Day: March 8, 2026

“A different way of managing water in the west”

by Robert Marcos

Even though the San Diego County Water Authority’s MOU has proposed an initial water transfer of only 10,000 acre feet annually, General Manager Dan Denham said the agreement, (if approved by other agencies), could clear the way for the first-ever interstate transfers of Colorado River water starting next year. He said, “It’s just a different way of managing water in the West”.1

Claude "Bud" Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant
The Claude “Bud” Lewis Desalination Plant in Carlsbad, California. Photo by Robert Marcos

California Govenor Gavin Newsom has supported the idea, telling governors of the other six states in a recent letter that California would welcome joint investments in water recycling and desalination. Denham said Scott Cameron – the Trump administration’s acting head of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, also supports the idea.2

The laws which forbid or limit the transfer of water across state or county lines originated in the early 20th century as states sought to protect their local resources from being diverted to rapidly growing urban centers. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 was a landmark agreement that effectively “locked” water within specific basins to prevent faster-growing states like California from claiming the entire river under the “prior appropriation” (first-come, first-served) doctrine.

But the San Diego County Water Authority, Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, are exploring a strategy that could bypass these legal barriers to interstate water transfers by using “paper water” transfers rather than physically moving desalinated water across state lines.3

While this method avoids the physical impossibility of moving ocean water to the desert, it still requires federal approval from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and from existing rights holders like the Imperial Irrigation District and the Metropolitan Water District which will have to ensure that these transfers do not negatively impact their own legal entitlements.

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

Click the link to read the report on the NRCS website (and to visit the data for the individual basins). Here’s an excerpt:

February Storms Brought Needed Snow, but Early Warmth Limits Seasonal Recovery — NRCS #snowpack #runoff

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

March 6, 2026

February storms increased Colorado’s snowpack from 53 to 60 percent of median. Warm early season conditions and limited snowfall from November through January slowed seasonal accumulation, leaving runoff forecasts below normal entering March.

Statewide snow water equivalent (SWE) improved during February following multiple storm systems, increasing seasonal accumulation from 53 percent of the 1991-2020 median earlier in the month to 60 percent of median by month’s end. Climatologically, February contributes about 17 percent of total seasonal SWE, while March contributes approximately 16 percent, together accounting for roughly one-third of the seasonal snowpack buildup. March and April typically represent the final opportunity for material snowpack recovery prior to the onset of melt. Median March accumulation is 3.015 inches, meaning a near normal March alone would not bring snowpack back to median levels.  

Through February, 82 percent of median precipitation has produced only 62 percent of median SWE, reflecting a lower-than-normal conversion of precipitation into stored mountain snowpack. Much of this divergence occurred early in the water year. Historical median October SWE accumulation is approximately 1.27 inches statewide, while water year 2026 accumulated only 0.39 inches despite receiving 3.46 inches of precipitation. This corresponds to roughly about a 1:9 precipitation to SWE ratio. Early season rainfall, particularly in October within the San Miguel-Dolores-Animas-San Juan (SMDASJ) basins, generated immediate runoff contributions rather than delayed meltwater. The approximately 12-foot rise at Navajo Reservoir reflects this front-loaded response. While beneficial for near term storage conditions, such inflows do not provide the sustained release characteristics of snowmelt driven hydrographs. As a result, reservoir storage metrics may appear relatively stable in aggregate (87 percent of median statewide), yet the underlying water supply outlook remains sensitive to late season snow accumulation.

Figure 1. Colorado basin level April-July streamflow forecasts at the 50 percent exceedance probability as of March 1, 2026.

Basin level streamflow forecasts reflect the limited hydrologic response to February storms (Figure 1). While February produced the largest monthly additions to snowpack this season, those accumulations were not sufficient to offset November – January shortfalls. As a result, forecast improvements were modest and uneven across the state. At the 50 percent exceedance probability, the statewide median April-July forecast is 58 percent of median. Most basins experienced downward adjustments between the February 1 and March 1 forecasts, including the Colorado Headwaters (58 to 56 percent), Gunnison (64 to 60 percent), Upper Rio Grande (60 to 56 percent), and Arkansas (63 to 57 percent). The South Platte continues to track higher than the rest of the state and remains at 76 percent of median. In contrast, the Laramie-North Platte basin remains the most constrained with runoff projections at 51 percent of median. Taken together outlooks indicate that February snowfall moderated forecast declines but did not materially shift the statewide water supply outlook. Without sustained accumulation through March and April, forecasts are likely to remain below typical levels for the 2026 water year. In southern basins such as the SMDASJ and URG, a meaningful portion of annual precipitation also occurs during the North American monsoon. Historical distributions show that roughly 30 percent of annual precipitation falls between June and September and contribute to late season reservoir inflows but typically arrives after the primary snowmelt driven irrigation demand period.  

Another consideration is soil moisture antecedent conditions. Early rainfall events partially recharged upper soil profiles in southern basins. However, if late season snowfall remains limited, runoff efficiency during melt could decline as soils absorb a portion of the initial meltwater. Conversely, where soils are near saturation, a rapid melt scenario under warm spring conditions could compress the runoff window and increase short duration flow peaks while limiting volume. The timing and persistence of cold conditions through March will therefore influence both peak SWE and runoff shape. 

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

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

#PagosaSprings looks at engaging in engineering contract for new #wastewater treatment facility: To explore declaring state of emergency for sewer — The Pagosa Springs Sun

Wastewater Treatment Process

Click the link to read the article on the Pagosa Springs Sun website (Derek Kutzer)

On March 3, 2026, the Pagosa Springs Town Council, which also sits as the board of the Pagosa Springs Sanitation General Improvement District (PSSGID), gave town staff direction to continue in its current relationship with Roaring Fork Engineering, while also engaging in a new separate contract to design and build a new wastewater treatment facility plant downtown. The council also gave town staff direction to explore the possibility of declaring its sewer system “a state of emergency.”

[…]

Roaring Fork has identified four major project goals for the downtown treatment facility:

  • Design a wastewater treatment facility which can serve the entire town population, including the ability for future expansion for either acceptance of a larger service area or PAWSD sewage.
  • The wastewater treatment facility should be a community-centric facility, which includes the ability for students and community members, to interact with the site safely and learn more about wastewater treatment and operations.
  • The building should be LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified, integrate into the natural landscape (green roof ), include renewable energy when possible and be designed by a local architect who understands the community’s infrastructure.
  • The treatment processes should be progressive, forward-thinking and regulatory resilient, energy-efficient, and long-term sustainable for a small community to operate. This shall include the ability to treat wastewater to nonpotable reuse standards for localized irrigation on properties nearby.