valley National Park in California contains one of the largest protected wilderness areas in the United States. National Park Service/E. Letterman
America’s ‘best idea’
Stegner returned to themes outlined in the Wilderness Letter again two decades later in his essay “The Best Idea We Ever Had: An Overview,” published in Wilderness magazine in spring 1983.
Writing in response to the Reagan administration’s efforts to reduce protection of the National Park System, Stegner declared that the parks were “Absolutely American, absolutely democratic.” He said they reflect us as a nation, at our best rather than our worst, and without them, millions of Americans’ lives, his included, would have been poorer.
Public lands are more than just wilderness or national parks. They are places for work and play. They provide natural resources, wildlife habitat, clean air, clean water and recreational opportunities to small towns and sprawling metro areas alike. They are, as Stegner said, cures for cynicism and places of shared hope.
Stegner’s words still resonate as Americans head for their public lands and enjoy the beauty of the wild places protected by wilderness legislation this summer. With visitor numbers increasing annually and agency budgets at historic lows, we believe it is useful to remember how precious these places are for all Americans. And we agree with Stegner that wilderness, public lands writ large, are more valuable to Americans’ collective identity and expression of freedom than they are as real estate that can be sold or commodities that can be extracted.
Russell and Andrea Shaffran, of Aspen, ready their boat for a float down the lower Roaring Fork River. Photo credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (John Meyer). Here’s an excerpt:
May 8, 2025
In the wake of a warm April, Colorado’s snowpack is going through early snowmelt with below-normal snowpack and low runoff, according to the monthly water supply outlook from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The NRCS report, based on data as of May 1 and released on Thursday, wasn’t good news for rafting outfitters in the state.
“Thank goodness we received moisture this past week, and that the current reservoir levels are what they are,” said David Costlow, executive director of the Colorado River Outfitters Association. “The industry has seen this many times in the past decades, and we will plan for a full season in most places, as long as it doesn’t get too hot too quickly and the afternoon rains appear in July and August.“
West Drought Monitor map May 6, 2025.
Drought conditions worsened in areas of western Colorado and the eastern plains in April…A month ago outfitters were more optimistic. In last month’s report, the snowpack in the South Platte Basin stood at 98% of normal for the date. As of May 1, it was at 72%. The Colorado River Headwaters basin fell from 96% to 66%, and the Upper Arkansas headwaters fell from 91% to 59%.
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map May 12, 2025 via the NRCS.
(They do one of these every month, I always find them interesting, and I always forget to post them.)
26.5 miles are currently dry in the lower stretch of New Mexico’s Middle Rio Grande, in the stretch between Socorro and Elephant Butte Reservoir, though the Low Flow Conveyance Channel (a big canal next to the river’s main channel through this lower reach – it’s an engineered system, what counts as “river” is semantics at this point) is flowing, and water is still flowing through the Elephant Butte Narrows.
The river’s actually up right now through Albuquerque thanks to last week’s rain and the warmup melting off some last bits of snow. But this is likely the peak.
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
The shiny new cold-weather air source heat pump installed during summer 2023 at Coyote Gulch Manor.
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
May 12, 2025
A Boulder County couple — we’ll call them Fred and Wilma — decided to live their values and reduce the carbon footprint of their house. This is what they did.
This was originally published in the Boulder Weekly on April 16.
Fred and Wilma (not their real names) take climate change very seriously. For the last several years, they have been members of Citizens’ Climate Lobby, an organization that advocates for a tax on greenhouse gas emissions.
Yet like most of us, they were burning natural gas to heat the space and water in their 2,800-square-foot house near Niwot. Last year, they decided to live their values. They set out to go nearly all electric.
You, too, can be like Fred and Wilma. Here’s how.
Step 1: Assess
Energy audits provide great value in guiding investment choices. They can be had for $190 after rebates.
Even more valuable are blow-door tests. Most effective in cold weather, they provide visual images of heat escaping a house. Many Boulder residents can expect to pay $60 to $150 for a conventional blow-door test. In other jurisdictions, these advanced tests typically run $200 to $450.
EnergySmart
For Boulder County residents, EnergySmart is an excellent place to start on this journey. It’s a partnership of Boulder County, Boulder and Longmont with Xcel Energy and Platte River Power Authority.
Advisors can address everything from building insulation to solar panels to the needs of electric vehicles.
Efficiency Works (Longmont Power)
An Efficiency Works assessment will cost Longmont residents $60. While funds last, assessments are free of charge for rental properties in 2025.
Xcel Energy
The state’s largest utility provider currently offers two options for audits:
Home Energy Squad Plus Visit. The current cost is $100 (limited-time discounted rate; the cost without the discount is $150)
Stuart Cummings, a former pilot, and others created Go Electric Colorado with a goal of sharing their knowledge with homeowners who wanted to figure out ways to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their homes. Here Stuart Cummings explains heat pumps to an audience in East December. Photo/Allen Best
Go Electric Colorado coalesced in 2023 after Stuart Cummings, Julia Moravcsik and Nick Stevens met and realized how many people were interested in electric cars but remained fearful about ranges and reliability. They suspected the same was true about suppressing emissions in buildings.
Abundant information about home electrification can be found on the internet. But, as Moravcsik points out, “people kind of don’t know what they don’t know.”
“Even in Boulder, where people know a lot about this kind of stuff, most people knew nothing or next to nothing about home electrification,” she says.
Go Electric Colorado’s volunteer counselors have now provided nearly 400 consultations, about half in Boulder County, with others ranging from the eastern plains to the desert valleys of the Western Slope.
Step 2: Getting started
Insulation: Fred, who recently retired after several decades as a home remodeler, knew insulation was the most important thing in reducing energy use, no matter the fuel source. He and Wilma hired Net Zero Insulation to boost the attic insulation to R-60, the gold standard. (The R-value is the capacity of an insulating material to resist heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power.)
It cost $3,200, and the impact was immediate. The house stayed warmer in winter, cooler in summer — and lowered their utility bills.
Windows and doors: Many older houses have single-pane windows, which have an R-value of 1. Replacing them with double-pane windows can cost $10,000 to $20,000 depending upon the house size and number of windows. Some newer homes have triple-pane windows. Windows produced by Alpen High Performance at its Louisville factory can get up to R-11. They are also far more pricey.
The federal Energy Star program allows you to claim 30% of product cost up to a maximum of $600.
In the basement of their 1967 home, Fred installed six small double-paned windows at a cost of $2,000. Upgrading a single-paned patio door cost $3,200.
Go Electric Colorado’s Paul Bousquet counsels caution before upgrading from double to triple-pane windows. He instead advises having an energy auditor use an infrared camera to find imperfections in seals around windows.
Heat pumps: Heat pumps can replace gas-burning furnaces. Using electricity, they milk the heat from outdoor air then feed it into the building’s interior. During summer, the reverse process can replace air conditioners and swamp coolers. Heat pumps can also use the same process to produce hot water in lieu of natural gas.
Metro Denver-Boulder has several companies that specialize in heat pump installation. Xcel Energy has a list of contractors registered with the company. So does Energy Smart. Go Electric Colorado endorses a handful of contractors; Bousquet advises getting at least three bids.
Fred and Wilma used Elephant Energy for the air-source heat pump to warm and cool their house and heat their 50-gallon water heater. The $22,000 cost (after rebates) included an electrical upgrade. The Flintstone house stayed comfortable in January even when the temperature dipped to 9 below. Fred strongly advises finding a company that knows all the rebates.
(For example, Superior has a host of rebates for projects that serve up to four residential units, everything from insulation to electric induction cookstoves).
Kitchen stoves: Going electric also means replacing the kitchen gas-burning stove with an electric model. Plus, studies have shown that gas fumes while cooking the tamales can be unhealthy to cooks and others.
Boulder County offers an induction cook-top lending program for people who are curious about switching to an electric range: rebuildingbetter.org/induction-resources.
While roof-top solar is abundant in this Jefferson County housing development along Highway 93 between Golden and Arvada, Go Electric Colorado counselors say it should not be the first, second or even third investment for homeowners wanting to shrink the carbon footprint of their buildings. Photo/Allen Best
Solar: Going all-electric in your house may not get you 100% clean of fossil fuels. You might achieve that by investing in solar and battery storage, a path that Go Electric Colorado can also help with.
Locally, Boulder-based Namaste Solar — an employee-owned co-op — offers free quotes. Federal tax incentives can cover up to 30% of the cost of solar panels and battery storage.
Fred and Wilma, however, decided against going with rooftop solar. Solar farms can generate electricity at scale, and roof-top solar is a long-term investment.
That has also been the advice of Go Electric Colorado. Nice, they say, but it’s not the first, second or even third priority.
Getting electricity from the utilities will include some fossil fuel. But that should diminish to near zero during the next 15 to 25 years.
Fred says that upgrading their house was a reflection of their resolve to be a part, if a small one, of the climate solution. “You can tell how much people care by what they do,” he says.
The Trump administration has sent its proposed fiscal year 2026 budget to Congress, and holy cow is it a doozy.
It would slash billions upon billions of dollars from environmental protection, public land management, foreign aid, health programs, science and research, housing, and education — usually because some of the money goes to “woke” or “DEI” programs or somehow funds “radical leftist ideology.” Yet it would increase Department of Homeland Defense spending by a whopping $44 billion, shovel an additional $113 billion into the military industrial complex, i.e. the Department of Defense, and spend more money to return to the moon and to put an American on Mars (seems like the perfect mission for Elon and Donny).
If it were implemented as proposed, the budget would tear apart the nation’s social safety net, set back science years, destroy America’s global standing, erode education, eviscerate the federal workforce, rob communities and low-income households of vital funding, gut dozens of federal agencies, generally weaken regulatory oversight, and even transfer some national park units to states.
Of course, a presidential budget is merely a wish list, a starting point for negotiations with Congress, which ultimately must sign off on it. And as we all know, the Republican-led Congress is independent and courageous and willing to stand up to Trump and put the kibosh on cuts and spending that are bad for the country, right?
Oh, what’s that? They are now the sycophant party? Oh… oh dear. We are in real trouble, aren’t we?
Okay, in all seriousness, the cuts in this budget are so deep, and would gut programs so important to many Republican congress members’ constituents, that it’s hard to imagine that no one from the majority party would stand up and try at least to mitigate the madness. Then again, so far the House hasn’t lifted a finger to block the destructive and inefficient actions of DOGE or Trump’s misguided economy-wrecking trade wars. In just the latest action, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, fired 114 employees; thus far not a peep out of GOP Rep. Jeff Hurd.
And, even as we speak, House Republicans are pushing a budget reconciliation bill that’s every bit as loony as Trump’s budget (and is more or less modeled on Trump’s requests).
Of particular interest to the Land Desk and many of its readers will be the House Natural Resources Committee’s portion of the bill, which amounts to an oil and gas and mining corporation wish list. Among other things it would:
Require quarterly oil and gas lease sales (already happening) and reinstate non-competitive oil and gas lease bidding (by reversing a Biden-era ban);
Reduce oil and gas drilling royalty rates;
Reissue Trump I-era oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and roll back Biden-era regulations on drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska;
Require Interior to hold coal lease sales and rescind former coal leasing moratoria and reduce some coal royalty rates;
Allow mining and drilling companies to pay a fee to expedite environmental reviews for developments on federal lands;
Charge anyone protesting an oil and gas lease or permit at least $150;
Block the BLM from implementing Biden-era Resource Management Plans for the:
Rock Springs Field Office in southwestern Wyoming, including the Red Desert;
Buffalo Field Office in Wyoming, which covers parts of the Powder River Basin;
Miles City Field Office in Wyoming;
North Dakota office;
Colorado River Valley and Grand Junction Field Offices in Colorado.
Encourage more timber production from Forest Service and BLM lands.
The point being that so far, it seems that the House Republicans and the Trump administration are on the same page, at least when it comes to their priorities for public lands. So finding enough Republicans to stand up to Trump and tell him his budget proposals are wacky, at best, may be challenging. We’ll see.
Now for some of the data from Trump’s FY 2026 budget. I’m saving the public lands stuff for last, and will just give a summary of other departments just to give you a sense of what they’re trying to do. The – in front of the number is a cut; the + is for a spending increase.
STATE DEPT
– $3.2 billion from international disaster assistance and humanitarian aid
– $2.5 billion from State and USAID operations to ensure that “foreign aid spending is efficient and consistent with U.S. foreign policy under the America First agenda”
– $1.2 billion from International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
– $1.6 billion from peacekeeping missions
– $6.2 billion from global health programs and family planning
– $1.6 billion from the Food for Peace program
DEPT of EDUCATION
+ $60 million for charter schools (to a total of $500 million)
– $4.5 billion from Title I and K-12 programs.
– $980 million from federal work study programs, saying it is a “handout to woke universities.” (I did work study in college, and it not only helped me pay tuition, but gave me valuable job skills.)
– $910 million from Supplemental Educational Opportunity grants because they have been “used to fund radical leftist ideology”
– $890 million from English language acquisition programs
– $64 million from Howard University
– $49 million from the Office for Civil Rights
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
+ $500 million to Make America Healthy Again initiative.
– $4 billion from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps folks pay their utility bills, saying it “is unnecessary because states have policies preventing utility disconnection for low-income households” and it “benefits states like New York and California.” They want to eliminate this program “and instead support low-income individuals through energy dominance.”
– $770 million from Community Services Block Grant because they are “laden with equity-building and green energy initiatives” including using funds “to combine clean energy with affordable housing.” God forbid.
– $315 million from preschool development grants (eliminates the program) because it has been used to “push DEI policies on to toddlers.”
– $1.7 billion from the Health Resources and Services Administration
– $3.6 billion from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs
– $18 billion from National Institute of Health.
– $1.1 billion from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
+ $9 million for drinking water programs. Sounds great until you see what they cut.
+ $27 million for tribes for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Ditto.
– $2.5 billion from Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds because “when it comes to water infrastructure, the States should be responsible for funding their own water infrastructure projects.”
– $1 billion fROM categorical grants
– $254 million for Hazardous Substance Superfund
– $235 million from Office of Research and Development because it includes “radical environmental justice work, woke climate research”
– $100 million from Environmental Justice
– $90 million from Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grants
– $100 million from the Atmospheric Protection Program
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
+ $43.8 billion (total $175 billion) to “enable DHS to fully implement the President’s mass removal campaign, finish construction of the border wall … enhance secret service operations…”
– $646 million from Non-Disaster FEMA Grant Programs (falsely claiming that FEMA skipped over people who voted for Trump in the wake of Hurricane Helen. Oy.)
– $491 million for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
– $650 million for the Shelter and Services Program which “disburses grants used to facilitate mass illegal migration.”
– $247 million for TSA screening.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
+ $113 billion
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
– $15.2 billion and canceling the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding, including “Green New Scam” funds committed to “build unreliable renewable energy, removing carbon dioxide from the air, and other costly technologies.”
– $2.6 billion from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs.
– $1.1 billion from the Office of Science
– $389 million from the Environmental Management program which performs activities at 14 active cleanup sites (including the Atlas uranium mill cleanup in Moab) and operates WIPP. It would maintains the Hanford site’s funding at 2025 levels, but reduces funding for cleanup at other sites.
– $260 million from Advanced Research Project Agency
– $408 million from the Office of Nuclear Energy
– $270 million from the Office of Fossil Energy
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
– $624 from Economic Development Administration and Minority Business Development Agency because they are “subsidies for idealogues (sic) who prioritize ‘racial equity’ and the radicalized climate agenda.”
– $1.3 billion from NOAA operations, research and grants.
– $209 million from NOAAs procurement of weather satellites and infrastructure
– $325 million from the National Institutes of Standards and Technology because they fund awards for curricula that “advance a radical climate agenda”
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
– $26.7 billion from the state rental assistance block grant
– $3.3 billion, by eliminating the Community Development Block Grant program
– $1.3 billion to eliminate the HOME Investment Partnership Program
– $479 million from the Native American programs for housing
$532 million from Homeless Assistance Program consolidations
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
– $609 million from the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project, including reducing or eliminating funding for habitat restoration.
– $900 million from the National Park Service, saying that NPS includes sites that are “not ‘National Parks’ in the traditionally understood sense.” (wtf is that supposed to mean?)
-$158 million from the NPS Historic Preservation Fund
– $73 million from NPS construction “This reduction complements the Administration’s goals of federalism and transferring smaller, lesser visited parks to state and tribal governments.”
– $617 million from BIA programs the support tribal self-governance and tribal communities. Also terminates the Indian Land Consolidation Program. Reduces funding for programs that directly fund tribal operations in order to focus on “core priorities” such as law enforcement. And yet … they are also cutting …
– $107 million fROM BIA Public Safety and Justice, which includes law enforcement.
– $187 million from Bureau of Indian Education Construction account
– $564 million from USGS surveys, investigations and research programs
– $198 million from BLM conservation programs (Falsely claims that Biden and Obama-era national monument designations put areas off-limits to recreation, grazing, and hunting.)
$170 million US FWS conservation grant programs
USDA
+ $15 million for Food Safety Inspection Service
+ $74 million to rental assistance grants
– $602 million from National Institute of Food and Agriculture
– $159 million from Agricultural Research Service
– $754 million from Natural Resource Conservation Service operations
– $16 million NRCS watershed programs
– $721 million from USDA rural development programs
– $358 million from Farm Service Agency
– $392 million from National Forest system management, by reducing salaries and expenses by $342 million, and cutting another $50 million by eliminating the collaborative forest landscape restoration program
– $391 million from Forest Service operations, including salaries and facility leases. And “increasing State authority over land management within their borders.” (Which sounds kinda like a land transfer to me).
– $425 million from the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
NASA
+ $647 million for human space exploration
– $2.3 billion for space science
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
– $3.5 billion for general research and education
– $1.1 billion for NSF broadening participation programs
SMALL AGENCY ELIMINATIONS
– $3.6 billion
🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭
This is Plate 16 from “A Notice of the Ancient Ruins in Arizona and Utah Lying about the Rio San Juan” by W.H. Jackson. It’s from the Bulletin of the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, published in 1876.
Students in Sam Ng’s Field Observation of Severe Weather class hit the road every spring to observe storm structures, like this mesocyclone in Imperial, Nebraska. Photo by Sam Ng via Metropolitan State University of Denver
Click the link to access the article on the AMS Journals website (Daniel Whitesel, Rezaul Mahmood, Paul Flanagan, Chris Phillips, Roger A. Pielke Sr. , Udaysankar Nair, and Eric Rappin). Here’s the abstract:
April 25, 2025
Land-use land-cover change (LULCC) caused by irrigation impacts weather and climate. The Great Plains Irrigation Experiment (GRAINEX) aims to understand the impacts of irrigated and nonirrigated land uses on the convective environment. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first of this type of study that analyzed convective environments over irrigated and nonirrigated land uses during early and peak growing seasons under a variety of atmospheric conditions, using observed rawinsonde data from GRAINEX and convective diagnostic variables. These variables include CAPE, mixed-layer CAPE (MLCAPE), most unstable CAPE (MUCAPE), lifted index, total totals index, precipitable water (PWAT), 850-mb dewpoint depression (DD850mb; 1 mb = 1 hPa), and environmental lapse rates (ELRs). Rawinsonde observations were categorized by, for example, irrigated versus nonirrigated, morning versus afternoon, cloudy versus noncloudy day, and early [intensive observation period 1 (IOP1)] versus peak (IOP2) growing season (when irrigation also becomes widespread). Irrigated land use and irrigation impact many of these diagnostic variables. For example, it was found that CAPE and MUCAPE were higher over irrigated land use compared to nonirrigated land use for most categories. PWAT was found to be higher over irrigated land use, especially during clear days and peak growing season (IOP2) when irrigation is widespread. DD850mb was lower over irrigated areas and particularly during IOP2. We suggest that, regardless of background condition, LULCC driven by irrigation impacts convective environments and favors the development of convective storms.
Click the link to read the article on the NOAA website (Emily Becker):
May 8, 2025
The tropical Pacific is in ENSO-neutral conditions, and neutral is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere summer. Neutral is also the most likely outcome for the fall and winter, although chances of La Niña are a close second. Today, as your trusty representative of the ENSO forecast team, I’ll cover current conditions in the tropical Pacific, what we mean by neutral, and what it means for seasonal climate prediction… with a side of Macbeth (footnote 1).
The ENSO cauldron
First, let’s set the stage for why we care so much about El Niño and La Niña, the natural climate pattern collectively known as ENSO, the El Niño/Southern Oscillation. El Niño and La Niña change global atmospheric circulation and the jet streams in known ways, with impacts on extreme rain, drought, snow, heatwaves, the range of daily temperature, tornado and hurricane seasons, global crop yields and disease outbreaks, and many others. El Niño and La Niña can be predicted many months in advance, so they provide an early picture of potential climate conditions and allow for preparation and planning.
If it were done when ’tis done
Our primary yardstick for ENSO is how the temperature of the ocean surface in the Niño-3.4 region of the central tropical Pacific compares to the long-term average. (Long-term is currently 1991–2020). Warmer than average by 0.5 °Celsius (0.9 °F) or more is El Niño, while cooler than average by 0.5 C or more is La Niña. Between them—within 0.5 °C of average—is ENSO-neutral territory.
April 2025 sea surface temperature compared to the 1985-1993 average (details on climatology from Coral Reef Watch). The box indicates the location of the Niño-3.4 ENSO-monitoring region in the tropical Pacific. The surface of the east-central tropical Pacific is near average, while much of the global ocean remains warmer than average. NOAA Climate.gov image from Data Snapshots.
April 2025 sea surface temperature compared to the 1985-1993 average (details on climatology from Coral Reef Watch). The box indicates the location of the Niño-3.4 ENSO-monitoring region in the tropical Pacific. The surface of the east-central tropical Pacific is near average, while much of the global ocean remains warmer than average. NOAA Climate.gov image from Data Snapshots.
According to our most reliable long-term sea surface temperature dataset (see footnote), the Niño-3.4 region was just 0.16 °C (0.3 °F) cooler than the long-term average in April. This is solidly in ENSO-neutral territory for the second month in a row.
2-year history of sea surface temperatures in the Niño-3.4 region of the tropical Pacific for all La Nina events since 1950 (gray lines) and the recent (2024-25) event (purple line). The Niño-3.4 index has been near average for the past two months. Graph by Emily Becker based on monthly Niño-3.4 index data from CPC using ERSSTv5.
We ENSO forecasters also monitor the temperature of the water under the surface of the tropical Pacific because it can reinforce or change temperatures at the surface. Currently, the subsurface is also very close to the long-term average.
Turning to the atmospheric side of ENSO, some features are reminiscent of La Niña, but the brew this month has more ENSO-neutral flavors. We monitor many different aspects of the Walker circulation, the overturning atmospheric circulation in the tropical Pacific, to get a full picture of the strength of the circulation. During El Niño, the Walker circulation is weakened: weaker easterly (from the east) trade winds, a rainier central Pacific, and drier Indonesia. La Niña strengthens the circulation: stronger trade winds, a drier central Pacific, and a wetter Indonesia. When ENSO is neutral, winds, rainfall, and cloudiness are all near average.
Two ways of looking at the atmospheric conditions in the tropical Pacific: the Equatorial Southern Oscillation (left) and cloudiness in the central Pacific (right). The colored lines show 2024–25, while the gray lines are every La Niña on record since 1979. Both measurements provide evidence that the Walker circulation strength is near to average, after several months of being stronger than average. Climate.gov graph, based on data from Michelle L’Heureux.
Currently, we find that cloud cover over the central tropical Pacific is slightly reduced, easterly trade winds are modestly stronger than average near the Date Line, and the sea level pressure pattern across the Pacific (as measured by the Equatorial Southern Oscillation Index) is slightly positive. All these indicators are consistent with a stronger Walker circulation, so the tropical Pacific atmosphere is maintaining a slight La Niña-ish lean. However, these are the closest to average we’ve seen in some time, and these monthly measures of the tropical atmosphere bounce around a lot more than the ocean ones.
Nothing is but what is not
A question we often get here at the ENSO Blog is “what are the impacts of neutral?” That’s a great question! After all, I listed a whole bunch of effects from El Niño and La Niña in the second paragraph of this very post. However, neutral doesn’t have a signature pattern of weather effects. When El Niño or La Niña are in charge, they change atmospheric circulation and push the jet streams around in specific ways, leading to their typical impacts, and making the seasonal climate more predictable. In their absence—that is, neutral conditions—other, less predictable weather and climate patterns can be more important.
Concept by Tom Di Liberto and illustration by Emily Greenhalgh, NOAA Climate.gov.
Examples of other climate patterns include the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation, both of which are known to influence temperature and rain/snow. However, they are largely only predictable a few weeks in advance, so they don’t give us the same kind of long-range prediction edge as El Niño or La Niña.
If you can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not
The current outlook for ENSO is very similar to last month’s, with a 74% chance of neutral through the summer. Neutral continues to be the most likely scenario through the winter, although La Niña is a close second. Odds of El Niño next winter are relatively small, at about 15%.
Out of the three climate possibilities—La Niña, El Niño, and neutral—forecasts say that ENSO-neutral conditions (gray bars) are most likely for the Northern Hemisphere spring and summer. Looking out to the fall, neutral is still the most likely, but chances for either La Niña (blue bars) or El Niño (red bars) are increasing. NOAA Climate Prediction Center image.
ENSO prediction in the spring is notoriously difficult, a time known as the “spring predictability barrier.” (Check here and here for more details on the spring predictability barrier.) In the coming months, we’ll emerge from this period, and as we draw closer to the winter, our forecasts should gradually become more confident.
A little peek behind the scenes: when Michelle was drafting this month’s ENSO Diagnostic Discussion, she messaged the team to say it was tough not just to repeat April’s discussion. This is another difficulty of ENSO-neutral conditions! It’s been a long time since we’ve had an extended stretch of neutral (you can check out our 75-year historical record of ENSO here). But that doesn’t mean we’re out of things to talk about here at the ENSO Blog, so watch this space!
Footnotes
1: All the section headings are quotes from Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Should I have used quotation marks? Maybe. But we all agreed that looked weird.
2: For official ENSO monitoring, we use the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature data set, now on its 5th version. Details on what’s in the latest update are available from NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information.
Aerial view of Lake Estes and Olympus Dam looking west. Photo credit Northern Water.
From email from Northern Water (Jeff Stahla):
May 9, 2025
The Northern Water Board of Directors allocated 23,000 acre-feet of Regional Pool Program (RPP) water during its May 8, 2025, Board meeting. RPP water is available for lease by eligible Northern Colorado water users, with sealed bids due 2 p.m. May 22, 2025. Bid prices per-acre-foot must be greater than or equal to $33.80, a floor price the Board selected based on the 2025 agricultural assessment rate. Late bids will not be considered.
The allocation will be available to bidders from two subpools of 11,500 acre-feet each; one that delivers water from Horsetooth Reservoir, and a second that delivers to water users south of Horsetooth Reservoir, including the Big Thompson River, St Vrain Creek and Boulder Creek.
The following forms are required to submit a bid:
Pre-Approval Form – To confirm eligibility, interested bidders must email or mail the Pre-Approval Form to Northern Water. A new Pre-Approval Form is required each year.
Carrier Consent Form – If the RPP water will be delivered by a carrier, such as a ditch or reservoir company, bidders and their carriers must complete the Carrier Consent Form or provide a signed agreement stating that the carrier will deliver the RPP water to the bidder. This form must also be emailed or mailed to Northern Water.
Bid Form – Sealed bids will be accepted at Northern Water’s headquarters through a “self-serve” process. Bidders will sign in at a kiosk in the Building A lobby at Northern Water, 220 Water Ave., Berthoud, and print a bid label for their sealed bid envelope. The label will identify the bidder name, date and time stamp, and bid number. Bidders are then asked to secure the label to the bid envelope and place it in the drop box. Sealed bids may also be mailed to Northern Water, but bids must be received before the deadline.
Sealed bids are due by 2 p.m. Thursday, May 22, at Northern Water’s headquarters, 220 Water Ave., Berthoud, CO 80513. As described above, sealed bids can be mailed or hand delivered; email and fax bid forms will not be accepted. RPP leases within each subpool will be awarded based on highest bids per acre-foot. Sealed bids will be opened at 2:10 p.m. Thursday, May 22, in the Grand Lake Conference Room of Building A at Northern Water.
Questions regarding the Regional Pool Program and bid submittal can be emailed to regionalpool@northernwater.org or by calling Sarah Smith at 970-622-2295 or Water Scheduling at 970-292-2500.
Oak Flat, Arizona features groves of Emory oak trees, canyons, and springs. This is sacred land for the San Carlos Apache tribe. Resolution Copper (Rio Tinto subsidiary) lobbied politicians to deliver this National Forest land to the company with the intent to build a destructive copper mine. By SinaguaWiki – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=98967960
Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral.com website (Debra Utacia Krol). Here’s an excerpt:
May 9, 2024
Key Points
A federal judge temporarily blocked a procedural move that would allow a land exchange for a copper mine at Oak Flat, east of Phoenix.
The ruling was issued two days after lawyers for both sides argued the case in a Phoenix courtroom and will stand until the U.S. Supreme Court acts.
Judge Steven P. Logan issued the order May 9, two days after hearing the case in U.S. District Court in Phoenix. He ruled that the government cannot publish a final environmental review of a land swap between Resolution and the U.S. Forest Service, which manages a campground at the site 60 miles east of Phoenix. The order would remain in place until the day after the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or, if it accepts it, rules against grassroots group Apache Stronghold, which filed a lawsuit to stop the exchange in 2021 and sought the temporary delay in the Phoenix court…
In his decision, Logan wrote that it was “abundantly clear that the balance of equities ‘tips sharply’ in Plaintiff’s favor, and that even in the short term, they have established a likelihood of irreparable harm should the transfer proceed.” If the government reissued the environmental impact statement, the land swap could occur within 60 days.
A new study finds that airborne dust deposited on snow in the Upper Colorado River Basin speeds up spring snowmelt. Regular readers of the Land Desk won’t be surprised by this conclusion, as there are regular mentions here regarding the effects of dust-on-snow in the San Juan Mountains. This study, however, is the first to quantify the effects across the entire Colorado River Basin.
When dust, lifted up from the lowlands by spring winds, falls on mountain snow, it decreases the snow’s albedo — the measure of a surface’s reflectivity — causing the snow to melt faster. That adds another variable into the water forecasting mix, since about 85% of the Colorado’s flow comes from snowmelt.
Dust events have been occurring for thousands of years on the Colorado Plateau and in the San Juan Mountains, but picked up significantly following the white settler-colonist influx of the mid-1800s, and peaking in the first few decades of the twentieth century, when volumes of dust were five times higher than they were prior to colonization.
The lowest dust-on-snow impacts occurred in the northern Uinta in Utah and the Wind River Range in Wyoming, while higher and more persistent effects were seen in the central and southern Rockies.
Dust impacts tend to be largest in the lower alpine elevations (8,000 – 10,000 feet).
The researchers observed greater dust effects in the first part of the observation period (2001 to 2014) and lesser after that, “producing a slight but statistically significant decreasing trend over the record.” And the patterns don’t necessarily align with drought intensity, “indicating that there is not a straightforward relationship between aridity and dust.”
The reason for the decreasing trend aren’t clear, but researchers hypothesize that it relates to a combination of increasing surface roughness (vegetation) and decreasing wind speeds related to climate variability.
The good news for the San Juans is that dust events have been relatively mild this spring, according to the Center for Snow and Avalanche Studies’ April 29 report, which has helped keep the meagre snowpack around a while longer. At least for now: A storm is forecast to move into the San Juans this weekend and early next week, likely bringing both dust and snow to the high country, which could throw off some of our Predict the Peak guesses, for sure.
***
Fire season has arrived in the Southwest. It feels early, but then, who the hell knows anymore? Maybe last year’s fire season is simply continuing on. The Stronghold Fire has scorched a little over 2,000 acres in the east edge of the Dragoon Mountains in southern Arizona, forcing evacuations in the rural sprawl. As of May 1, it was 62% contained and fire activity had ebbed. And the Otero Fire burned through 494 acres of the Rio Grande Bosque adjacent to Socorro, New Mexico.
The outlook is for a hot, dry, maybe smoky summer for a good swath of the West:
🏠 Random Real Estate Room 🤑
I stumbled upon an unexpected headline in the Las Vegas Review-Journal today: “Inventory flooding Las Vegas Valley’s home market with no buyers in sight: Zillow.” Say what? For I don’t know how long, we’ve been hearing that Las Vegas was suffering a severe housing shortage — i.e. demand was far outstripping supply — and that the only solution was to sacrifice surrounding public lands to housing developers.
Yet now Zillow is saying there are too many houses for sale? And what’s also interesting is that home prices continue to rise alongside inventory. That’s right: There are more homes available for sale, and yet the median sales price continues to increase, showing that the laws of supply and demand don’t always apply to housing (and showing that the push to bulldoze federal land for affordable housing is a sham).
I checked out Zillow for myself and found about 1,600 homes listed for less than $300,000 for sale in the greater Las Vegas area. I decided to look around the region a bit, too, and it actually seems like there are more sub-$300k homes/condos available now than during my previous scans over the past four years. Oh, and I found this tiny home in the sprawling metropolis of Ticaboo, Utah. A little overpriced, but the location? Heck yeah!
🤯 Trump Ticker 😱
Sigh. That guy is still president, and continues to do his darnedest to wreck everything that makes America great. Wes Siler’s Newsletter is reporting that the National Park Service plans to fire another 1,500 employees in coming days, bringing total Park Service staffing losses through resignations, firings, and layoffs to 5,000 under Trump. Meanwhile, year-to-date visitation at Zion National Park is at near-record levels. The combination of more visitors and fewer staff could get messy.
And all Interior Department employees (which includes the Park Service, BLM, and so forth), have been ordered to submit their resumes — i.e. reapply for their existing jobs — in preparation for significant job cuts and an expected complete overhaul of the department and its agencies.
Firing thousands of people from what seemed like secure jobs will not be good for the economy, which is already struggling mightily due to Trump’s policies. And on that note, if you’re interested in tariffs and how they might affect things, I’d urge you to read this smart take from Aaron Smith at his Ag Data News:
📈 Data Dump 📊
WildEarth Guardians just released their first quarter “Oil & Gas Waste Watch” report tallying up industry and regulatory failures in New Mexico. Findings include:
307/330 The number of oil and gas facility incidents/spills reported during the first three months of the year in New Mexico.
78,858 barrels Volume of liquid, including 22,927 barrels of wastewater in addition to crude oil, condensates, and other materials, spilled in those incidents. Some of the material was recovered.
118 Number of spills involving crude oil or condensates.
292/36 Number of spills in the Permian Basin/San Juan Basin, respectively.
The Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) customers are now under voluntary drought restrictions, signaling developing drought conditions in the area. PAWSD Manager Justin Ramsey announced the voluntary restrictions via press release on Monday evening, May 5. The press release explains that the PAWSD Board of Directors approved the 2018 Drought Management Plan on May 17, 2018, with that plan setting trigger points for voluntary drought procedures and four mandatory drought restriction stages from low through severe.
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain website (John Fleck):
May 8, 2025
A week of rain (I exaggerate, six days) has lifted our spirits after one of the driest starts to a calendar year on record in Albuquerque. The river was muddy yesterday on the family Wednesday lunch outing, and the cottonwoods looked so happy. The wild roses were blooming, we stuck our noses in them to smell.
And yet….
Lowest on this date since 1996.
Percentile ranking of yesterday’s flow: 7 (record goes back to 1965)
U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd, shown here at a meeting with Pitkin County commissioners in February, said he has been fielding concerns about public lands management from local officials across his district. Hurd joined all of Colorado’s Democratic representatives in Congress in sending a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins asking her to reinstate Forest Service workers who are qualified to respond to wildfires. Credit: Jason Charme/Aspen Daily News File Photo
Months after the U.S. Forest Service cut thousands of positions nationwide, including 16 workers on the White River National Forest, Colorado’s congressional delegation is concerned that many of those lost played a critical role in preventing and fighting wildfires.
Rep. Jeff Hurd, a Republican from Grand Junction representing Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, joined all of Colorado’s Democratic representatives in Congress in sending a letter dated April 29 to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins asking her to reinstate Forest Service workers who are qualified to respond to wildfires. The three other Republicans representing Colorado congressional districts did not sign the letter.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture says wildland firefighting positions were exempt from hiring freezes and layoffs. Nonetheless, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, R-Colo., and the other signatories estimate that since January, the Forest Service has lost 3,000 staffers who hold the agency’s Incident Qualification Card, commonly called a red card.
“The layoff of red-card holding Forest Service employees has substantially weakened our nation’s firefighting workforce,” the letter reads. “Red-card-carrying Forest Service staff have the skills, training and qualifications to support wildfire response (and, indeed, fight wildfires), but hold other full-time jobs at the agency. Red-card holders are the backbone of federal firefighting efforts, proving critical support and added capacity when a wildfire breaks out.”
In addition to the layoffs that the Trump administration announced Feb. 14, there have been two opportunities for Forest Service employees to voluntarily leave the agency through the Deferred Resignation Program, in which participants resign and retain pay and benefits through Sept. 30. It’s not clear how many employees the White River National Forest has lost through this program, through other voluntary separation and through layoffs. Forest Service officials did not respond to a request for comment about this week’s letter or how many red-card carrying staff have been lost, and Aspen Journalism is awaiting reply on an inquiry through the Freedom of Information Act that was sent in early April concerning recent staffing, budgetary and communications changes.
Local nonprofits, retired Forest Service employees — including former White River National Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams — and the general public have expressed a growing concern about how a deeply reduced workforce will be able to manage the busy summer season on the White River National Forest, which was already facing deep budget cuts.
Hurd has been meeting with county commissioners across his sprawling congressional district — which includes much of the Western Slope, as well as Pueblo and the San Luis Valley — and said he has heard concerns about public lands management.
“We need more boots on the ground,” Hurd said in a phone interview Wednesday. “We need more individuals that are managing our forests, managing our public lands, reducing the fire load in our national forests, protecting watershed health, because, remember, forest health also means watershed health.”
Hurd said he has spoken with those in leadership roles at the White River National Forest and understands that recent cuts were to those working in the field.
“That’s something that we need to make sure we address as quickly as possible, particularly given the potential fire risk that we may have coming this summer,” he said.
The letter that Hurd signed is direct in its plea to Rollins and the USDA.
“The Forest Service is now entering peak fire season in a compromised position, placing an even greater fire danger on communities across Colorado,” it reads. “The loss of red-card holders threatens public safety, undercuts local economies and undermines years of local wildfire prevention efforts. We urge you to restore the Forest Service red-card holders without delay.”
Independence Pass Foundation Executive Director Karin Teague checks out the road and snow conditions on Highway 82 near the Lincoln Creek campground on April 25. Teague is spearheading efforts to protect the fragile high alpine ecosystems on Independence Pass as the White River National Forest faces budget cuts and staff shortages. Credit: Elizabeth Stewart-Severy/Aspen Journalism
Local organizations faced with picking up the slack, cleaning toilets
Amid the Trump administration’s layoffs, push to encourage resignations and talk of large-scale reorganization of the Forest Service, local organizations are deeply concerned about protecting the national forest and are working to avoid damage to the landscape.
“We know for a fact that there will be highly reduced Forest Service staff on [Independence Pass],” said Karin Teague, executive director for the Independence Pass Foundation.
Teague said the presence of Forest Service staffers in the field is critical — well before a wildfire incident occurs.
“If this summer we end up having drought conditions and wildfire restrictions are put in place, it’s critical to have boots on the ground, making sure that people are obeying fire restrictions, that they’re putting out campfires completely,” Teague said.
Teague and her summer field-ecology intern will increase their presence on the landscape this summer, she said, checking on campfires, educating the public and picking up garbage.
“We’re determined to make sure the landscape and the health of every living thing up there doesn’t suffer as a result of these cuts to budget and staff,” Teague said. “It’s a big hole to fill, and it’s not something we can do endlessly.”
Given the White River’s bare-bones budget, the Independence Pass Foundation will now foot a $18,000 to 20,000 bill for a contract to clean and stock toilets at the summit of Independence Pass, the Grottos day-use area and the Upper Lost Man trailhead. Such maintenance previously was overseen and funded by the Forest Service. Teague added that she is working with Aspen Chamber Resort Association and Pitkin County to help fund and support the contract.
“At the summit, you do not want to have restrooms closed,” Teague said. “Human waste and toilet paper on the tundra takes years to degrade, and there’s a reason restrooms were installed up there a couple decades ago. They’re a critical necessity.”
But the public will see a reduction in service; those toilets have been cleaned and stocked every day of the busy summer season. This year, the Independence Pass Foundation has stepped up to secure a contract with American Land and Leisure to clean and stock the bathrooms three days a week. Teague said volunteers will work to fill in the remaining four days a week.
Hurd said he is in favor of working to identify areas across the government, including the federal land management agencies, that can work more efficiently. But he emphasized that those cuts should not affect people working on the ground to protect resources.
“We’re doing everything we can to make sure that our public-lands agencies have the resources they need in the places that they need them and that when we’re making cuts, we’re making them in places that aren’t going to result in harm to our public forest, to our national forest and our public lands,” Hurd said.
Click the link to read the release on the NRCS website:
May 7, 2025
Snowpack across Colorado is well below normal following a warm, dry April. Statewide snowpack has begun its seasonal decline, with SWE at 57% of median. Despite a dry April, early May storms brought helpful precipitation to higher elevations.
As of May 1st, Colorado’s snowpack peaks and begins its seasonal decline. Statewide snow water equivalent (SWE) is at 57% of median, reflecting a sparse and well below average snowpack with drier conditions in central, southwest and southeast basins. In the Gunnison, combined San Miguel-Dolores-Animas-San Juan (SMDASJ), Upper Rio Grande (URG) and Arkansas snowpack is at 34% of median. Northern basins are at 73% of median with higher snowpacks in northeast mountains.
Statewide peak SWE occurs 11 days earlier than the historical median with 90% of sites observing earlier dates. April brings limited storm activity, making for a less eventful month and resulting in a -28% SWE departure of the 30-year median. That negative departure translates to a decline of 2.6 inches of SWE at 82% of sites over the past 30 days. Looking at the full accumulation season from late October through April, the cumulative SWE departure deepens to 5.5 inches.
May began with a strong storm system delivering over 3 inches of moisture at some sites in the Sangre de Cristos and San Juans, including the SMDASJ, URG and Arkansas River basins. The Front Range mountains are also benefitting from the early May storm, primarily east of the divide. Southwest basins typically receive around 7% of their annual precipitation in May, much of which falls as snow at higher elevations. During spring, however, this precipitation can fall as rain on snowpack unless temperatures cool significantly. “With this recent storm cooler temperatures prevailed, resulting in observed snowfall in many high elevation sites. While this early May storm did not benefit all regions equally, the widespread drop in temperatures will help reduce melt rates and slow runoff timing across the state,” notes Nagam Bell, NRCS hydrologist.
Water year to date (WYTD) precipitation is at 85% of median statewide, with basin values ranging from 74 to 95 percent. Northern basins lead the state with drier conditions found in the URG (74%) and SMDASJ (77%), while the Gunnison and Arkansas measure 82 and 86 percent of median, respectively. April finishes as the driest month for the primary accumulation period with statewide totals at 59% of median. Northern and central basins fall well below average: Yampa-White-Little Snake end at 43%, Colorado Headwaters at 47% and Gunnison at 49%. Southern basins fair slightly better over the last 30 days: SMDASJ reports 75% and the URG 70% for the month. Sixty day precipitation trends show a modest bump in some areas. Laramie-North Platte reaches 84% and the SMDASJ reports 88% of median.
On the lower end, the Arkansas and URG observe 66 and 73 percent, respectively. The 90 day averages highlight increased variation, spanning 64 to 98 percent. Northern basins remain the strongest performers while precipitation values taper farther southeast. The following charts highlight statewide totals (see Figure 1) and departures from median. November remains the only month with a notable surplus, while April records the steepest drop at 44% below normal (see Figure 2).
Figure 1. Statewide monthly precipitation totals comparing the 1991-2020 median with Water Year 2025. May totals reflect values through May 5th and are not yet complete. Credit: NRCS
Figure 2. Percent departure from median precipitation by month for Water Year 2025. November records a surplus and April has the largest negative departure. October, February and March observe closer to normal precipitation. Credit: NRCS
Statewide reservoir storage is at 93% of median and 61% of total capacity as of the end of April. Despite below average snowpack storage levels at most higher capacity reservoirs are holding near or above average volumes and include: Dillon, Lake Granby, Blue Mesa and Pueblo Reservoir. The exceptions are McPhee at 73% of median and 62% capacity and Navajo Reservoir at 74% of median and 61% capacity.
Streamflow forecasts continue to reflect widespread degradation heading into the remaining runoff period. The exception is a handful of points remaining closer to normal that are clustered northwest of the divide in the Colorado Headwaters. The lack of April moisture and precipitation deficits from primary accumulation months compounded by an early and accelerated snowmelt, particularly in southern basins, limits streamflow potential through the remainder of the forecast season based on conditions leading into the May 1 forecast.
As of early May, 24% of Colorado SNOTEL sites have reached melt out primarily in the southern basins. These sites melted out an average of 16 days earlier, with the median statewide melt out date on May 24th. “Lower snowpack volumes and increased temperatures drive early melt, which translates into earlier and likely lower peak streamflow. The potential result is a compressed runoff window and in many cases a muted response in flows,” notes Bell. Soil moisture data further supports these trends, with snowmelt signals registered throughout soil stacks across most basins.
Statewide, the 50% exceedance forecasts are at 71% of median with 86 forecast points averaging in the 19th percentile. Basins in the Upper Colorado Region that make up the Colorado western slope are at 72% of median forecasts. All 50% probabilities show a negative departure from median volumes with lowest outlooks in the southwest region ranging from 49% in the SMDASJ, 57% in the URG and 66% in the Gunnison. Streamflow’s in the Arkansas are at 73% of median with higher output points ranging from 71% of median at Pueblo Reservoir inflow to 85% of median at the Arkansas River at Salida. These suppressed forecasts reflect the combined effects of limited April precipitation, early and accelerated snowmelt, and low antecedent water year precipitation.
As the season progresses and fewer forecasts updates remain the range of forecasted outcomes narrows and uncertainty decreases as late season inputs come in. In general, most exceedance values remain low and can be compared for the entire forecast season at each point using the evolution forecast plots. In years like this the drier forecast range, including the 90% exceedance, can be especially informative. If dry conditions persist, these lower projections may prove most reflective of what materializes. It’s essential to consider the full range of forecast probabilities, not just the median, when planning around potential runoff outcomes.
Denver Water is helping ensure its future water security with the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. When the project is complete, it will nearly triple the Boulder County reservoir’s capacity to 119,000 acre-feet. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Adam engineer who designed a major expansion of Gross Reservoir Dam in Boulder County told a federal judge Tuesday that the raising of the dam, facing a potential halt due to an April federal court ruling, needs to proceed to protect public safety.
Mike Rogers, the civil engineer who designed the $531 million expansion of the dam, said bad weather could create flood conditions that would lead to a catastrophic failure similar to what occurred with the Oroville Dam failure in California in 2017.
But Stephen Rigbey, a Canadian dam safety expert testifying for Save The Colorado, said any issues with putting the construction project on hold, even in its partially-complete state, could be addressed, and that the risk of a catastrophic failure was “negligible.”
Workers from Denver Water and contractor Kiewit Barnard stand in front of Gross Dam in May 2024 to mark the start of the dam raise process. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Rogers’ and Rigbey’s testimony Tuesday came during a federal hearing in Denver, after which U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello will determine whether to allow construction to move forward on the Denver Water project or whether the construction will be paused until new federal reviews she has ordered are completed and legal questions are answered.
But at the end of Tuesday’s hearing, Arguello said the parties to the case had not provided enough information for her to make a decision and ordered them to submit more data later this month.
The massive construction project has raised fierce opposition in Boulder County and prompted several legal challenges from Save The Colorado, a group that advocates on behalf of rivers. Though its early lawsuits failed, in 2022 the river defenders won an appeal that put the legal battle back in play. Despite months of settlement talks, no agreement was reached.
Boulder County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann was unmoved by Rogers’ testimony, saying she hopes the judge halts the work to prevent further environmental damage in Boulder County and to protect the Fraser River, a tributary to the Upper Colorado River. The Fraser has served as the source of water for Gross Reservoir since the 1950s, when it was built.
“It’s incredibly disappointing that Denver has chosen to move forward,” Stolzmann said. “With climate change, it really is a time for different entities to work together to repair the climate. I want to see Denver seek alternative solutions.”
Denver Water first moved to raise Gross Dam more than 20 years ago when the water provider began designing the expansion and seeking the necessary federal and state permits. Denver Water has said raising the dam and expanding the reservoir is necessary to ensure it has enough water throughout its delivery system and to help with future water supplies as climate change continues to reduce streamflows.
The Gross Reservoir Expansion Project involves raising the height of the existing dam by 131 feet. The dam will be built out and will have “steps” made of roller-compacted concrete to reach the new height. Image credit: Denver Water
After years of engineering, environmental studies and federal and state analyses, Denver received a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and construction began in 2022. It has involved taking apart a portion of the original dam and raising its height by 131 feet to nearly triple the reservoir’s storage capacity to 119,000 acre-feet from 42,000 acre-feet.
The case took center stage again April 3, when Judge Arguello put a temporary halt to construction of the higher dam, at Save The Colorado’s request.
In that high-profile ruling, Arguello said, in part, that the Army Corps should have considered whether ongoing climate change and drought would leave the Colorado River and Western Slope waterways too depleted to safely allow transfer of Denver Water’s rights into a larger Gross Reservoir for Front Range water users.
At the same time, she ordered a permanent injunction prohibiting enlargement of the reservoir, including tree removal and water diversion, and impacts to wildlife.
Almost immediately, Denver Water filed for temporary relief from the order, saying, in part, that it would be unsafe to stop work as the incomplete concrete walls towered above Gross Reservoir.
Arguello granted that request, too, allowing Denver to continue work on the dam considered necessary for safety.
Denver Water has also filed an appeal with the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of appeals, seeking to permanently protect its right to continue building the dam. The appeals court is expected to wait for the lower court to rule, before considering Denver Water’s request.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Skiers descend Arapahoe Basin Ski Area in Colorado on May 4, 2025. Snowpack across the mountains that supply the Colorado River is far below normal for this time of year. Forecasts call for 55% of average runoff into Lake Powell, the nation’s second-largest reservoir. Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
May 8, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
If you took a look at a map of Rocky Mountain snow right now you would see a lot of red.
The mountains that feed the Colorado River with snowmelt are strikingly dry, with many ranges holding less than 50% of their average snow for this time of year. The low totals could spell trouble for the nation’s largest reservoirs, but those dry conditions don’t seem to be ringing alarm bells for Colorado River policymakers.
Inflows to Lake Powell, the nation’s second largest reservoir, are expected to be 55% of average this year, according to federal data released this week. If forecasts hold true, 2025 would see the third-lowest amount of water added to Lake Powell in the past decade.
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map May 8, 2025 via the NRCS.
“It’s looking like a pretty poor water supply and spring runoff season,” said Cody Moser, a hydrologist with the Colorado River Basin Forecast Center.
If Lake Powell drops too low, the reservoir would lose the ability to generate hydropower for about five million people across seven states. Much lower, and it could lose the ability to pass enough water downstream, where tens of millions of people depend on it.
Eric Balken, who watches Lake Powell closely as director of the nonprofit Glen Canyon Institute, said this year’s snow data is concerning, but it isn’t driving the same level of concern from policymakers and media outlets that emerged in previous dry years.
Balken said that may be happening for two reasons.
First, it’s because negative outcomes might not be felt immediately. Lake Powell is unlikely to drop low enough to lose hydropower capabilities this summer, but the dry spring is making that more likely to happen in 2026.
Second, it’s because water managers simply have bigger fish to fry.
The federal offices that manage Western water are in disarray amid layoffs and restructuring since Donald Trump returned to the White House. The Bureau of Reclamation, the top federal agency for Colorado River dams and reservoirs, is without a permanent commissioner.
All the while, state and federal policymakers are spending most of their time and attention on drawing up new water-sharing rules. The current rules expire in 2026. Talks between states have reached a standstill, and negotiators say they’re working toward a compromise.
“That chaos within the agencies, the broader negotiations happening on the Colorado River, all of these other factors, I think, are sort of drowning out the severity of the drought situation right now,” said Balken.
Glen Canyon Dam creates water storage on the Colorado River in Lake Powell. Low water levels in Lake Powell could jeopardize the dam’s ability to produce hydropower or pass water downstream. Credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
This year got off to a strong start for mountain snow, but took a dip during a dry spell that lasted from December through February. Snowmelt from Colorado accounts for about two-thirds of the water in Lake Powell. A portion of Western Colorado saw less than 15% of normal precipitation from December through April.
Scientists say these low snow years are the result of climate change, which is causing less snow to fall, and more of it to be soaked up by dry, thirsty soil before it has a chance to reach rivers and reservoirs. That has left the Colorado River in a dry trend going back more than two decades.
Balken said the climate reality is here to stay, and should spur the region’s leaders to rein in demand accordingly.
“Just because we’ve gotten used to it doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem,” he said. “We have to stay laser focused on what’s happening on the Colorado River, because there are some very big problems that need to be addressed.”
Layers of snowpack melted rapidly in Colorado in April, which could lead to less water supply in the summer and higher wildfire potential, according to data from the National Integrated Drought Information System. The federal data, released on May 1, indicate that “substantial and rapid” snowmelt occurred throughout broad swaths of Colorado between April 10-17. Several weather stations maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture logged record snowmelt during that week, compared to the same period in prior years. Snow disappeared up to 4 weeks early in parts of Colorado compared to previous years, federal data show…How quickly snow melts, and when it happens, can impact water availability during hot summer months and affect how likely wildfires are to occur in a region. An area that’s seen rapid snowmelt in early spring could have dried-out vegetation by summer, a potential fuel for blazes…
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map May 8, 2025 via the NRCS.
Spring heat waves in early April rapidly melted snow across Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, leading to large drops in the state’s median “snow water equivalent,” compared to past levels. Snow water equivalent (SWE) measures how much liquid water is stored in the snow, which will eventually melt and flow into the soil and bodies of water…
The federal data also show that water supply forecasts for the Upper Colorado River Basin – an area that stretches four states including Colorado – declined compared to rosier projections from early April.
A blocking weather pattern that is common during the spring, resulted in a couple of slow-moving low pressure systems from the end of April through the start of May. These low pressure systems brought heavy precipitation (more than 2 inches) and drought improvement to the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southern Great Plains. The heavy precipitation across Oklahoma, western Texas, and eastern New Mexico was accompanied by cooler-than-normal temperatures. Farther to the north, drought expanded and intensified across portions of the Central to Northern Great Plains. Another area that experienced worsening drought was the Florida Peninsula. For the West, drought improvements were made to parts of Arizona, Utah, and western Montana. No changes were made this week to Hawaii, while Alaska and Puerto Rico remain drought-free…
Mostly dry weather prevailed this past week (April 29 to May 5) across the Northern to Central Great Plains. Based on multiple soil moisture indicators including CPC, NLDAS, and NASA SPoRT along with the Vegetation Drought Response Index (VegDri), extreme drought (D3) was expanded to include more of western North Dakota. This D3 expansion coincides with recent wildfires and dust storms. Soil moisture (below the 10th percentile), VegDri, and 60 to 90-day SPEI supported an expansion of severe drought (D2) across central Nebraska. D3 was added to parts of northeastern Nebraska based on VegDRI soil moisture below the 5th percentile, and longer-term extreme drought signal. Farther to the west, a broad 1-category improvement was made to northeastern Wyoming and adjacent areas of western South Dakota due to recent wetness and a positive recovery among multiple drought indicators. Improvements were also warranted for the upper Green River basin of western Wyoming. However, a drier-than-normal April resulted in a 1-category degradation to parts of southern Wyoming…
Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending May 8, 2025.
Recent widespread, heavy precipitation along with consideration of multiple drought indicators such as SPI at various time scales, soil moisture, 28-day average streamflows, and the NDMC drought blends led to a 1-category improvement across eastern New Mexico. Improvements were also warranted for parts of Arizona due to April precipitation averaging at or above normal. Minor improvements were justified for parts of western and southeastern Montana, but abnormal dryness (D0) and moderate drought (D1) expanded across parts of north-central Montana that missed out on another week of spring precipitation. No changes were made this week to California or Nevada as those areas enter a drier time of year. For the Pacific Northwest, long-term drought is limited to the northern Cascades region of Washington…
Heavy precipitation (more than 2 inches) resulted in improvements to parts of Oklahoma and Texas. According to the Oklahoma Mesonet, 10 to 16 inches of precipitation was observed across central to southwestern Oklahoma during the past 30 days. A 2-category improvement was warranted to the north of Midland based on a favorable response among soil moisture indicators. Any precipitation that occurred after 8am EDT on Tuesday, May 9th, will be considered in the next U.S. Drought Monitor release. A very tight gradient from excessive wetness across much of Oklahoma to extreme and exceptional drought closer to the Upper and Middle Rio Grande Valley has become established this spring. Minor improvements were made to the small abnormal dryness areas depicted in parts of Mississippi and eastern Tennessee…
Looking Ahead
A cut-off low pressure system is forecast to bring widespread, heavy precipitation to the Southeast with the Weather Prediction Center depicting more than 3 inches of precipitation for southeastern Alabama, central to south Georgia, and the Florida Panhandle through May 12. Following a wet week, another round of precipitation (1 to 2 inches) is expected from northern New Jersey northward to New England on May 9 and 10. Elsewhere, mostly dry weather is forecast for the Corn Belt along with much of the Great Plains and West. The dry weather will be accompanied by unseasonably warm temperatures across the Northern Great Plains. By May 12, precipitation is forecast to overspread the Pacific Northwest as a low pressure system tracks inland from the northeastern Pacific.
The Climate Prediction Center’s 6-10 day outlook (valid May 13-17, 2025) favors above-normal precipitation for the Mid-Atlantic, Florida Peninsula, Upper Mississippi Valley, Northern to Central Great Plains, and much of the West. Elevated below-normal precipitation probabilities are limited to the Lower Mississippi Valley, western Gulf Coast, and Rio Grande Valley. Above-normal temperatures are likely for most of the eastern and central U.S. with the largest probabilities (more than 80 percent) forecast for the Great Lakes. Below-normal temperatures are favored throughout the West.
US Drought Monitor one week change map ending May 8, 2025.
Just for grins here is a slideshow of US Drought Monitor maps for the last few years.
The area around Yuma, Ariz., and California’s Imperial Valley provide roughly 95% of the vegetables available at grocery stores in the United States during winter months. February 2017 photo/Allen Best
From the sprawling alfalfa fields of the Imperial Valley to the lush, water-guzzling grass of cities like Phoenix, the definition of what the feds consider “beneficial use” along the Colorado River needs an update, according to a coalition of nonprofits. In a legal petition filed Tuesday, the Natural Resources Defense Council and a group of river advocates urged the federal Bureau of Reclamation to use its power to better dictate how water can be used in the Lower Basin states of Nevada, California and Arizona. Its authors acknowledge that’s a bold request…As states remain deadlocked on which ones should take cuts in how much water they can use, the agency emphasized in a statement its commitment to “long-term operational agreement for the river after 2026…The petition hinges on Part 417 of federal regulations — a section of code that gives the Bureau of Reclamation the authority over water deliveries to the Lower Basin states, with an obligation to ensure that water use is reasonable. Some worry that if the Bureau of Reclamation took the actions outlined in the petition, it could open the door to even more legal challenges from states and water users, kicking progress on conservation even further down the line when time is a luxury that water managers no longer have…
Gold’s petition specifically calls out the inefficiency of the agricultural sector, where more than half of the river’s water is used every year — far more than city use. The petition says exporting water-intensive crops is “akin to exporting water itself.” California’s Imperial Valley, where farming is a multibillion-dollar industry, receives more water than Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas combined to grow crops like alfalfa, carrots and lettuce. Gold hopes the feds will use better discretion in choosing which contractors are able to divert water from the river, prioritizing conservation. Some practices, like using flood agriculture to cover fields in water, are not practical, especially on days that break 100 degrees, he said.
Yampa River May 3, 2025. Yampa River on Saturday evening was flowing strongly through Steamboat Springs, but the snowpack in the the Yampa-White drainage area of northwest Colorado was still less than two-thirds of average. Photo credit: Allen Best
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
May 6, 2025
Colorado’s southern mountains had another miserable snowpack. This is not good for the Colorado or Rio Grande rivers. It fits in with a theme.
Louis Meyer awoke on Monday morning at his farm about 10 miles north of Durango to see Engineer and Red mountains wearing fresh blankets of snow. The two mountains had been scantily clad for much of the winter.
The spring snow was welcome news, he said, but unlikely to change the story of southwest Colorado. Runoff will be abysmal.
A resident of southwest Colorado for about eight years, Meyer has conferred with others with deeper local knowledge. Right now, it appears that those farmers and ranchers who might normally expect to get three or four cuttings of hay will get no more than two. And in La Plata County, they will be lucky to get one cutting of hay.
Snow contributing water to the Animas, San Juan and other rivers of southwestern Colorado have only 28% of median of snow-water equivalent, according to maps released on Monday by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, a federal agency.
East of Wolf Creek Pass, in the upper Rio Grande drainage, numbers were worse yet, 21% of median. Last week, before the fresh snow, they had been even less.
Water managers in the San Luis Valley warned in a May 1 posting on Facebook that they expect early runoff, low rivers flows, and a short boating season. Heather Dutton, manager of the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, said there had been high hopes several times of 16- to 18-inch snow dumps, even 36 inches. “It just never materialized for us.”
Snowpack in Colorado’s southern mountains always has been uneven. Some years are better, other years worse. But a trend has emerged of earlier springs and less moisture in the San Juan Mountains and Sangre de Cristo Range of Colorado, and this year’s snowpack and weather fits in with it.
Russ Schumacher, the Colorado state climatologist, and associates at the Colorado Climate Center have analyzed data from the Snotel stations in Colorado going back to at least 1979. Their studies have focused on the volumes of peak snow-water equivalent in the snow and the dates of those readings.
Snotel stands for SNOwpack TELemetry, an automated system.
“In Colorado’s northern mountains, trends over the last 45 years are fairly modest overall, with some mixed signals,” he wrote in in an April 14 posting at Colorado Climate Center.
Many stations in the San Juans and Sangre de Cristo mountains showed levels below the 10th percentile of records, he said.
“But in the southern mountains, the data make a very clear statement: snowpack is declining, and the peak is happening earlier. At many of the stations in the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo mountains, the peak snow-water-equivalent has declined by 3% to 5% per decade, and the peak has shifted two to four weeks earlier.”
The 1980s were unusually wet, which makes the recent declines look even worse. Contributing to the declines have been dust-on-snow events and the rising temperatures.
During the 21st century, Colorado has had just one year of below-average annual temperatures when compared to the 1971-2000 average, according to a study commissioned by the state government. Seven of the top 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2010.
Colorado’s northern mountains looked somewhat below average as of early April. But unseasonably warm temperatures caused the snowpack to sag as the month went on.
“It was clear by early April that it was going to be a bad year in southern Colorado,” Schumacher wrote to Big Pivots in an e -mail on April 29. “But with very little snow and a lot of sunshine in the last couple weeks, snowpack in the northern mountains has started declining early as well.”
The Natural Resources Conservation Service Snotel readings on Monday morning showed improvement after an overnight snowfall but remained far below average.
Snow was notably absent in Colorado’s southern mountains this winter. It started out OK, then got warm and dry. By late January, the odds were for a very poor runoff.
A Snotel station near Wolf Creek Pass had the second lowest peak snow-water equivalent since the station was established in 1979. The lowest reading was in 2002. This was even less than in 2018, a year plagued by wildfires in southern Colorado.
At his farm along the Animas River, Meyer first noticed a problem in February. The well that taps water for domestic purposes went dry. The water table had dropped 35 feet. He persuaded others on the ditch to begin diverting water from the Animas River through the ditch. This caused the groundwater level to rise. It worked, although he was out of water for a week to 10 days.
Meyer is relatively new to southwest Colorado but not to Colorado water issues. An engineer by training, he operated a Glenwood Springs-based water consulting business for 35 years before he retired. He then bought ranch property in southwest Colorado near the community of Mancos. After a drought in 2021, he resolved to get a property with better access to water.
The property north of Durango is where the San Juan Mountains begin to pinch the Animas River Valley. The farm he and his children tend has plentiful orchards: peaches, apples, and pears. They also grow cherries and plums along with raspberries, strawberries and blackberries.
Family members also like to raft, but on Sunday found too little water to do so.
At his office in Cortez, Ken Curtis, director of the Dolores Water Conservancy District, has been monitoring the snowpack numbers. In late April they suggested a runoff of 30% of average. Because his district owns more senior water rights, the farmers of alfalfa, pinto beans and other crops in his district will probably do better than that might suggest.
“It’s been a weird year,” he said. “We are definitely going to have a shortage.”
The good news he reported was the relative absence of dust-on-snow, a phenomenon that warms the snow more rapidly and causes faster melting.
This was the eighth or ninth year out of the last 15 that the runoff from the winter snowpack has been on the low side.
Cortez lies amid the remains of the Ancestral Pueblo, known colloquially as the Anasazi. Because of a multi-decade drought about 1200, they abandoned their cliff dwellings and took up homes along the Rio Grande to the east.
West Drought Monitor map April 29, 2025.
At least part of this drought is something different, the result of rising temperatures created by accumulating greenhouse gases. The process is called aridification, and scientists since about 2017 have conducted studies that convincingly demonstrate that it is responsible for roughly half of declined flows. Drought may go away, but human-caused aridification will not any time soon.
The Colorado River during the last 25 years has yielded significantly less water than the 20th century average — and even less than delegates from the seven basin states assumed when they drew up the Colorado River Compact in 1922.
The states, divided into the upper and lower basins, have been trying to come to grips with the new realities of the 21st century for most of the century. Results have been uneven.
First California and then Arizona gulped waters from the river with giant diversion projects. Colorado but especially other basin states were slower to put straws into the river and they have also been smaller straws.
Who should cut back given the clear evidence for need? At his farm near Durango, Meyer thinks that Colorado must recognize it needs to cut back somewhat in line with what Arizona and California have agreed to do.
Runoff into Lake Powell during March 2as 61% of average. The reservoir is 31.4% full, far better than in 2022, when capacity dipped to below 23% of capacity. Runoff in the last couple of years has been at least okay. This year’s runoff will be a stern reminder that new agreements must be hammered out.
On April 25, water journalist and author John Fleck and four collaborators – including Anne Castle and Eric Kuhn of Colorado – issued a short paper that outlined what they said are the seven essential pillars for post-2026 management of the Colorado River. The first calls for enforceable reductions in water use in both the Upper and Lower Basin.
The compact assumed far more water than occurred in the 20th century, but that faulty assumption was tolerable until the 1990s, when the Central Arizona Project withdrawals began. Then came the drought and aridification of the 21st century. The river that delivered 14.5 million acre-feet (unlike the 20 million acre-feet that was assumed) was in trouble.
Colorado, to a small extent, but Wyoming and Utah especially, had not been using the amount of water that was assumed by the compacts. California and Arizona had been – and then some.
In recent years, California and Arizona have cut back their use of the Colorado River dramatically. The argument made by Castle and Kuhn as well as the others is that there must be shared pain in reduced wager use. That runs counter to the official stance of Colorado and other basin states that it’s a lower-basin problem.
“Shared pain is also critical to inducing the various states not to litigate over the interpretation of the 1922 Compact,” they wrote. “Shared does not mean equal, either in amount, triggers or duration,” they added.
They also say that reductions in water use cannot be predicated on federal compensation, as was important in enabling Arizona and California to reduce their flows during the last few years.
Kuhn was the long-time general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District in Glenwood Springs, and Castle, an attorney who specialized in water, was undersecretary for Water and Science in the Interior Department during the Obama administration. She is now with the Getches-Wilkinson Center at the University of Colorado Law School.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
From email from the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (Sue Uerling):
Please see the attached notice for the May Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Lake San Cristobal Water Activity Enterprise Meetings in Lake City, Colorado on Tuesday, May 20th, 2025 with lunch beginning at noon. If you would like to join the meeting via Zoom, please use the following link to pre-register for the meeting:
President Donald Trump and his team have signaled a strong interest in continuing to strengthen federal support for nuclear power, an energy source Democratic states are increasingly open to expanding.
The administration’s loudly pro-nuclear position creates a rare point of overlap between Trump and his predecessor, Joe Biden, whose signature legislation funded hundreds of millions in tax credits for low-carbon energy sources, including nuclear power.
Trump during his first roughly three months in office issued multiple executive orders mentioning nuclear energy, casting his broad energy strategy as a way to expand the country’s power resources and shore up its security. State lawmakers are also pushing their own policy moves, sometimes just in an effort to set themselves up to embrace nuclear power at some point in the future.
“There are a lot of really positive signals,” said Rowen Price, senior policy adviser for nuclear energy at Third Way, a centrist policy think tank.
Nuclear in Colorado
From Colorado Newsline
A new law that Colorado state leaders enacted this year, House Bill 25-1040, designates nuclear energy as clean. That means utilities can meet clean-energy targets with nuclear power, and it also allows private projects access to financing that’s earmarked for clean energy development.
But Price said she’s concerned that support for nuclear power could be swept up in bigger political fights, such as many congressional Republicans’ goal of axing clean-energy tax credits in Democrats’ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The administration’s broad cuts to the federal workforce could also eventually hurt the government’s nuclear ambitions, she added.
The promise of a nuclear resurgence in the United States isn’t a new goal for the industry or its backers in Washington, D.C., but how successful efforts to expand nuclear power generation will be in the U.S. — a metric that hasn’t budged from around 20% in decades — remains to be seen.
Americans’ support for the energy source, meanwhile, is just short of its record high, a recent Gallup Poll found. And more blue states have also started to embrace nuclear power, which has traditionally been more favored by Republicans, to reach climate goals and grow electricity capacity amid anticipated increases in demand.
But even as interest in states grows, the cost of building nuclear infrastructure remains an impediment only the federal government is positioned to help scale.
‘Renaissance of nuclear’
Energy Secretary Chris Wright in April talked about the administration’s desire to elevate nuclear power by making it easier to test reactors, delivering fuel to next-generation nuclear firms and utilizing the department’s Loan Programs Office to help bring nuclear power projects online.
“We would like to see a renaissance of nuclear,” Wright said at the news outlet Semafor’s World Economy Summit in Washington. “The conditions are there and the administration is going to do everything we can to lean in to help commercial businesses and customers launch nuclear.”
The Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert, Michigan. (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission photo)
Wright said he wants the department to help launch 10 to 20 new nuclear reactors to get the industry moving again and to bring down costs. The department’s loan office could make debt investments alongside large-scale data center companies that use massive amounts of power to build nuclear projects and then exit those deals after the projects are built, allowing the office to recycle that funding, he said.
The department recently announced that it approved a third loan disbursement to reopen the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert, Michigan, which Holtec has been working on doing for the last few years.
Last month, the department said it was reopening $900 million in funding to help companies working on small modular reactors after changing some of the Biden administration’s guidance on the program.
Federal workforce cuts
Third Way’s Price noted that a portion of staffers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — which she described as already “tightly constrained” — are eligible for retirement either now or in the next five years.
Workforce cuts at the Energy Department and elsewhere could also hurt efforts to grow the nuclear power sector, she said.
“Frankly, all of the verbal support from this administration for nuclear only matters if they’re actually going to put forward and implement policies that support it,” Price said. “We need to make sure that they do it.”
An Energy Department spokesperson said in an email that it “is conducting a department-wide review to ensure all activities follow the law, comply with applicable court orders and align with the Trump administration’s priorities.”
The agency said it didn’t have a final count on how many staffers have left the department through its resignation program, but noted that it doesn’t necessarily approve all requests. The department didn’t comment on how many staffers focused on nuclear energy have been laid off.
Nuclear programs were among those affected by the Trump administration’s pausing of federal programs and funding, said David Brown, senior vice president of federal government affairs and public policy at Constellation Energy, which runs the biggest fleet of nuclear plants in the country. But Brown said that even so, the industry is coming out on top.
“I think what we are seeing is that as they work through their various review(s) of programs that they’re greenlighting the nuclear stuff,” Brown said.
Federal support crucial, but politics tricky
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill could also change the outcome for industry, for better or worse.
Wright, in his remarks last month, said he hopes Congress will take action to help expand nuclear energy, and said lawmakers could do so in the budget reconciliation package on which the U.S. House has started to work.
Republican House members have not yet released text of the sections of the package that will deal with energy policy. Wright said support for nuclear power could be included in the reconciliation package, but some advocates are also worried that the package, or the annual appropriations bills, are the exact kind of political battles that efforts to support nuclear power, like the tax credits, could get tied up in.
Some state lawmakers point to financial support from the federal government as essential for the industry to grow, even if states make their own headway to build support for nuclear power.
Colorado state Rep. Alex Valdez, a Democrat who sponsored a bill signed into law this session to include nuclear in the state’s definition of clean energy, said he hopes the administration follows through on its admiration of nuclear power with funding for states.
“Generally, states do not have the financial resources the federal government does,” Valdez said. “It’s going to be the federal government that puts their investments behind these things, and that’s what’s going to enable states as a whole to be able to move forward on them.”
Aerial images of the Gunnison Basin revealed that much of the rolling lowlands had already melted out by the end of March. With warmer-than-usual temperatures lingering most of April, the high country is also on track for a speedy melt, triggering the potential for a short water supply this summer. Snowfall was sporadic across much of the valley and Colorado this winter.
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map May 4, 2025 via the NRCS.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, on April 30 snowpack statewide is 57% of normal, with the southwestern portion of the state faring far worse than its northern neighbors. These are the lowest snowpack levels for this time of year since the 2014-15 water year. Marked on the map in hues of red and orange — signaling a drought is in place — the snowpack this week in the Gunnison Basin sat at 47% of normal, the Upper Rio Grande at 23% and the San Miguel-Dolores-Animas-San Juan at 28%. There is little moisture in the current forecast, and the NOAA Climate Prediction Center outlook continues to show a warm and dry spring.. Winter 2024-25 started off with momentum with a huge early-season storm around Thanksgiving. Headed into the spring runoff season, near- to above-normal soil moisture conditions were also present in the Gunnison Basin, Cody Moser said during a water supply update on April 24. Moser is a senior hydrologist with the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center. Positive soil moisture conditions impact the water supply outlook as these areas can expect increased runoff. But over the last four months, the valley dried out, Moser said. Precipitation levels October through March across the Gunnison Basin were 88% of the 30-year average (this spans from 1991-2020, some of the driest years on record). December was by far the worst, at 48% of average. The arrival of spring brought no relief. The dry trend continued in April and brought record-high temperatures. The heat resulted in an early melt, draining some of the high-altitude areas that usually hang onto snow much later in the season.
According to the 10-day forecast the melt is expected to pick up this week. Water supply projections across the Gunnison River Basin are below normal, ranging from between 50-80% of average. At Blue Mesa Reservoir, projections show an inflow of just under 500,000 acre-feet of water as the snow melts. This runoff year falls into the “moderately dry” category, similar to 2020 and 2022. Blue Mesa is currently 61% full, and is expected to fill to 80%.
Overview maps of the Upper Colorado Basin (UCRB), outlined in black. (a) The major UCRB waterways overlaid on satellite imagery from April 2022 visualizing typical extent of springtime snow cover. Over the MODIS record, (b) annual snow covered days visualizing extent and duration of snow cover, (c) spring RFdust, and (d) persistence of RFdust (% of time above 50 Wm−2).
Click the link to read the letter on the AGU website (Patrick Naple, S. McKenzie Skiles, Otto I. Lang, Karl Rittger, Sebastien J. P. Lenard, Annie Burgess, Thomas H. Painter). Here’s an excerpt:
Abstract
In the mountainous headwaters of the Colorado River episodic dust deposition from adjacent arid and disturbed landscapes darkens snow and accelerates snowmelt, impacting basin hydrology. Patterns and impacts across the heterogenous landscape cannot be inferred from current in situ observations. To fill this gap daily remotely sensed retrievals of radiative forcing and contribution to melt were analyzed over the MODIS period of record (2001–2023) to quantify spatiotemporal impacts of snow darkening. Each season radiative forcing magnitudes were lowest in early spring and intensified as snowmelt progressed, with interannual variability in timing and magnitude of peak impact. Over the full record, radiative forcing was elevated in the first decade relative to the last decade. Snowmelt was accelerated in all years and impacts were most intense in the central to southern headwaters. The spatiotemporal patterns motivate further study to understand controls on variability and related perturbations to snow water resources.
Key Points
Spatiotemporal patterns in dust on snow radiative forcing and melt contribution assessed over the MODIS period of record
Dust darkens snow every year and impacts were generally higher in the first half of the record
The dust on snow radiative impacts accelerate snowmelt every spring with relevant melt contribution even in lower magnitude years
Plain Language Summary
Seasonal melt from mountain snowpacks dominates water resource availability in the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB). The mountainous Colorado River headwaters are adjacent to arid regions that regularly emit dust that darkens the snow. Darker snow melts earlier and faster due to the snowpack absorbing more of the sun’s energy. This study uses 23 years of daily remotely sensed images to observe patterns in dust on snow impacts during the melt season across the UCRB. Results showed that impacts were greatest in the central-southern Rocky Mountains at mid-alpine elevations. Over time, snow darkening and accelerated melt were generally higher in the first half of the record with a slight declining trend across the full record. However, dust contributed to accelerating melt every spring over the record. Results suggest the need for further study to understand what controls dust on snow variability and magnitude of impact from year to year.
During the 1910s, a large gray wolf — christened Ol’ Big Foot by his human admirers and adversaries — roamed from one end of what is now Bears Ears National Monument to the other, from the sinuous White Canyon to Clay Hills, from the ponderosa-studded glades of Elk Ridge to the gorge-etched Slickhorn Country to the Colorado River where it tumbles through Cataract Canyon.
Big Foot was one of the last remnants of the pre-settler colonial era, a vestige of a time when the landscape — and the people who lived with it — existed in a more harmonious and balanced way. I’ve been thinking alot about this wolf, and its counterparts in other parts of the region in the years prior to the species’ extirpation, amid the news that Mexican gray wolves are making their way north from southern New Mexico and Arizona, and gray wolves reintroduced in northern Colorado are moving southward. Though it ended tragically, Big Foot’s story gives me an inkling of hope during hopeless times.
By the time Big Foot had established dominion over a big chunk of southeastern Utah, the Hole-in-the-Rock settlers had been in the region for a few decades, hunting the deer, elk, and bighorn sheep nearly to extinction, while livestock operators such as J.A. Scorup, the “Mormon Cowboy,” were also covering the vast swaths of un-roaded public domain with thousands of head of cattle and sheep. In other words, they were robbing the wolves, cougars, coyotes, foxes, bears, and lynx of their natural prey, and replacing it with another fatter and slower food source, with a predictable outcome.
Ol’ Big Foot was rumored to be the most efficient livestock culler around, and was constantly trailed by a pack of coyotes looking to scavenge his many kills. The big canine allegedly took down 150 calves in one fell swoop — although that figure is almost certainly exaggerated to provide further justification for slaughtering predators. Not that the invaders needed an excuse: Killing wildlife, especially charismatic megafauna, was part and parcel of the white settler colonial project, even in areas where livestock predation wasn’t an issue. The goal was not just to settle on the land, but to “settle,” or tame, the land itself; to rob the wilderness of its wildness.
Ranchers and their cowboy hands were no match for the predators so, as is often the case, the fiercely independent Western individualists pleaded for government aid. Federal and county agencies paid cash for evidence of predator kills. La Plata County, Colorado’s “scalp records” from the late 1800s record payouts for some 300 hawk heads (at 25 cents apiece), 200 bear pelts, two-dozen mountain lion hides, and a handful of wolf skins. The mercenary killing spree took a heartrending toll, but it wasn’t enough for the ranchers. So in 1915 the federal government tasked the U.S. Biological Survey with the extermination of every predator in the West, by whatever means necessary, including rifles, traps, and poisons. The resulting systematic slaughter was popularly dubbed “Uncle Sam’s War on Varmints,” thusly described in a 1927 wire service story:
As twisted as it may be, the sentiment in the last phrase — that killing wild predators was actually preserving wildlife and saving other animals from extinction — was a commonly held belief. And the bizarre notion persists among many of those who oppose bringing the wolf back, saying they would compete with human hunters for wild game.
Clippings from Colorado newspapers from the 1890s through the 1920s. Source: Colorado Historic Newspapers.
The death toll from the “war,” or attempted speciecide, is stunning. In 1924, for example, the government hunters reported killing 2,000 animals in Colorado, alone, including more than 1,700 coyotes, 153 bobcats, 50 lynx, 8 wolves, 6 mountain lions, 4 bears, and 2 wild dogs. The toll for wolves, cougars, and bears is relatively low because by that point, those species’ populations had plummeted. In 1919 the Biological Survey predicted the West would be wolf-free within five years, and estimated only 100 remained in Utah.
As the wolf populations declined hunters and newspaper reporters started focusing on individual animals, ascribing them with personalities and even christening them. The descriptions often read like those of human outlaws: a mix of fear, condemnation, and veneration.
“Lobo, a great gray wolf who was the king of the pack at Currumpaw, a vast cattle range in New Mexico, was a thinker as well as a ruler,” Ernest Thompson Seton told a newspaper reporter in 1905, after he had killed the wolf by using his dead mate as a decoy. Avintaquint, of the Vernal, Utah, area, was the “crafty leader of one of the wiliest brand of pillagers of the cattle range that ever roamed the west.” Two Toes feasted on lambs in the Laramie River region; another Big Foot led a pack in the Unaweep area of western Colorado; Big Lefty was known to be one of the largest and most cunning wolves in the Crested Butte area, even though he had lost a leg to a trap; and Big Tooth Ben loped about Valencia County, New Mexico.
More clippings from the 1910s and 1920s. Hopefully the third one doesn’t give Interior Secretary Doug Burgum any ideas.
Old Three-Toes was known not just for preying on livestock, but also for seducing domesticated ranch dogs, which she was forced to settle for since most of the males of her species had been slaughtered. She lived in southern Pueblo County in Colorado and, according to news accounts, would sidle up to a ranch house in the dark, “making her coming known by a peculiar howl. And when she left, the family dog often went with her. Several ranch dogs have paid the death penalty to trapper or hunter when found fraternizing with this vicious destroyer of ranch property.”
In 1923, government hunters trapped some of Three Toes’ pups and lured the matriarch in for the kill. It was an especially deadly time for the other famous wolves, all of whom were captured and killed, to much fanfare, via cruel methods in the early and mid-twenties. Many were poisoned, one dragged a trap for miles before being shot, and at least one was captured alive and used as a decoy to lure others into traps or shooting range.
The Salt Lake Telegram ran a piece on Old Easyfoot, “thecelebrated wolf of eastern Kane county,” noting that the huge animal “battled six dogs into submission on Oct. 6, 1928, and gave up the fight only when he had been drilled through and through by the high powered rifles of the biological survey hunters.” Easyfoot’s stuffed carcass was later installed in the state capitol building.
Dr. A.K. Fisher, the Biological Survey’s Director, predicted in 1926 that “within a year Colorado would be a sportsman’s paradise because of the elimination of the wolf and the mountain lion.” He said only six wolves remained in the entire state: one north of Eagle; one north of Fruita; two near Mancos; and two that ranged into Colorado from New Mexico. “Coyotes are our greatest trouble at this time,” Fisher added. “But the elimination of the wolf has given us more funds to concentrate on coyote work and progress is being made against them.”
You might think that folks with the Biological Survey would know that killing all of the predators would lead to their prey, i.e. rodents, running rampant. Duh!
Fisher was a bit premature in his forecast — Colorado’s last wolf was killed in 1940, and they never got close to wiping out the coyote. Nor did he mention that even as the predator-killing campaign garnered success, the agency found itself putting more and more resources into exterminating prairie dogs, rats, squirrels, and rabbits. Go figure! But his assessment was correct: The wolf of the Western U.S. (outside of Alaska) was doomed, aside from a few specimens that traveled over the border from Canada or Mexico.
The war was not without its critics. In 1931, the American Society of Mammalogists called the biological survey “the most destructive organized agency which ever threatened the native fauna of the United States.” Not that it seemed to sway the agency from its mission, and by then it was too late for the wolf anyway.
In 1929, Arthur H. Carhart and Stanley P. Young wrote Last Stand of the Pack, a non-fiction account of the lives and deaths of the “last nine renegade wolves.” A passage from the Carhart’s introduction illustrates the sometimes contorted, sometimes conflicted, often bizarre attitudes towards wolves — which he refers to as cruel “wilderness killers.”
***
I grew up in southwestern Colorado in the 1970s and ‘80s. Our family vacations were camping trips — it’s what we could afford — and I started backpacking with friends up Junction Creek when I was 12. I don’t remember ever seeing a bear, a mountain lion, or even a bobcat. We knew they were out there, sure, but even black bears were rare enough that we didn’t think about securing our food in camp. My friends and I often prowled around under the light of a full moon without a single worry that we might make a tasty mountain lion meal.
Not only were the grizzlies and wolves long gone by then, but I don’t think I would have believed that at one time they were so plentiful in the San Juan Mountains that members of the 1874 Hayden Survey came to see them as unavoidable pests, encountering grizzlies nearly everywhere they ventured, even on 13,000-foot peaks. I lived right next to, and often ventured into the Weminuche Wilderness, a vast and rugged and untrammeled region, and yet wildness of the kind that flourished in pre-settler-colonial times remained a myth to me, something that may have existed but that was ungraspable, even to my active and sometimes zany imagination.
The idea that wolves or grizzlies would ever return to the region? Inconceivable.
After all, the march of “civilization” and “progress” is linear, the human population and the resources it consumes and the space it occupies and the impacts it has is a runaway train barreling toward inevitable collapse. The climate will continue to heat up, the skies will grow smoggier, the forests will burn, the mighty saguaro will topple, wilderness and solitude will become increasingly commodified, even the coyote’s nocturnal yips will become a thing of the past. Or so it seems, especially in times like these, when greed’s toll becomes more and more apparent, when a huge bloc of the U.S. citizenry puts more value on the price at the pump than they do on the survival of the planet, when the people allow fear to override compassion and leaders cherish wealth and power over humanity and justice.
And yet. In my hometown of Durango, black bears roam freely and plentifully, purloining apples and pears and garbage. Herds of deer graze front lawns up in Tupperware Heights. Mountain lion sightings on the Test Tracks trails on the edge of town are frequent. Up in Silverton, moose-sightings are common, bighorn sheep lick the salt off the roads on Red Mountain Pass, and a lucky few catch a glimpse of Canada lynx. The wildlife, so rare in my youth, has returned, bringing a bit of wildness with it.
Nearly a century after Canis lupus was extirpated from the Southwest, there is a spark of hope, an inkling of possibility that the wolf will return to the Bears Ears country. In March, a Mexican gray wolf named Ella by local school children, was spotted north of Interstate 40 near Mount Taylor. It was killed by still undisclosed means, but it was an indication that the reintroduced wolf population in the southern part of the state is looking to broaden its horizons. And just last week, Colorado Parks & Wildlife published a map showing where radio-collared gray wolves, reintroduced in the northern part of the state, had roamed. One traveled some 1,200 miles, making it as far south as the Uncompahgre River watershed.
The wolves are inching ever closer to the San Juan Mountains. Source: Colorado Parks & Wildlife.
Some might argue that there is no longer a place in Colorado or southern Utah for the solitary wolf. There are too many people, too much development, far too many highways, too many public lands ranchers who refuse to learn non-lethal ways to deter predators, and too many right-wing politicians who despise the wolf and all it symbolizes. Maybe they’re right. Government hunters with Wildlife Services continue the work of their Biological Survey predecessors: Last year, they killed 58,000 coyotes and 317 wolves nationwide, adding to the toll taken by private hunters (hunting wolves is legal in the Northern Rockies, where the population has somewhat recovered), cars, and other causes.
Still, for every human that yearns for the wolf’s demise, there are ten filled with awe and wonder for what the species, and its return, represents. As old Big Foot’s story illustrates, the wolf is resilient. In the spring of 1920, a trap set by bounty hunter Roy Musselman out on Cedar Mesa a few miles east of Grand Gulch finally ensnared Big Foot, doing “what a dozen or more trappers are trying to do,” according to an account by A.R. Lyman following Big Foot’s death.
Lyman wrote that the twelve-year old, eight-foot long wolf had been tormenting ranchers for a decade at least, and had killed thousands of dollars worth of cattle. Big Foot foiled countless hunters and cowboys over the years, driving his bounty up to $1,000, and even Musselman had been on its trail for four years, catching seven other wolves during that time, including Big Foot’s mate. He had a distinctive howl that could be distinguished five miles away, Lyman wrote, “and he has led many an interesting race with white men and Indians, always making safe his escape by his speed and his knowledge of the country.”
His country is one of the few places in the U.S. that hasn’t changed all that much in the last 100 years. Another Big Foot would find plenty of landscape for roaming and many a nook and cranny for hiding out in. And now there are more deer and elk to eat (along with some slow-moving elk, if you know what I mean). I’ll leave you with Lyman’s words from April 1920:
Gray wolves are currently protected under the Endangered Species Act. Photo credit: Tracy Brooks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Aspen Journalism
As the world blows past 1.5°C of anthropogenic warming and looks increasingly likely to hit 2.6°C–3.1°C by the end of the century, plenty of controversy still exists, even among geoscientists, about how to slow, stop, or reverse the rapid climate change we are causing. As so many studies have documented, such warming will cause inundation of many coastal cities, trillions of dollars in damage from extreme weather, widespread species extinctions, and unrelenting heat waves. It will also fundamentally threaten financial sectors and economies at all scales. One thing is clear: To mitigate these outcomes, humanity’s first priority should be to drastically reduce its annual emissions of roughly 40 gigatons (billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas most responsible for driving warming. Without this reduction, other measures will be only modestly effective at best. But unfortunately, at this point, the scale of mitigation needed to keep warming to below 2°C–3°C goes beyond reducing annual emissions. We must also remove and store carbon that has accumulated in the atmosphere…
Not only has focusing on annual emissions over the past few decades failed to reduce them, but it’s also not our annual emissions today (and into the future) that are causing the 1.55°C of warming we’re witnessing. It’s how much CO2 we have already emitted. Our cumulative emissions of 1.8 trillion tons (1,800 gigatons) of CO2 from energy and industry—heavier than the combined mass of all living things on Earth—taken from geologic reservoirs and dumped into the atmosphere, will stay there (and in the ocean) for thousands of years. Even on that happy day when we finally start reducing emissions, we will be the farthest we have ever been from solving the problem, and in fact, we will still be adding to it…
The biggest opportunity—and perhaps the biggest responsibility—for geoscientists to contribute to mitigation is through facilitating durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Concerns are sometimes raised about CDR as a form of climate intervention, or geoengineering, yet it is far less risky than the centuries-long geoengineering experiment of using the atmosphere as a sewer. Indeed, removing gigatons of CO2 per year is essential to net zero strategies and avoiding disastrous amounts of warming, as unequivocally stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Energy Transitions Commission, and American Physical Society. Three principles are generally considered fundamental to CDR. First, CO2 already in the atmosphere must be taken out. This principle distinguishes it from point source carbon capture and storage (CCS), which simply reduces new CO2 emissions from fossil fuel energy and industry sources while competing with clean energy…Many approaches to CDR exist. Direct air capture (DAC), for example, is a rapidly growing method in which CO2 is pulled straight from the atmosphere. Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS) methods capture a fraction of the 480 gigatons of CO2 that plants naturally absorb each year and prevent it from cycling back to the atmosphere by converting biomass to forms that can be isolated and stored. Other CDR approaches focus on managing ecosystems to stimulate more CO2 removal than would occur naturally, the second of the three principles of CDR. Examples include various strategies for enhanced rock weathering in croplands or forests and for marine CDR, such as using nutrients to promote biomass growth and raising the alkalinity of seawater so it pulls more CO2 from the air. Third, and most important, is the fact that however CO2 is removed, it must be stored durably, with minimal likelihood it can return to the atmosphere for a long time. Using captured carbon to create marketable stuff like fertilizer and chemicals may seem economically savvy, but it’s not a durable approach. The entire global industrial demand for CO2 is less than 1% of our annual emissions, and much of this carbon goes right back to the atmosphere or is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to extract more petroleum.
Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website (Heather Dutton and Daniel Boyes):
May 2, 2025
San Luis Valley water managers have reviewed streamflow forecasts, available water stored in reservoirs, and anticipated reservoir operations for the 2025 spring, summer, and fall seasons, and determined that 2025 will likely be a year with early runoff, low flows in streams and rivers, and a short boating season.
The Colorado Division of Water Resources Division 3 Engineer’s March 31 10-day report forecasted the total annual flow at the Del Norte gage will be 390,000 acre-feet. For reference, the flows in 2020 totaled 377,000 acre-feet. The National Weather Service is forecasting hot and dry conditions into July, with chances of a normal monsoon season in late summer. The snow water equivalent for the Upper Rio Grande Basin was 25 percent of the median for the 1991-2020 time period on April 28, 2025. The irrigation season began on April 1 on the Rio Grande. As such, on-stream reservoirs are required to pass all inflows to satisfy the needs of downstream senior water rights holders.
Given the low amount of snow remaining in the mountains and the anticipated summer drought conditions, it is likely that local rivers and streams will reach their peak runoff in May. The reservoir operators at Rio Grande, Santa Maria, and Continental Reservoirs will begin releasing stored irrigation water to downstream farmers after the river peaks. The San Luis Valley Irrigation District (SLVID) will release water from Rio Grande Reservoir to the Farmers Union Canal as soon as their first direct flow priorities come into priority on the Rio Grande at anticipated rates of 150-400 cubic feet per second for up to 15 days.
Rio Grande. Photo Credit: The Citizen
This schedule will be updated through May as river conditions change.
The Santa Maria Reservoir Company anticipates beginning releases from Santa Maria and Continental Reservoirs to the Rio Grande Canal and Monte Vista Canal in late May or early June. The timing of the releases of water will depend on flow rates in the canals and when farmers order water. The natural river flows and releases of irrigation water will provide the highest rates of flow during the summer season. As such, boatable flows on the Rio Grande may diminish as early as mid to late June.
Entities including Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District (SLVWCD), and the Rio Grande Water Conservation District (RGWCD) store water in reservoirs in the Upper Rio Grande Basin and call for releases for their operations in accordance with their water rights decrees. Where possible, releases by these organizations will be prioritized during hot periods to supplement the natural flow of the Rio Grande helping to reduce high water temperatures and low river flows, thereby protecting the health of fish. Generally, when water temperatures reach 68 degrees, fish become very stressed and voluntary fishing restrictions are enacted at 72 degrees. Stakeholders will watch temperatures on the Rio Grande and the South Fork of the Rio Grande carefully and take action to release water where possible.
The water managers and reservoir operators in the Rio Grande Basin are working in partnership to manage water in order to meet multiple needs. These efforts build off of many years of collaboration amongst water users on the Rio Grande. In order to better inform the local communities of water management operations, additional information will be compiled and shared via news outlets, social media, and email as reservoir releases are planned and executed.
Click the link to read the article on the Grist website (Chris D’Angelo):
April 29, 2025
This story is part of a Grist package examining how President Trump’s first 100 days in office have reshaped climate and environmental policy in the U.S.
America’s federal public lands are truly unique, part of our birthright as citizens. No other country in the world has such a system.
More than 640 million acres, including national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges, as well as lands open to drilling, mining, logging, and a variety of other uses, are managed by the federal government — but owned collectively by all American citizens. Together, these parcels make up more than a quarter of all land in the nation.
Heart Attack on Oh Be Joyful Creek. The creek has become the most popular Class V creek run in all of Colorado. The sickening gradient slides down generally smooth flat slate resulting in surprisingly easy lines. Don’t take it too lightly though, the swims are few but there is potential for epic carnage. The creek has taken on the nickname “Oh Be Careful”. This run gets dramatically easier the more times you’ve run it. After the 2nd or 3rd time down most competent Class V boaters can bomb it in less than 10 minutes without breaking a sweat. Photo credit: American Whitewater
“Even if you don’t own a house or the latest computer on the market, you own Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and many other natural treasures,” he wrote in 2011.
Despite broad, bipartisan public support for protecting public lands, these shared landscapes have come under relentless attack during the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term. The administration and its allies in Congress are working feverishly to tilt the scale away from natural resource protection and toward extraction, threatening a pillar of the nation’s identity and tradition of democratic governance.
“There’s no larger concentration of unappropriated wealth on this globe than exists in this country on our public lands,” said Jesse Deubel, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, a conservation nonprofit. “The fact that there are interests that would like to monetize that, they’d like to liquidate it and turn it into cash money, is no surprise.”
Landscape protections and bedrock conservation laws are on the chopping block, as Trump and his team look to boost and fast-track drilling, mining, and logging across the federal estate. The administration and the GOP-controlled Congress are eyeing selling off federal lands, both for housing development and to help offset Trump’s tax and spending cuts. And the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk, is wreaking havoc within federal land management agencies, pushing out thousands of civil servants. That purge will leave America’s natural heritage more vulnerable to the myriad threats these lands already face, including growing visitor numbers, climate change, wildfires, and invasive species.
The Republican campaign to undermine land management agencies and wrest control of public lands from the federal government is nothing new, dating back to the Sagebrush Rebellion movement of the 1970s and ’80s, when support for privatizing or transferring federal lands to state control exploded across the West. But the speed and scope of the current attack, along with its disregard for the public’s support for safeguarding public lands, makes it more worrisome than previous iterations, several public land advocates and legal experts told Grist.
This is “probably the most significant moment since the Reagan administration in terms of privatization,” said Steven Davis, a political science professor at Edgewood College and the author of the 2018 book In Defense of Public Lands: The Case Against Privatization and Transfer. President Ronald Reagan was a self-proclaimed sagebrush rebel.
A ranger in Grand Teton National Park. (NPS/Bonney)
Deubel said the conservation community knew Trump’s return would trigger another drawn out fight for the future of public lands, but nothing could have prepared him for this level of chaos, particularly the effort to rid agencies of thousands of staffers.
The country is “in a much more pro-public lands position than we’ve been before,” Deubel said. “But I think we’re at greater risk than we’ve ever been before — not because the time is right in the eyes of the American people, but because we have an administration who could give two shits about what the American people want. That’s what’s got me scared.”
The Interior Department and the White House did not respond to Grist’s requests for comment.
In an article posted to the White House website on Earth Day, the Trump administration touted several “key actions” it has taken on the environment, including “protecting public lands” by opening more acres to energy development, “protecting wildlife” by pausing wind energy projects, and safeguarding forests by expanding logging. The accomplishments list received widespread condemnation from environmental, climate, and public land advocacy groups.
That same day, a leaked draft strategic plan revealed the Interior Department’s four-year vision for opening new federal lands to drilling and other extractive development, reducing the amount of federal land it manages by selling some for housing development and transferring other acres to state control, rolling back the boundaries of protected national monuments, and weakening bedrock environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act.
Oil and gas infrastructure is seen on the Roan Plateau in far western Colorado. (Courtesy of EcoFlight)
Meanwhile, Trump’s DOGE is in the process of cutting thousands of scientists and other staff from the various agencies that manage and protect public lands, including the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. Nearly every Republican senator went on the record this month in support of selling off federal lands to reduce the federal deficit, voting down a measure that would have blocked such sales. And Utah has promised to continue its legal fight aimed at stripping more than 18 million acres of BLM lands within the state’s border from the federal government. Utah’s lawsuit, which the Supreme Court declined to hear in January, had the support of numerous Republican-led states, including North Dakota while current Interior Secretary Doug Burgum was still governor.
To advance its agenda, the Trump administration is citing a series of “emergencies” that close observers say are at best exaggerated, and at worst manufactured. [ed. emphasis mine]
A purported “energy emergency,” which Trump declared in an executive order just hours after being inaugurated, has been the impetus for the administration attempting to throw long-standing federal permitting processes, public comment periods, and environmental safeguards to the wind. The action aims to boost fossil fuel extraction across federal lands and waters — despite domestic oil and gas production being at record highs — while simultaneously working to thwart renewable energy projects. Trump relied on that same “emergency” earlier this month when he ordered federal agencies to prop up America’s dwindling, polluting coal industry, which the president and his cabinet have insisted is “beautiful” and “clean.”In reality, coal is among the most polluting forms of energy.
“This whole idea of an emergency is ridiculous,” said Mark Squillace, a professor of natural resources law at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “And now this push to reinvigorate the coal industry seems absolutely crazy to me. Why would you try to reinvigorate a moribund industry that has been declining for the last decade or more? Makes no sense, it’s not going to happen.”
Coal consumption in the U.S. has declined more than 50 percent since peaking in 2005, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, largely due to market forces, including the availability of cheaper natural gas and America’s growing renewable energy sector. Meanwhile, Trump’s tariff war threatens to undermine his own push to expand mining and fossil fuel drilling.
Okay, it isn’t the Powder River Basin, but it is a coal mine: The West Elk near Somerset, Colorado. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
The threat of extreme wildfire — an actual crisis driven by a complex set of factors, including climate change, its role in intensifying droughts and pest outbreaks, and decades of fire suppression — is being cited to justify slashing environmental reviews to ramp up logging on public lands. Following up on a Trump executive order to increase domestic timber production, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins signed a memo declaring a forest health “emergency” that would open nearly 60 percent of national forest lands, more than 110 million acres, to aggressive logging.
Then there’s America’s “housing affordability crisis,” which the Trump administration, dozens of Republicans, and even a handful of Democrats are pointing to in a growing push to open federal lands to housing development, either by selling land to private interests or transferring control to states. The Trump administration recently established a task force to identify what it calls “underutilized lands.” In an op-ed announcing that effort, Burgum and Scott Turner, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, wrote that “much of” the 500 million acres Interior oversees is “suitable for residential use.” Some of the most high-profile members of the anti-public lands movement, including William Perry Pendley, who served as acting director of the Bureau of Land Management during Trump’s first term, are championing the idea.
Without guardrails, critics argue the sale of public lands to build housing will lead to sprawl in remote, sensitive landscapes and do little, if anything, to address home affordability, as the issue is driven by several factors, including migration trends, stagnant wages, and higher construction costs. Notably, Trump’s tariff policies are expected to raise the average price of a new home by nearly $11,000.
Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation, a Colorado-based nonprofit working to protect BLM-managed lands, said the lack of affordable housing is a serious issue, but “we shouldn’t be fooled that the idea to sell off public lands is a solution.”
“The vast majority of public lands are just not suitable for any sort of housing development due to their remote locations, lack of access, and necessary infrastructure,” she said.
Corn Springs, Chuckwalla Mountains, California. President Trump rescinded the area’s monument status on March 15, 2025. By Michael Dorausch from Venice, USA – Corn Springs CA, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41004589
David Hayes, who served as deputy Interior secretary during the administrations of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and as a senior climate adviser to President Joe Biden, told Grist that Trump’s broad use of executive power sets the current privatization push apart from previous efforts.
“Not only do you have the rhetoric and the intentionality around managing public lands in an aggressive way, but you have to couple that with what you’re seeing,” he said. “This administration is going farther than any other ever has to push the limits of executive power.”
Aaron Weiss, deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities, a Colorado-based conservation group, said Trump and his team are doing everything they can to circumvent normal environmental rules and safeguards in order to advance their agenda, with no regard for the law or public opinion.
“Everything is an imagined crisis,” Weiss said.
Oil, gas, and coal jobs. Mining jobs. Timber jobs. Farming and ranching. Gas-powered cars and kitchen appliances. Even the water pressure in your shower. Ask the White House and the Republican Party and they’ll tell you Biden waged a war against all of it, and that voters gave Trump a mandate to reverse course.
During Trump’s first term in office, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke repeatedly boasted that the administration’s conservation legacy would rival that of his personal hero and America’s conservationist president, Theodore Roosevelt — only to have the late president’s great-grandson, Theodore Roosevelt IV, and the conservation community bemoan his record at the helm of the massive federal agency.
Like Zinke, Burgum invoked Roosevelt in pitching himself for the job.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum tours a fracking site in Washington County, Pennsylvania on April 3, where he discussed President Trump’s recent executive orders to boost domestic fossil fuel production. Department of the Interior
“In our time, President Trump’s energy dominance can be America’s big stick that will be leveraged to achieve historic prosperity and world peace,” Burgum said during his confirmation hearing in January, referencing a 1900 letter in which the 26th president said to “speak softly and carry a big stick.”
The Senate confirmed him to the post in January on a bipartisan 79-18 vote. Some public land advocates initially viewed Burgum, now the chief steward of the federal lands, waters, and wildlife we all own, as a palatable nominee in a sea of problematic potential picks. A billionaire software entrepreneur and former North Dakota governor, Burgum has talked at length about his fondness for Roosevelt’s conservation legacy and the outdoors.
Whatever honeymoon there was didn’t last long. One hundred days in, Burgum and the rest of Trump’s team have taken not a stick, but a wrecking ball to America’s public lands, waters, and wildlife. Earlier this month, the new CEO of REI said the outdoor retailer made “a mistake” in endorsing Burgum for the job and that the administration’s actions on public lands “are completely at odds with the longstanding values of REI.”
At an April 9 all-hands meeting of Interior employees, Burgum showed off pictures of himself touring oil and gas facilities, celebrated “clean coal,” and condemned burdensome government regulation. Burgum has repeatedly described federal lands as “America’s balance sheet” — “assets” that he estimates could be worth $100 trillion but that he argues Americans are getting a “low return” on.
“On the world’s largest balance sheet last year, the revenue that we pulled in was about $18 billion,” he said at the staffwide meeting, referring to money the government brings from lease fees and royalties from grazing, drilling, and logging on federal lands, as well as national park entrance fees. “Eighteen billion might seem like a big number. It’s not a big number if we’re managing $100 trillion in assets.”
In May 2022, a couple paused at once had been the bottom of the boat put-in ramp in Antelope Canyon to look down on the receding waters of Lake Powell. The reservoir at that point was 22% full. Public lands are the foundation of a $1 trillion outdoor recreation economy in the U.S. Photo/Allen Best
In focusing solely on revenues generated from energy and other resource extraction, Burgum disregards that public lands are the foundation of a $1 trillion outdoor recreation economy, nevermind the numerous climate, environmental, cultural, and public health benefits.
Davis, the author of In Defense of Public Lands: The Case Against Privatization and Transfer, dismissed Burgum’s “balance sheet” argument as “shriveled” and “wrong.”
“You have to willfully be ignorant and ignore everything of value about those lands except their marketable commodity value to come up with that conclusion,” he said. When you add all their myriad values together, public lands “are the biggest bargain you can possibly imagine.”
Davis likes to compare public lands to libraries, schools, or the Department of Defense.
“There are certain things we as a society decide are important and we pay for it,” he said. “We call that public goods.”
The last time conservatives ventured down the public land privatization path, it didn’t go well.
Shortly after Trump’s first inauguration in 2017, then-Congressman Jason Chaffetz, a Republican representing Utah, introduced legislation to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land in 10 Western states that he said had “been deemed to serve no purpose for taxpayers.”
Public backlash was fierce. Chaffetz pulled the bill just two weeks later, citing concerns from his constituents. The episode, while brief, largely forced the anti-federal land movement back into the shadows. The first Trump administration continued to weaken safeguards for 35 million acres of federal lands — more than any other administration in history — and offered up millions more for oil and gas development, but stopped short of trying sell off or transfer large areas of the public domain.
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
Yet as the last few months have shown, the anti-public lands movement is alive and well.
Public land advocates are hopeful that the current push will flounder. They expect courts to strike down many of Trump’s environmental rollbacks, as they did during his first term. In recent weeks, crowds have rallied at numerous national parks and state capitol buildings to support keeping public lands in public hands. Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, who voted to confirm Burgum to his post and serves as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has taken to social media to warn about the growing Republican effort to undermine, transfer, and sell off public lands.
“I continue to be encouraged that people are going to be loud. They already are,” said Deubel, the executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. “We’re mobilizing. We’ve got business and industries. We’ve got Republicans, we’ve got Democrats. We’ve got hunters and we’ve got non-hunters. We’ve got everybody speaking out about this.”
In a time of extreme polarization on seemingly every issue, public lands enjoy broad bipartisan support. The 15th annual “Conservation in the West” poll found that 72 percent of voters in eight Western states support public lands conservation over increased energy development — the highest level of support in the poll’s history; 65 percent oppose giving states control over federal public lands, up from 56 percent in 2017; and 89 percent oppose shrinking or removing protections for national monuments, up from 80 percent in 2017. Even in Utah, where leaders have spent millions of taxpayer dollars promoting the state’s anti-federal lands lawsuit, support for protecting public lands remains high.
“Even in all these made up crises, the American public doesn’t want this,” Hill said. “The American people want and love their public lands.”
At his recent staffwide meeting, Burgum said Roosevelt’s legacy should guide Interior staff in the mission to manage and protect federal public lands. Those two things, management and protection, “must be held in balance,” Burgum stressed.
Dusk falls on Lake Powell near Bullfrog Marina on July 15, 2024. A new letter from water policy experts gives negotiators some recommendations on how to sustainably manage the Colorado River in the future. Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
May 3, 2025
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.
The seven states that use the Colorado River are deadlocked about how to share it in the future. The current rules for dividing its shrinking supplies expire in 2026. State leaders are under pressure to propose a new sharing agreement urgently, so they can finish environmental paperwork before that deadline.
Right now, they don’t appear close to an agreement, so a group of prominent Colorado River experts co-signed a letter outlining seven things they want to see in the next set of rules.
The letter gives a clear, concise list of recommendations for ways to keep taps flowing while protecting tribes and the environment. Whether the states will listen is another matter entirely.
‘Shared pain’
The letter, written by a group of academics and retired policymakers, makes no bones about it: states need to find a collective solution to their collective problem. And some of them might not be happy.
State leaders have been reluctant to volunteer cutbacks, and have largely stayed divided along a decades-old fault line. On one side, the Upper Basin – which consists of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. The other side, the Lower Basin, is made up of California, Arizona and Nevada.
The recent letter is interesting in part because it’s co-authored by people from both sides of the Colorado River debate. Eric Kuhn led an agency that defends Western Colorado’s water. Kathryn Sorensen led Phoenix’s water department.
The letter was also written by Anne Castle, who has worked in federal water policy positions, and Jack Schmidt, a water researcher at Utah State University. Co-authors John Fleck and Katherine Tara research water policy at the University of New Mexico.
The authors write that states need to engage in some level of “shared pain,” meaning cutbacks to the amount of water that flows to farms, homes, and businesses.
“‘Shared’,” the letter writes, “Does not mean equal, either in amount, triggers, or duration.”
Water from the Colorado River flows through the East Highline Canal on its way to farms in the Imperial Valley on June 20, 2023. The Colorado River’s single largest user has taken federal money through incentive programs to cut back on water use. Alex Hager/KUNC
The Lower Basin states have already proposed relatively modest cutbacks, and the Upper Basin seems to be digging in its heels on the idea that they should not have to give up any water at all.
This letter pushes back on that stance.
“There’s lots of wonderful legal arguments about why it shouldn’t be me that needs to use less water,” Anne Castle, one of the letter’s authors, told KUNC. “But in order to have a viable and politically viable agreement, everybody has to do a share.”
Other recommendations
In addition to calling for states to put their heads together, the authors also warned against leaning too hard on federal checks as a way to conserve water. Money from the federal government has been a key part of avoiding catastrophe on the Colorado River in recent years. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to big water users, often farmers, as an incentive to use less water.
Those funds have come under threat during President Donald Trump’s second term. The letter says new rules for the Colorado River “cannot assume that federal taxpayers will reimburse Western water users over the long term to forgo the use of water that does not exist.”
The letter goes on to advocate for groups that can sometimes be an afterthought in Western water policy. It essentially re-ups an earlier call from a group of tribes in the Colorado River basin, which are asking for a bigger seat at the table after more than a century of exclusion. It also pushes for new rules to be more flexible, which would make it easier to protect river ecosystems. That mirrors similar comments from a group of nonprofits.
The shortest and final recommendation in the letter says that any new Colorado River rules have to make sure there’s enough water to keep people safe and healthy.
“There must be absolute protection of domestic water deliveries for public health and safety,” it reads.
In short, it’s asking to make sure that a worst-case-scenario doesn’t see drinking water reserves go dry, while agriculture and other industries keep their faucets flowing.
“I don’t think that would happen,” Castle said. “I think the market would intervene and take care of this situation.”
The reaction
KUNC reached out to top water negotiators in Arizona and Colorado for this story. Their answers fell in line with oft-repeated talking points from each basin.
A spokesman for the Arizona Department of Water Resources wrote that its director, Tom Buschatzke, “agreed with the authors that ‘every state and sector of the economy must contribute to the solution to this imbalance.’”
Water policymakers from (left to right) Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming speak on a panel at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas on December 5, 2024. The Upper Basin states have been reluctant to volunteer cutbacks ahead of the next set of river-sharing rules. Alex Hager/KUNC
Colorado’s top water official, Becky Mitchell, wrote that the recommendations overlooked climate change’s impact on Upper Basin water supplies, and that states already take “mandatory and uncompensated” cuts.
“Colorado water users do not enjoy a guaranteed delivery of the full amount of their water rights each year,” she wrote.
Jennifer Gimbel, Colorado’s former top water official, did not contribute to the letter and also took issue with the suggestion that both basins could afford to make cutbacks.
“Are the authors of the paper thinking that federal law should be enacted to override state law?” Gimbel wrote to KUNC in an email. “Are they thinking that users in the Upper Basin, who they say should not rely on federal compensation, should just give up their livelihoods voluntarily or be compensated by the state legislatures? I don’t know because they don’t say.”
A ponderosa pine seedling peeks out of the Hayman-Fire scarred landscape near Cheesman Reservoir. After the fire, Denver Water spent more than 10 years working with volunteers and Colorado State Forest Service crews to plant about 25,000 trees per year on the 7,500 acres of Denver Water property destroyed by Hayman. Photo credit: Denver Water
Forests around the world are taking longer to recover from severe wildfires – potentially indicating forest decline, according to a new study.
The research, published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, finds a “significant increase” in the severity of forest fires from 2001-10 to 2010-21 – especially in western North America, parts of Siberia and south-eastern Australia. It also finds that recovery from large fires has become “more difficult” for forests in recent years, particularly in the boreal forests of the far-northern latitudes. Furthermore, fewer than one-third of all forests studied recovered successfully within seven years of a “megafire” – a broad term used to refer to extreme fires. A “surprising discovery” was that fire severity had the largest impact on forest recovery – even more than climate change, one of the study authors tells Carbon Brief.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain website (John Fleck):
April 25, 2025
A group* of my Colorado River collaborators has put together what we hope can be a useful set of foundational principles as the basin states and federal leadership search for a path toward a negotiated agreement for post-2026 Colorado River management. They’re based on a number of key premises:
The Colorado River Compact will remain the foundation of the river’s management, but we have to find a way past the deep disagreement between Upper and Lower basin states on what the Compact actually says.
Colorado River Basin tribes must be essential partners in crafting the next set of guidelines, including through compensation for foregone water use.
Shared pain is essential. The path toward a sustainable river system requires everyone to contribute to the solution to the problem of the river we all share.
Clarence King; Camp near Salt Lake City, Utah. The exploration of the Survey of the Fortieth Parallel. Photo by Timothy H. O’Sullivan, October 1868. By Timothy H. O’Sullivan – Davis, Keith F., Timothy H. O'Sullivan, Jane Lee Aspinwall, François Brunet, John P. Herron, Mark Klett, and Julián Zugazagoitia. Timothy H. O'Sullivan: The King Survey Photographs. Yale University Press Mass. Published:2011., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56679730
For several years I served on the board of a rural school district, and every year, when our draft budget was presented at our monthly public meeting, the audience would fill with people concerned about higher taxes. Seniors on fixed incomes spoke about the precarity of their budgets, while people of significantly greater means railed against “irresponsible” spending. As a board, we were trying to keep class sizes small enough for good learning outcomes and to avoid having to cut art and music and Spanish classes. I typically let the more senior board members handle the tough questions, but one year, as a young mom, I felt compelled to speak on behalf of the intergenerational social contract: the idea that when we were in school, we benefited from the investment of the generations before us, and it is therefore our moral obligation as adults today to invest in schools for the generations coming after us.
The intergenerational social contract is an old idea, far older than the U.S. government, Social Security and Medicare. It is not about entitlement. It’s about intergenerational caretaking — the recognition that there are no isolated moments of history, that we are obliged to pass on a world of hope and possibility to future generations. Indigenous communities have always understood this, which is why traditional ecological knowledge is increasingly being looked to for ways of managing the land for long-term health and sustainability. It’s a line of thinking that respects, and assumes a responsibility to, future inhabitants of Earth.
The intergenerational social contract also applies to public lands. Land-management agencies in the U.S., including the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior and the Forest Service, have a legal responsibility to manage lands and resources with the future in mind. The words “to the benefit of present and future generations” are all over the charters and laws governing these agencies. Current proposals to sell off public land are not only a blatant violation of the social contract, but a violation of the very idea of public land. Transferring a public good into private hands is a crime against future generations.
The reckless actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), as charted by Jonathan Thompson in this issue, are another blatant assault on the public good, slashing budgets for public land and firing its caretakers. Cutting funds for cancer and climate research is an assault on present and future generations, as is defanging the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. This activity should be considered un-American: enriching the wealthiest while stealing from the everyday Americans of today, tomorrow and as long as our republic shall stand.
Young Montanans, including Rikki Held, center, sued their state government and won a key ruling forcing the state government to consider greenhouse gas emissions when reviewing proposed development projects. William Campbell/Getty Images
An ancient legal principle has become a key strategy of American children seeking to reduce the effects of climate change in the 21st century. A defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2025 has not stopped the effort, which has several legal actions continuing in the courts.
The legal basis for these cases is called the “public trust doctrine,” the principle that certain natural resources – historically, navigable waters such as lakes, rivers and streams and the lands under them – must be maintained in government ownership and held in trust for present and future generations of the public.
For the past decade, a nonprofit called Our Children’s Trust has argued for a 21st-century interpretation of the public trust doctrine to support lawsuits against state and federal agencies and officials, seeking to force them to take specific actions to fight climate change. Our Children’s Trust has focused on children, saying they are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change because their futures, which the public trust doctrine protects, will be lived in an unsafe and unhealthy climate unless governments take action. Children around the world have filed similar lawsuits against their governments on alternate legal grounds, including claims of constitutional and human rights violations.
Initial uses of the public trust doctrine in the US
The U.S. Supreme Court first endorsed the public trust doctrine in 1892, when it ruled that the doctrine prevented the Illinois legislature from selling virtually the entire Chicago harbor in Lake Michigan to a private railroad company. In the 20th century, state courts have ruled that the doctrine bars states and local governments from selling off lakefront property or harbors to private owners and protects public access to beaches, lakes and oceans.
The public trust doctrine had little to do with environmental protection until the 1970s, however, after law professor Joseph Sax wrote an influential article arguing that the doctrine could form the basis for lawsuits to protect water and other natural resources from pollution, destruction and other threats.
Over the past five decades, some states’ courts have expanded the public trust doctrine’s application beyond access to water-based resources, ruling it can also require governments to protect parks and wildlife from development. And Montana, Minnesota and several other states followed Sax’s recommendation to pass laws or amend their state constitutions to impose broader obligations on states to protect natural resources.
In 2011, Our Children’s Trust argued for the first time that governments had a legal obligation to protect the atmosphere as a public trust resource. The group filed lawsuits in all 50 states on behalf of children. Most state courts dismissed the lawsuits quickly, holding that there were no court decisions in their states that supported extending the public trust doctrine to claims involving the climate or the atmosphere.
In 2015 the group filed a similar lawsuit in federal court in Oregon, this time against the federal government. That lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, alleged that the federal government’s inaction to address climate change violated the public trust doctrine as well as the 21 young plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty and property under the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiffs asked the court to order the federal government to prepare an inventory of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and to implement a national plan to phase out fossil fuels to “stabilize the climate system and protect the vital resources on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend.”
Since the initial wave of litigation, Our Children’s Trust has continued to file lawsuits to force governments to address climate change. These newer ones are more narrowly tailored to state-specific constitutional and statutory provisions that protect environmental and public trust resources. And, so far, they have been more successful.
The plaintiffs won at trial, and in a landmark opinion in 2024 the Montana Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s finding that greenhouse gases were harmful to the state’s “climate, rivers, lakes, groundwater, atmospheric waters, forests, glaciers, fish, wildlife, air quality, and ecosystem.” The court similarly found that “a stable climate system … is clearly within the object and true principles” of the state’s constitution.
Children in Hawaii filed a similar lawsuit in 2022 against the state Department of Transportation, alleging that its failure to reduce transportation emissions in the state violated the state public trust doctrine and the state’s constitution. The lawsuit relied on Hawaii courts’ previous rulings that the state’s public trust doctrine and state constitution broadly protect natural resources for present and future generations. In 2024, days before trial was to begin, the parties reached a landmark settlement in which the state agreed to take concrete actions to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. https://www.youtube.com/embed/VjHqeNB89L0?wmode=transparent&start=0 In the Montana lawsuit, a U.S. court ruled that the government had failed to protect the rights of children by failing to take action to reduce or prevent climate change.
The road ahead
Looking back, it was perhaps not surprising that a one-size-fits-all nationwide legal strategy based on a doctrine that varies widely state by state would face long odds. But the public trust doctrine itself has been historically incremental, expanding and contracting as society and the needs of its citizens change over time. And Our Children’s Trust has several cases still pending, including in Alaska and Utah state courts, and in a federal court in California.
The campaign’s successes broke new legal ground: Montana courts held the first trial in the United States that examined evidence of the effects of climate change and states’ obligations to address them. The Hawaii settlement set concrete benchmarks and included provisions for continued feedback on state policies by the youth plaintiffs.
More broadly, Our Children’s Trust’s campaign demonstrates that a combination of legal advocacy and nationwide publicity over the plight of young people in a rapidly changing climate have the potential to result in real change, both in the law and in public perception of the importance of addressing climate change.
The “Bonita Peak Mining District” superfund site. Map via the Environmental Protection Agency
Click the link to read the article on The Durango Herald website (Reuben M. Schafir) Here’s an excerpt:
April 29, 2025
The Bureau of Land Management is restoring up to 11 cubic feet per second of water previously diverted to the Uncompahgre River Basin back to the headwaters of the Animas River north of Silverton. That’s a win for fish, other aquatic wildlife and mining remediation, said Trout Unlimited’s Mining Coordinator Ty Churchwell, because the water will dilute heavy metals to less toxic concentrations. Both the national organization of Trout Unlimited and the local Five Rivers chapter provided financial assistance with the acquisition. The 11-cubic-foot diversion is about 10% of the river’s total current flows in Silverton before the confluence with Cement Creek…
The previous owner held the rights to divert the water through the Mineral Point Ditch – before it entered Burrows Creek – over into the Uncompahgre Basin for agricultural use. This resulted in a 100% depletion of that water from the Animas River…The BLM paid $297,000 – fair market value – to buy the water right from a willing seller, agency spokeswoman Katie Palubicki said in an email to The Durango Herald, using funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the agency’s Abandoned Mine Lands program to acquire the right.
Click the link to read the article on the KVNF website (Brody Wilson):
April 29, 2025
The Colorado River is the lifeblood of the American Southwest. Forty million people depend on it — not just here in Colorado, but in cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles.
Here on the Western Slope, we don’t always feel directly connected to the Colorado River. After all, we live in the Gunnison Basin — a different watershed, right?
Not quite. The Gunnison River contributes about 17% of the Colorado River’s total annual flow. So any decision made about the Colorado River’s future directly affects us — how much water we can use, when, and for what purpose. For decades, the river has been in a slow-moving crisis. Climate change, explosive population growth, and overallocation have pushed the system to the brink. In 2022, the river’s two main reservoirs — Lake Powell and Lake Mead — reached such low levels that hydropower turbines at Glen Canyon Dam were nearly shut down and dam operators were near “dead-pool” where water would no longer be able to pass through the dam. But today, nearly three years later, the system isn’t bouncing back. Andy Mueller, General Manager of the Colorado River District, has a blunt message: the Colorado River is carrying less water than it used to, and if we don’t change course, the future of agriculture, recreation, and the our way of life across the Western Slope could be at risk.
“The average temperature in March has gone up 4.2 degrees Fahrenheit,” Mueller told the crowd in Ridgway. “And for every 1 degree of warming, streamflow drops by 3 to 5 percent. We’re looking at a 20% decline right here in the Uncompahgre Valley over the last 125 years.”
These trends are part of a long-term warming and drying pattern. Less snow is falling, and what does fall melts earlier. That means less water reaches our rivers — and more of it is lost to evaporation or absorbed by plants growing in longer, hotter seasons.
In 1922, Federal and State representatives met for the Colorado River Compact Commission in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Among the attendees were Arthur P. Davis, Director of Reclamation Service, and Herbert Hoover, who at the time, was the Secretary of Commerce. Photo taken November 24, 1922. USBR photo.
To understand what’s happening now, you have to go back to 1922. That’s when the seven states in the Colorado River Basin signed a compact to divide the river’s water. Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming became the “Upper Basin.” California, Arizona, and Nevada formed the “Lower Basin.” Each side was promised 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year. But there was a problem: the river wasn’t carrying that much water — and certainly doesn’t now. For decades, this over-allocation was masked by big reservoirs like Lake Powell and Lake Mead. But as the drought continues, those buffers have disappeared. In 2007, the states and federal government adopted a temporary fix: interim guidelines to manage the system during dry years. Those guidelines are set to expire in 2026. New rules must be negotiated now — and the clock is ticking.
“There’s a lot of confusion out there,” Mueller said. “People talk about renegotiating the Compact — but that’s not what’s happening. The Compact isn’t being touched. What’s being negotiated are the guidelines for how Powell and Mead are operated — especially in times of shortage.”
