The #ColoradoRiver is on a knife’s edge. We need long-term solutions that protect the river and our communities” — John Berggren (Western Resource Advocates) #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Western Resource Advocates website (John Berggren):

August 31, 2026

Communities across the West have been anxiously waiting for a plan to manage the Colorado River. The states that share the river have been unable to reach an agreement over how to manage it, forcing the federal government to move forward without one.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation recently published a management framework for the next 10 years.

This is not the long-term agreement many had hoped for, but it does leave room for collaborative solutions.

Communities across the West have been anxiously waiting for a plan to manage their water supply from the Colorado River. They watched as the states that share the river talked in circles behind closed doors. They attended conferences where state negotiators repeated the same tired arguments, did not present together, or were entirely absent.

Outside the conference rooms, conditions on the ground were deteriorating. The Colorado River Basin experienced its warmest winter on record. The meager snowpack in the mountains was sucked into parched soils, rivers dwindled, and the Basin’s two major reservoirs hit record lows.

And the situation continues to worsen.

While negotiators were struggling to find consensus, farmers were fallowing fields, raft guides were staring down an uncertain season, neighbors were reporting each other for overwatering, families were discovering that their favorite fishing spots had closed, and municipalities were on the hunt for alternative water supplies.

Three years ago, the U.S Bureau of Reclamation set out to work with the Basin states, Tribes, and stakeholders on a 20-year management plan for the Colorado River. But the states never reached a long-term agreement, forcing the federal government to move forward without one.

On Aug. 21, Reclamation published a framework for managing the river over the next 10 years. While it is not the long-term agreement many had hoped for, it does leave room for collaborative solutions.

What happens next will shape the river for generations.

What Is the Record of Decision?

A Decision-Making Framework

The record of decision lays out a 10-year framework for managing the river.

Under this framework, the Bureau of Reclamation will issue preliminary guidelines every two years for operating the river’s reservoirs and distributing shortages. Those guidelines will inform Reclamation’s annual plan for the river, which will be released every summer. Reclamation can adjust that plan each April depending on the winter’s snowpack and current reservoir levels. It is a tedious process, but one that allows the agency to modify operations as river conditions change.

State officials have raised concerns that the two-year framework will result in never-ending negotiations while making it difficult to plan ahead and finance solutions. These are valid concerns, but there is an off-ramp. If the states collaborate, they could replace the framework with a long-term deal that provides more certainty to their constituents and removes the need for prolonged negotiations.

Rafting the Colorado River. Photo credit: Western Resource Advocates

A Plan for Managing Water Shortages

In addition to the record of decision, Reclamation issued operating guidelines for 2027 and 2028. These guidelines outline Lake Powell and Lake Mead operations and include shortages the Lower Basin offered earlier this year. Under the guidelines, the Lower Basin will reduce its use of the Colorado River by 1.25 million acre-feet in both 2027 and 2028. It will also pursue 700,000 acre-feet in additional conservation by 2028.

The record of decision allows Reclamation to impose even deeper cuts on the Lower Basin — up to 3 million acre-feet per year — if Lake Mead starts to approach the minimum levels needed to produce hydropower and to avoid hitting deadpool.

Reclamation is not mandating cuts in the Upper Basin because its authority to do so is less clear. But that doesn’t mean conservation isn’t urgently needed in the Upper Basin. In the record of decision, Reclamation includes up to 200,000 acre-feet of voluntary conservation each year collectively by Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

While this conservation is considered voluntary, it is in the Upper Basin’s best interest to be part of the solution. Flows on the Colorado River have declined by over 30% since 2020. The river will continue to be on a knife’s edge unless everyone contributes.

By saving water now, the Upper Basin can help keep things from getting worse and reduce the need for emergency releases from upstream reservoirs to prop up Lake Powell. This can help rebuild storage and support the outdoor recreation economy in places like Flaming Gorge in Utah and Blue Mesa in Colorado.

Conservation in the Upper Basin can also help avoid expensive and risky legal battles over the river. The 1922 Colorado River Compact says that the Upper Basin will not cause the flow of the river to be depleted below a certain amount over a 10-year period. The Upper Basin argues that this volume is 75 million acre-feet. The Lower Basin says the amount includes water deliveries for Mexico and is set at 82.5 million acre-feet. We could hit the 82.5 trip wire as soon as this fall, potentially triggering litigation from the Lower Basin. Such a dispute would likely cost taxpayers millions of dollars, take years to resolve, and leave the river’s future in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Lower Basin prevails, water users in the Upper Basin could see drastic cuts to their supply and little time to implement solutions or secure funding to ease the pain.

The four Upper Basin states are at various stages of developing programs to pay water users to decrease their consumption. WRA is advocating for long-term programs that prioritize projects that keep rivers healthy.

Is the Latest Plan Enough?

Reclamation’s models show that the reductions planned for the next two years will just barely allow the Basin to scrape by. In the worst-case scenario, the Basin could drain its accessible water savings in Lake Powell. The only water left would be what flows in the river, and that is nowhere near enough to meet current demands.

What’s Next?

Implementing Solutions or Handing the Reins to the Supreme Court

The Basin states have an important decision before them — implement the new guidelines and work toward a long-term deal or take their chances in court.

Nevada was the first to take the plunge. Three days after Reclamation released the record of decision, Nevada filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation. The state claims that the plan and the potential cuts to Nevada’s water supply violate federal law and seeks to halt its implementation.

Nevada’s lawsuit underscores the need for a deal that all seven states can agree to, rather than a plan imposed by the federal government. There is still an opportunity to reach such an agreement — the Nevada case does not preclude the seven states from continuing to negotiate or from entering into agreements to stabilize the river.

The states must not let this one case spiral out of control. Litigation between all seven Basin states over the Colorado River Compact would make things much worse.

History shows that multistate water disputes can take at least a decade to be resolved and often have unintended consequences. Arizona v. California, a dispute over Colorado River allocations in the Lower Basin, began in 1952 and was not resolved until 1963. The court settled the disagreement over water allocations and ruled that the Secretary of the Interior has broad authority to act as watermaster in the Lower Basin — giving the federal government greater control over Lower Basin water deliveries. Texas v. New Mexico, a dispute over the Rio Grande, went on for 13 years before reaching a resolution last spring. And a dispute between Kansas and Colorado over the Arkansas River was on-again, off-again for more than a century. The court ruled that Colorado was overusing water and awarded both water and monetary damages to Kansas. And these cases all involved two states — not seven.

The Colorado River does not have decades. Researchers predict that it will only take one more dry winter to drain the Basin’s accessible water savings.

On top of lost time, state litigation over the 1922 Compact would cost millions of dollars — money that is better spent implementing conservation programs, restoring watersheds, and increasing water efficiency. And litigation would leave decisions with the Supreme Court, not the communities that depend on the river and know it best.

Nevada’s lawsuit against the federal government does not change the fact that we have a river to manage. New guidelines are still needed by Oct. 1. The decision-making process must continue and the Basin states must act now to prevent a seven-state legal brawl.

In the coming months WRA will be advocating for:

Protections for the river: Protecting river health and our communities are two sides of the same coin. The day-to-day operations of the river’s reservoirs affect everything from fish habitat to hydropower production to local water supplies and outdoor recreation. Operating guidelines must consider the full range of impacts and incorporate policies that maximize benefits for both our communities and the environment.

Transparent decision making: The record of decision includes a plan for issuing new operating guidelines every two years. Those guidelines will affect 35 million people and must not be developed behind closed doors. A clear public process is needed to incorporate input from the Basin states, Tribes, Mexico, water users, communities, scientists, and conservation organizations.

Sustained federal funding: Federal funding will be critical to implementing the changes that are needed to secure the West’s future, including restoring watershed health and incentivizing water use reductions. The river that supplies water to 1 in 10 Americans is worthy of federal investment.

Equitable water access and Tribal inclusion: The 30 federally recognized Tribes in the Colorado River Basin have long been excluded from key decisions and denied their fair share of the river’s water. The new guidelines and programs must uphold Tribal water rights and provide clear pathways for Tribal collaboration.

State collaboration: The states have been talking past each other for the last three years and it’s resulted in a federal management plan that few decision makers are happy with, and one state has already filed a lawsuit on. It is time to try a new approach before things get worse. The states must enlist the help of a professional mediator who can facilitate more productive negotiations. And the states must finalize and sign implementation plans — like the Lower Basin’s proposal to reduce its water use by 1.25 million-acre feet in 2027 and 2028 — as soon as possible.

Basinwide collaboration: Many of the river’s most successful programs — including those that restored hundreds of miles of fish habitat and put tens of millions of dollars toward water conservation — were the result of collaborations between states, federal agencies, Tribal nations, water users, conservation organizations, and others. The challenges the river faces are growing. We must accelerate our efforts, build new partnerships, launch new programs, increase investment, and expand on successful initiatives.

The record of decision has set the stage, now it is time for the river’s next act.

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

Political theater at the Ray Nixon plant: Energy secretary Wright, Rep. Jeff Crank and Rep. Gabe Evans make the case that #coal keeps the lights on and electricity affordable. To make that case they must be selective in their facts — Allen Best (BigPivots.com)

Ray Nixon Power Plant. Photo credit: Colorado Springs Utilities

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

September 8, 2026

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was at a coal plant near Colorado Springs last Friday to talk about the virtues of coal. It’s what keeps the lights on, you know, and it’s not expensive, not like renewables.

To make those claims, as he did in not so many words, he had to stubbornly turn a blind eye to another coal plant not more than 30 miles away. Comanche 3, the state’s youngest and largest coal plant, went down on Aug. 12, 2025, and hasn’t produced electricity since then.

Wright is the front man for President Donald Trump’s alliance with fossil fuel companies. It would seem to be a comfortable fit for Wright. Until he joined Trump’s team, Wright was CEO of Liberty, an oil and gas field services company based in Denver that he founded. While there, Wright consistently argued that while human-caused climate change was real, it was a distant threat. Far more important, he said, was to elevate the world’s living standard.

After he joined Trump’s cabinet, Wright went about implementing Trump’s order that fossil fuel plants should not be retired. First in 2025 was a coal plant in Michigan. On Dec. 30, he issued another order, this one for Craig No. 1. The coal-burning unit began production in 1980 and was scheduled to formally be retired on New Year’s Eve 2025.

Wright’s order cited several reasons that added up to an emergency. Collectively they fell under the heading of worries about resource adequacy in the regional grid.

Tri-State Generation and Transmission, the operator and part owner, said it didn’t need the electricity. Ditto for another part owner, Fort Collins-based Platte River Power Authority. The plant has three other part owners, including Xcel Energy.

As for the emergency, how severe was it? Not so much. Sources tell Big Pivots that the plant has been operated about three weeks since January, most of that time during April. That was just after Southwest Power Pool launched its electricity-sharing regional market, the West Balancing Authority Area.

On Aug. 20, the day this photograph was taken (and a particularly hot day it was), only one of the three units at Craig Generating Station appeared to be in use. Photo/Allen Best

Resumed electrical production Craig No. 1 has been in response to SPP’s level 1 resource advisories, which do not suggest imminent threat to reliability.

Since that order from Wright last December, he has reissued the three-month emergency orders twice more, again in late March and late June.

The irony of Wright’s order for Craig last December was immediately noted by the team of Gov. Jared Polis. The 427-megawatt coal plant ordered to be available for the emergency had broken down about 10 days before.

Of course coal plants keep the lights on! Except when they don’t!

As for Comanche 3, the giant coal plant at Pueblo, it has literally been down for 25% of the time since operations began in July 2010. “It has been reliably unreliable,” says Danny Katz, the executive director of the Colorado Public Interest Research Group. CoPIRG and other groups are arguing that Xcel, the company, and not its customers should be saddled with the repair costs of Comanche 3 or the replacement costs for purchasing power. Those costs also included bringing an older coal unit, Comanche 2, out of retirement.

The Nixon plant that Wright toured along with two members of Congress from Colorado has no blatant problems comparable to those of Comanche 3. It was to have been closed in 2029, but Colorado legislators this past session agreed to give Colorado Springs Utilities, the owner, a pass. It is now scheduled to be closed by 2032. That would make it, according to current schedules, the last in Colorado.

So what exactly is the fuss about?

In statements issued after their tour, Wright and the two congressmen he had in tow — Rep. Jeff Crank and Rep. Gabe Evans — emphasized the reliability of coal and the cost of renewable energy.

“Coal has powered American prosperity for generations and continues to provide the reliable, around-the-clock electricity our grid needs,” said Wright in a statement. “The Trump administration is committed to adding reliable power to the grid, not prematurely shutting down generation that is already keeping the lights on.”

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, right, and U.S. Rep. Gave Evans answer questions after an event held in Thornton during June. Photo/Allen Best

Evans, a former police officer in Arvada, calls Fort Lupton home. Early in his first term in Congress, he showed up at solar farms to get his photo taken. In at least three appearances with Wright so far this year, it has become evident that Evans has learned to talk the fossil fuels language more purely.

“Denver Democrats spent years attacking reliable coal generation, only to run headfirst into reality: you cannot shut down dependable baseload power without something ready to replace it,” said Evans in the statement issued after the tour.

“Keeping Ray Nixon online longer will protect grid reliability and save ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars. With electricity demand skyrocketing, Colorado needs more safe, affordable, reliable energy – not political mandates that take power off the grid and leave families paying the price.”

As for Crank, he played the party line in the Colorado Springs version. “Colorado’s burdensome energy mandates continue to cost our region, not only with higher utility bills but they also threaten our national security assets,” he said.

It’s all political theater, but exactly to what purpose?

The harder question is why Colorado Springs needed to keep Ray Nixon operating longer than planned. And also, whether keeping this coal plant operating is better than building a new gas plant, as Wright told reporters, according to a report in the Colorado Springs Gazette. And a new wild card of the last two years is what exactly data centers will need — and under what terms.

As for utility costs, they are indeed rising. But why? That’s a complicated story. What can be said is that renewable energy comes in cheapest, but transmission is a pickle, and we do have supply chain issues.

What also must be said is that Holy Cross Energy, the Glenwood Springs-based electrical cooperative, has consistently had among the state’s lowest electrical rates even as it stretches to decarbonize. Through July, it was at 87% renewable energy for the year.

Granted, it’s easier to pivot when you’re a smaller dancer. Holy Cross has 58,000 meters compared to the 264,000 of Colorado Springs Utilities or the 1.6 meters of Xcel Energy in Colorado. And in an ironic footnote, Holy Cross actually has an 8% ownership interest in Comanche 3.

Whether Wright’s emergency orders for Craig No. 1 were legal are yet to be resolved. Environmental groups and others argue that the orders issued by Wright go beyond what the federal law passed by Congress in 1935 (and amended twice since then) allowed. A federal judge heard the case involving the Michigan plant in May but has not issued a ruling. That ruling, whatever it is, almost certainly will have bearing on the orders for Craig.

To be clear, this pivot from fossil fuels to non-emitting sources of electricity is not an easy one. It might yet get expensive. Also be clear that the story told at the Ray Nixon plant was political theater, nothing more.

Credit: Jonathan P. Thompson/The Land Desk

The #ColoradoRiver Has New Guidelines, but the Underlying Challenges Remain: What we do next will determine the river’s future — Moira Mcdonald and Ted Kowalski (WaltonFamilyFoundation.org) #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Walton Family Foundation website ( Moira Mcdonald and Ted Kowalski):

August 28, 2026

Tens of millions of people across the West depend on the Colorado River for drinking water, food, power and their livelihoods. But years of drought, rising temperatures and declining reservoirs have put that lifeline under extraordinary strain. The newly released Record of Decision and federal Operating Guidelines for the river provide a framework for operations, but they cannot resolve the region’s underlying challenges on their own. The work that happens next will determine the future of the river and the communities that rely on it.

2026 marks one of the worst water years on record for the Colorado River Basin and throughout the American West, as river flows dwindle and megafires consume landscape after landscape. Water in Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the U.S., has dropped to its lowest level since it was filled more than 90 years ago. Long-term planning and investment is critical to stabilize the river while protecting communities from increasingly severe fire, floods and drought.

Reclamation announces 2026 operating conditions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Hoover Dam. Photo credit: USBR

The release of the guidelines is a milestone, not the finish line. A document can’t ensure safe water supplies or combat the impacts of severe drought and wildfires. Significant federal, state and local funding needs to be directed towards strategies that make the health of rivers, forests and wetlands a priority. Without it, the Basin will remain at risk of chronic shortages, food supply disruption, energy grid vulnerability and rising economic instability that breed disruption and conflict for the entire region.

It is critical that we take this opportunity to invest in work that focuses on ensuring healthy watersheds, sustainable water use and collaboration between Colorado River Basin states and Tribal Nations.

Nature-based solutions—including river and forest management and wetland restoration—are a crucial part of the Basin’s infrastructure. They enable dependable water supplies, reduce threats from wildfires and flooding, sustain fish and wildlife and support local communities and economies. With so much attention focused on water allocations, reservoir levels and operational decisions, the role of these natural systems cannot get lost in the mix.

Fortunately there are projects throughout the Colorado River Basin that offer a blueprint for how to work with the power of nature to create a more sustainable path forward.

Projects designed to better manage forests and restore wetlands can improve water quality and create natural firebreaks. Regenerative agriculture practices like growing crops that use less water, and limiting the disruption of soil, can help create healthier farmland that better absorbs and retains water so farmers can use less. These approaches are an important part of a broader portfolio of tools that help communities conserve water, reduce risk and strengthen watersheds.

As the Colorado River endures one of its worst water years on record, long-term planning and investment is critical to stabilize water supplies while protecting communities from increasingly severe fire, floods and drought. Grand Canyon and Colorado River by Brian Richter

Transparency and collaboration between the federal government, Basin state leaders, Tribal Nations and Mexico is essential. We know that those closest to the problem are closest to the solution and that we will be more effective when we draw on the collective expertise of everyone who relies on the river. Basin states have not yet been able to negotiate a long-term management plan but that cannot stand in the way of continued work to create a more reliable and resilient Colorado River system.

Philanthropy also has a vital role to play in the future of the Colorado River. We are continuing to collaborate with our grantees to advance innovative, nature-based solutions for the region. Philanthropic investment can help test and scale approaches, fill gaps, build partnerships and demonstrate what is possible in complement to the much-needed federal, state, Tribal and local investments. Together we can help make sure the river can continue to provide for the next generation.

The U.S. Forest Service-owned parcel known as Janeway is adjacent to the Crystal River. A potential nature-based aquifer recharge project could reconnect the historic floodplain to the river and retime spring flows as part of a water supply replacement plan. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

50 years later: What caused the Big Thompson Flood? — Allie Mazurek (#Colorado #Climate Center) #BigThompsonRiver

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado State University Source website (Allie Mazurek):

August 10, 2026

Editor’s note: Allie Mazurek, engagement climatologist and researcher at the Colorado Climate Center, wrote this piece following a July 31 symposium in Estes Park convened by the Colorado Climate Center to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Big Thompson Flood. The event brought together experts, including several from CSU, to share flood-related research and practices with water managers, government officials, academics, flood survivors and others. Participants reflected on the progress made since the Big Thompson Flood while emphasizing the work that remains to strengthen preparedness and resilience for future flooding.

Flash floods are one of several extreme weather-related phenomena that Colorado faces. And at the end of July, we reflected on the 50th anniversary of one of the deadliest, most devastating floods in our state’s history: the Big Thompson Flood of July 31, 1976.

Damage to Highway 34 from the Big Thompson Flood.

July 31, 1976: It was a Saturday, the eve of Colorado’s 100th anniversary of statehood. Hundreds of people, including many from out of state, were spending the holiday weekend recreating in the Big Thompson Canyon: a winding topographic feature that provides a scenic thoroughfare between Loveland and Estes Park.

The weather was reported to have been partly cloudy that afternoon, but conditions began to shift in the early evening. Around 5:30 p.m. local time, a large group of nearly stationary thunderstorms began forming just east of Estes Park. The storms grew quickly and ultimately produced roughly a foot of rainfall in the span of the next several hours: about five times the amount of precipitation that the area typically receives in an entire July.

Most of the precipitation fell during an even shorter time frame, a little over an hour. That sudden surge of water triggered a fast-moving flash flood along the Big Thompson River and steep adjoining canyon. The river rose upward of 20 feet in some locations and peak flow rate of more than 31,000 cubic feet per second was over four times as fast as the river’s previous maximum.

The devastation was tremendous: Hundreds of homes and businesses were destroyed, sections of Highway 34 were washed away and, tragically, 144 people lost their lives. There has not been a deadlier flash flood in the U.S. since that event, and it remains one of the deadliest weather disasters in Colorado’s history.

The ingredients

One way that atmospheric scientists examine flash flood potential is using an “ingredients-based” approach, which involves examining the characteristics of several atmospheric variables. For flash flood-producing rainfall, the key factors we consider are: rain rate, precipitation duration and surface conditions.

The Big Thompson Flood had numerous ingredients come together to support thunderstorms with very heavy rain rates. First, a cold front pushed westward across Colorado’s eastern plains, which brought moisture-rich air into the Front Range Foothills. The cold front also provided a “cap” atmosphere: bottling up very unstable air in the atmosphere above.

As the front continued to move west, air was forced upwards as the elevation of the terrain continued to increase. This upward motion helped the atmosphere to destabilize, eroding the cap and unleashing plenty of instability for thunderstorms to grow. This localized lift combined with larger-scale upward motion forced the moist, unstable air to cool and condense into thunderstorms.

The ingredients of the Big Thompson Flood (Courtesy of USGS, adapted from UCAR).

As the ingredients were in place for very high rainfall rates, the atmosphere also had very weak “steering currents,” or the layer of winds in the atmosphere that move storm systems. Those weak winds meant that the thunderstorms forming at the mouth of the canyon were nearly stationary, allowing the very high precipitation rates to persist over the same area.

This extreme-rain-producing, slow moving thunderstorm set up near the mouth of the Big Thompson Canyon, a high-risk area for flooding due to its pervasive steep, rocky terrain and susceptibility to rapid runoff. These environmental ingredients coupled with social vulnerability factors all combined to create a disaster that evening.

Damage during the September 2013 flood on U.S. 34 leading up to Estes Park. (Courtesy of the town of Estes Park)

The future

The 2013 Front Range Flood was a reminder that the Big Thompson Canyon continues to be a flash flood-prone area. And throughout Colorado, flash floods have always been and will always be a part of our climate, though climate change could potentially make them worse.

Research suggests that in a future, warmer climate, flash flood-producing rainfall will likely become more extreme. The reason behind this expected trend is that as temperatures warm, water is more eager to exist as vapor rather than liquid — allowing storms to tap into more moisture. Wildfire burn scars, which enhance flash flood risk by making soils repellent to water and cause debris flows, are expected to have an even more profound effect on flash flooding. Climate change is expected to increase wildfire risk in Colorado, leading to more widespread burn scar areas (and thus greater flash flood potential).

CSU research has helped contribute to the knowledge on the Big Thompson event and continues to advance research on heavy precipitation and flooding. The Colorado Climate Center, located in the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU, serves as a conduit for conducting and disseminating such research to stakeholders and the public.

50th Anniversary of The Big Thompson Canyon Flood of 1976: A Final Recap — Allie Mazurek (#Colorado #Climate Center) #BigThompsonRiver

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Climate Center website (Allie Mazurek):

August 13, 2026

We’re now nearly a couple weeks past the 50th Anniversary of the Big Thompson Flood, one of the deadliest weather-related disasters in our state’s history. There were several commemorative events on July 31st that stretched from Loveland to Estes Park, including our symposium that we hosted. We heard great feedback from several of the ~100 folks who attended, and we hope to do more public events like these in the future. If you were able to make it, thank you for joining us!

We thought we’d use our blog as a medium to highlight some of the content that was covered during our event. If you’re interested in learning even more, we published an article in CSU Source, summarizing the key atmospheric ingredients that triggered the flood that day. And lastly, we’d like to highlight that the Loveland Museum has an exhibit for the flood that will be showing through the end of November. (Several folks from our team are planning to check it out)!

And while we’re on the subject of flooding, we’ll go ahead and remind you that this time of year is peak flash flood season in Colorado. As precipitation looms in the forecast, check the weather before you recreate, never drive through flooded roadways, and have ways to receive flash flood warnings.