by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

The half-million residents of Southern California’s Coachella Valley have a lot to worry about. Toxic dust storms sweeping up from the Salton Sea. Concerns about the Coachella Canal after the U.S. Geological Survey reported that sections of the canal cross over the San Andreas Fault that’s 150 years overdue for an major earthquake that the USGS says could cause surface displacement of up to eight meters. ¹

Residents also worry about the future viability of the Colorado River – which provides 430,000 acre feet of water that’s used to irrigate 76,000 acres of farmland, 120 golf courses, and to replenish the aquifer in an effort to prevent the serious subsidence issues which first appeared in 1948. And it’s this replenishing that’s causing new problems for the aquifer. ²

Colorado River water is both highly-oxygenated and has a high pH, (meaning it’s alkaline). When raw Colorado River water is injected into the northwestern part of the Coachella Valley’s aquifer, its oxygen chemically reacts with (naturally occurring) chromium-3 that’s bound up in the sediment. The oxygen oxidizes the chromium-3 and converts it into soluble, toxic, chromium-6. Chromium-6 has been measured at levels which exceed the maximum allowed by the State of California, at 33 of the Coachella Valley Water District’s 92 wells. ³

Meanwhile Arsenic is the problem 42 miles away on the eastern side of the aquifer. Colorado River water has a relatively high pH, due to its heavy load of dissolved carbonate minerals. When the Coachella Valley Water District uses that water to replenish the aquifer on its eastern side, the alkaline Colorado River water alters the geochemistry which triggers a chemical reaction that releases naturally occurring arsenic from the soil, and into the groundwater. ⁴

Tougher standards: The State of California has established tough new standards for chromium-6 in drinking water. It was formerly 50 parts per billion but the new standard is 10 parts per billion. Whereas the maximum contaminant level for arsenic has remained unchanged since 2006 at the same 10 part per billion. ⁵

Mitigation Efforts

The four water agencies that manage the Coachella Valley’s groundwater – the Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water Agency, Indio Water Authority, and Coachella Water Authority, have submitted structural compliance plans to the State Water Resources Control Board. They plan to mitigate naturally occurring chromium-6 to meet California’s strict limit through a mix of infrastructure overhauls, advanced filtration, and operational adjustments. Because California’s mandate depends on the size of the water system, these agencies are working against a rolling compliance deadline spanning from October 2026 through October 2027. ⁶

Advanced Water Treatment Infrastructure

• Ion-Exchange Technology: Agencies like the Indio Water Authority (IWA) are expanding the use of strong base anion exchange systems. These systems route groundwater through tanks filled with resin beads that magnetically trap and remove chromium-6 molecules.⁷
• Reduction Coagulation Filtration (RCF): The IWA has also piloted RCF treatment, which chemically alters the chromium-6 into a harmless, filterable solid form before water enters the distribution grid. ⁸

Well Offline Management and Decommissioning

• Taking Impacted Wells Offline: The largest provider, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), has identified 34 out of its 96 drinking water wells that exceed the 10 ppb threshold. Impacted wells across the valley are being selectively pulled from service or restricted during off-peak seasons to prevent contaminated groundwater from mixing into municipal supplies. ⁹

Drilling New Deep-Water Wells

• Bypassing the Contaminated Strata: Chromium-6 in the Indio Subbasin is entirely naturally occurring, leaching out of specific geological rock layers and sediment over centuries. Water districts plan to construct new, deeper wells that tap into lower layers of the aquifer where chromium-6 levels are safely below the state limit. ¹⁰

Well Clustering and Pipeline Blending

• Dilution and Interconnection: Agencies are designing “well-clustering” projects. This technique involves building miles of new connecting pipelines to merge water from higher-chromium wells with water from pristine wells. Blending the water dilutes the total chromium-6 footprint down to legally compliant levels before it reaches household taps. ¹¹

By Robert Marcos

The excessive pumping of aquifers in the San Quintín Valley in Baja California is threatening the long-term reliability of tomato and berry exports to the United States. Because the freshwater aquifers sit near the ocean, the overpumping has resulted with an intrusion of saltwater.

Groundwater in the San Quintín Valley, Baja California, is critically overexploited and heavily contaminated by saltwater intrusion. Pumping rates exceed natural recharge by millions of cubic meters annually, causing declining water tables and rendering underground sources too brackish for normal agricultural use or human consumption. ¹

The San Quintin Valley faces one of Mexico’s most acute water crises. Located in an arid area in the northwestern region of the country, the valley lacks freshwater bodies and is structurally disconnected from other regional supply sources. To meet the water demand in the region, water is drawn from local underground aquifers, which have been subjected to increasing pressure due to overpumping and prolonged drought conditions. Current underground sources are insufficient and do not have the required water quality. The Colorado River is the region’s only other potential source of water, but it is 167 miles away and its viability is in question. ²

In 2024, the Mexican National Water Commission (CONAGUA) published three technical studies confirming the overexploitation of the four aquifers in the SQV—San Simon, San Quintin, Camalu and Vicente Guerrero—by a volume of 68.5 million cubic meters per year, jeopardizing the long-term viability of these sources. The groundwater has high levels of total dissolved solids, ranging between 1,540 and 11,000 parts per million (ppm), which is between 1.5 and 11 times higher than the maximum limit of 1,000 ppm established by Official Mexican Standard NOM-127-SSA1-2021 for water intended for human consumption. It is important to note that, due to insufficient water distribution infrastructure, low population density and overexploitation of the aquifers in the SQV, the local water utility, Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Ensenada (CESPE), is only able to supply potable water intermittently to 56% of the population through the distribution system, while the rest of the community relies on hauled water for their supply. This sporadic service increases the risk of cross-contamination within the pipelines due to backflows and leaks, as well as through the water storage methods used by residents, further compromising the safety of the water
available for human consumption.³

Desalination considerations

A public desalination plant would provide a reliable source of clean, affordable drinking water to over 110,000 residents in San Quintín, drastically improving public health and daily life by reducing reliance on expensive, privately trucked water tankers (pipas). Because local groundwater wells are heavily contaminated with saltwater and unsafe for domestic use, this plant would bypass the degraded aquifers to deliver potable tap water directly to homes through a new macro-distribution pipeline network. ⁴

However, implementing desalination in San Quintín faces several steep hurdles:

• Power Grid Limitations: The regional Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) power grid lacks the high-voltage capacity required to run a large-scale desalination facility, necessitating massive energy infrastructure upgrades before the plant can operate.
• Brine Disposal: Safely discharging the highly concentrated leftover saltwater (brine) back into the ocean requires careful management to prevent destroying the fragile marine ecosystems and local fisheries. 
• High Operational Costs: Desalination is an energy-intensive process, making the final tap water expensive to produce and requiring long-term government subsidies to keep it affordable for low-income residents. 
• Financing and Bureaucracy: The project has historically suffered from prolonged political shifts, contractual re-negotiations, and delays in securing international development bank funding. 

By Robert Marcos, photojournalist

Like many other older men who set off alone on poorly-planned trips and then vanish, I had left my car at Lake Mead’s South Cove and set off on foot for the area where the Colorado River enters the reservoir. As always, nobody knew where I was or where I was going. I began my hike toward the distant inlet along the shoreline but was quickly stymied. Instead of white fluffy sand the beach was completely covered by sharp and irregular piles of tufa and coral. Although I made it to my destination, I didn’t know that my route could’ve introduced me to any of Lake Mead’s 12 species of amphibians, or 41 species of reptiles – one of which is the Mojave Green Rattlesnake, until some hours later when I stumbled upon the remains of a massive softshell turtle that had died on a sand dune, more than a hundred feet above the lake. Shortly afterward I came across another surprise – broken pieces of Native American pottery that might’ve been made hundreds of years earlier by members of the Hualapai Tribe. The broken pottery made me realize that the sandy plateau that I was standing on existed long before the creation of Lake Mead, and it would still be there long after Lake Mead was gone.

The Texas spiny softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera emoryi) is one of Lake Mead’s most fascinating, non-native aquatic residents, possesses habits that are shaped by its unique anatomy. Lacking the heavy, armored shell of traditional turtles, this species relies on a flat, leathery carapace that grants it remarkable agility both in the water and on land. To survive and hunt in the desert reservoir, the softshell turtle operates primarily as an ambush predator. It spends much of its day completely submerged, buried beneath the sand or mud of the lake floor. From this concealed vantage point, it utilizes its exceptionally long, flexible neck to strike with blinding speed at passing prey, maintaining a strictly carnivorous diet composed of crayfish, small fish, and aquatic insects.¹

Remaining underwater for extended periods requires highly specialized respiratory adaptations. When buried in shallow water, the turtle can easily extend its snorkel-like, tube-shaped nose above the surface to breathe without exposing its body to predators. In deeper zones, it switches to a remarkable process of pharyngeal respiration, effectively absorbing dissolved oxygen directly from the water through its skin and the specialized lining of its throat. This capability allows the turtle to remain hidden on the lake bottom for hours at a time, coming into contact with the open air only when necessary.

Despite their highly aquatic nature, these turtles must still emerge to regulate their body temperature. They can regularly be seen basking during the day on sunny banks, mudflats, and warm rocks, particularly around areas like Rogers Spring. However, because their soft shells offer very little protection against terrestrial predators, they are intensely skittish. At the slightest sign of danger, they abandon their sunbathing and use their webbed feet to sprint back into the water with surprising velocity, diving instantly out of sight.

Regarding the remains of the turtle I’d found that day, it turned out that a 21-inch long carapace pointed to an exceptionally large, mature female spiny softshell turtle, possibly from the Texas subspecies. While male spiny softshell turtles rarely exceed 8 to 9 inches, adult females can reach massive proportions with top shell lengths up to 21 inches. These unique reptiles are shaped like flat, leathery pancakes and possess paddle-like webbed feet alongside an elongated, snorkel-like nose that lets them breathe while remaining completely submerged in riverbed substrate. An individual of this size would have been several decades old, spending its long life as an agile ambush predator that burst from the mud to capture fish, crayfish, and insects.

Click here for video showing the Texas softshell turtle.

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

The National Park Service Office of Public Health is actively investigating a cluster of undiagnosed, severe illnesses affecting Colorado River rafters in Grand Canyon National Park. The probe began in early July 2026 after numerous river runners used the “Grand Canyon Private Boaters” Facebook community group to report that members of their respective crews had returned home with highly concerning, unexplained medical symptoms.¹

Current Situation and Symptoms

• Affected Trait: The reported cases belong to separate rafting groups traveling the Lee’s Ferry to Diamond Creek corridor between May and late June 2026. ²

• Core Symptoms: Rafters describe enduring severe localized muscle pain, persistent high fevers, intense fatigue, chills, weakness, and fluid in the lungs. ³

• Severity: Some patients have experienced symptoms akin to a severe, month-long summer flu, while others required hospitalization for localized infections or sudden loss of consciousness. ⁴

Potential Causes Under Investigation

Medical specialists and public health officials are currently tracking data via platforms like the infectious disease platform Beacon to rule out specific diagnoses. Because many rafters slept outside and swam in side canyons, doctors are currently testing for a wide range of potential ailments, including: ⁵

• Leptospirosis: A bacterial disease often contracted via freshwater exposure.

• Tick and Mosquito-borne Illnesses: Such as West Nile virus, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, dengue fever, or Lyme disease.

• Fungal and Viral Infections: Including Hantavirus or Valley Fever.

• Note on Gastrointestinal Illness: While the Grand Canyon has historically dealt with norovirus outbreaks—including a smaller spike in Norwalk-like viruses linked to portable toilets in June 2026—the current investigation focuses on a distinct respiratory and muscular illness. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The National Park Service has stated that the investigation is ongoing, and they will release official diagnostic findings as soon as lab results become available.

By Robert Marcos, photojournalist

New Mexico is facing a profound environmental transformation. The state is transitioning out of temporary, cyclical droughts and entering a permanent state of aridification—a structural shift toward a fundamentally drier climate. Driven by rising temperatures, record-low winter snowpacks, and unpredictable weather volatility, state climate models project that New Mexico will lose 25% to 30% of its available water by 2050. This looming shortfall presents an existential threat to the state’s population, economy, and natural ecosystems.

Who Is Affected?

Aridification will impact every single New Mexican, though the immediate crisis is hitting specific communities first.

Rural Towns and Communities: Small municipalities with shallow wells are on the front lines. The town of Estancia has already declared a local water emergency, forcing the municipality to actively truck in water to keep its pipes flowing.

Eastern Border Cities: Urban areas in Eastern New Mexico, most notably Clovis and Portales, are facing severe long-term threats to their survival as their primary water reserves dry up.

The Agricultural Sector: Farming and ranching consume the vast majority of New Mexico’s water. Growing political friction is mounting against water-heavy industries like mega-dairies and commercial alfalfa farming. Along the Rio Grande, over 35% of historical farmland has already been abandoned due to shrinking irrigation allocations.

Which Water Sources Are Drying Up?

The crisis is simultaneously draining both above-ground and below-ground water supplies, creating a compounding deficit.

Surface Water Supply: The Rio Grande, the state’s main surface water artery, increasingly dries up completely during peak summer months. Vital reservoirs are failing; the massive Elephant Butte Reservoir has repeatedly plummeted to near-empty levels (3% capacity or less) because water evaporates or is consumed up to 15 times faster than it flows in from the north.

Groundwater Supply: Groundwater provides 80% of New Mexico’s drinking water, but it is being depleted at an unsustainable rate as cities and farms pump aggressively to replace lost surface water. The fastest-dropping water tables are concentrated in the Ogallala Aquifer (beneath Clovis and Portales), the Mimbres Basin (Deming), the Estancia Basin, and the Albuquerque Basin. Scientists predict a total deficit of 750,000 acre-feet of water within the next 50 years.

What’s Being Done About It?

While the projections are stark, New Mexico is not standing still. The state has launched a comprehensive 50-Year Water Action Plan to reshape how it manages, conserves, and sources water.¹

The Strategic Water Supply: The state has committed $75 million to build advanced desalination projects. These facilities will treat brackish (salty) groundwater, with the goal of delivering 100,000 acre-feet of brand-new drinking water to communities by 2028.

Infrastructure Overhauls: Rural communities lose anywhere from 40% to 70% of their treated drinking water to leaks in aging pipelines before it ever reaches a tap. State-backed infrastructure campaigns are underway to aggressively repair these systems.

Water-Right Buyouts: To satisfy legally mandated interstate water compacts with downstream neighbors like Texas—and to prevent legal warfare—the state is actively buying back water rights from domestic farmers, taking certain agricultural lands out of production to preserve remaining aquifer levels.

By Robert Marcos, photojournalist

If the U.S. Department of the Interior (through the Bureau of Reclamation), decided that the most immediate way to stabilize water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell was for them to release less water, one way to achieve that would be to start buying up the water rights of farms in the Lower Basin. While this would save an amazing amount of water it would come at the expense of rural agricultural economies and domestic food production. But if the Bureau of Reclamation acted “surgically” and bought up water rights from major forage producers first, it would primarily disrupt only the livestock and dairy industries.

Key Benefits

Maximum “Bang for the Buck” Water Savings

Eliminates the largest single drain. Alfalfa is an incredibly water-thirsty crop which often requires up to 4 to 5 acre-feet of water per acre annually. A targeted buyout of just a portion of forage land could entirely wipe out the river’s structural deficit, leaving millions of acre-feet in Lake Mead.¹

Saves vegetables for people. The Lower Basin (especially the Imperial and Yuma valleys) produces roughly 90% of the United States’ winter leafy greens. Leaving these high-value food crops untouched avoids an immediate national grocery crisis.²

More productive use of water. Fruit orchards and fresh vegetables generate much higher economic revenue per gallon of water than forage crops, preserving the highest-yield sectors of the agricultural economy.³

Easier target for public policy. Public and political support is much easier to secure when buyouts target cattle feed – a large portion of which is exported overseas to countries like Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia, rather than the reduction of fresh food for American families.⁴

Key Detriments

Negatively impacts Southwest Dairy and Beef Industries

Triggers a regional feed shortage. California and Arizona are major dairy producers. Local dairies rely heavily on a constant, nearby supply of fresh alfalfa to sustain milk production.⁵

Drives up dairy and meat prices. Moving forage production out of the Southwest forces dairies to truck feed from other states. The increased transportation costs will drive up consumer prices for milk, cheese, and beef.⁶

Eliminates operational flexibility. Farmers often use alfalfa as a financial safety net. It is cheap to plant, highly resilient, and requires very little human labor compared to vegetables.⁷

Increases farming risk. Without forage as a low-risk fallback option, farmers become entirely exposed to the highly volatile, expensive, and labor-intensive market of fresh produce.⁸

Harms rural agricultural hubs. While large cities often have many sources of employment, rural areas that are more focused on ranching, feedlots, dairies, forage sales, and the transport of livestock – would suffer from a wholesale loss of water.⁹

Massive Water Savings: Forage crops are incredibly water-intensive. Completely retiring the water rights of a significant portion of Lower Basin alfalfa fields would easily save 1 to 2 million acre-feet of water annually

A lack of available groundwater is threatening the future of domestic lithium extraction. Lithium is a mineral that’s currently an essential component for the storage of clean energy. ¹

By Robert Marcos, photojournalist

A study conducted by Jennifer Dunn – a professor of chemical and biological engineering at the Center for Engineering Sustainability and Resilience at Northwestern University in Illinois, said that the future of water availability may constrain whether new lithium mines will have sufficient water to operate.²

Three lithium operations in the American West that could be negatively affected by water restrictions –

Silver Peak, Nevada

Silver Peak – which is operated by Albemarle Corporation, is the only active producing lithium mine in the United States. Silver Peak uses evaporative technology that pumps lithium-rich geothermal brine from underground aquifers into a massive network of shallow, open-air surface ponds, where natural solar energy slowly evaporates the water which concentrates the dissolved lithium, which is later processed. The site has been in operation since the 1960s. Albemarle, which acquired the mine in 2015, has begun an expansion which will drastically increase their domestic production capabilities.³ Because Silver Peak’s extraction process relies on pumping billions of gallons of underground brine into solar evaporation ponds, a reduced amount of groundwater directly affects production capacity. The ongoing depletion has dried up local monitoring wells, sparking intense pushback from environmental groups, county officials, and competing mining projects.⁴

Salton Sea, California

Controlled Thermal Resources is developing the Hell’s Kitchen project at California’s Salton Sea, an innovative facility designed to utilize direct lithium extraction to recover battery-grade lithium from superheated geothermal brines while simultaneously generating clean, baseload electricity.⁵ Unfortunately this high-technology process still requires a lot of fresh water. It requires billions of gallons of freshwater primarily for evaporative cooling to manage the extreme temperatures of the geothermal fluids, and for purification and chemical washing to scrub impurities like iron and manganese from the extracted lithium. Additionally, massive amounts of freshwater are consumed during steam generation and the final chemical transformation needed to synthesize the lithium into a highly pure, battery-grade lithium hydroxide product.⁶

Thacker Pass, Nevada

The Thacker Pass mining operation is located in Humboldt County, Nevada. It’s owned by a joint venture between Lithium Americas (62%) and General Motors (38%).⁷ The facility will extract lithium via open-pit “hard rock” mining and will then process the claystone ore using a sulfuric acid leaching method, in order to produce battery-grade lithium carbonate.⁸ Fresh water is required at multiple opertional stages, though the Lithium Americas project has plans to recycle over 85% of the water that’s required, which includes: ⁹

Ore Processing & Leaching: Water acts as a carrier for claystone ore and is consumed during sulfuric acid production, leaching, and downstream neutralization to isolate lithium carbonate. ¹⁰

Evaporative Cooling: Significant quantities of water evaporate during the cooling phases of chemical processing and on-site power generation. ¹¹

Dust Mitigation: Water is continuously sprayed on open-pit mining roads, ore stockpiles, and waste piles to suppress hazardous dust. ¹²

Tailings Management: While filter presses squeeze out water for reuse, a portion of water remains permanently trapped as moisture within the dry-stack tailings pile. ¹³

The Thacker Pass operation’s difficulty in securing fresh water stems from a series of high-stakes legal and logistical disputes regarding regional groundwater depletion. The mine’s plans to extract up to 5,200 acre-feet of water annually draw from the heavily over-allocated Quinn River Valley aquifer, prompting multi-year legal challenges from environmentalists, Indigenous groups, and local senior water rights holders like rancher Edward Bartell, (who documented declining natural spring levels) and successfully triggered a state-issued cease-and-desist order that temporarily halted unauthorized pumping in mid-2025. While Lithium Americas ultimately bypassed immediate pumping blocks by purchasing Bartell’s water rights in an August 2025 court-approved settlement and securing a favorable Nevada Supreme Court ruling in 2026, state regulatory restrictions still forbid them from drawing water close to the mine site. Consequently, the company has faced soaring infrastructural challenges, forcing them to construct a costly, 8-mile-long uphill pipeline to transport their newly relocated water supply from the valley basin up to the active construction site. ¹⁴

America’s Civil War in 1861 overshadowed an earlier conflict in the American West – The Utah War. In 1857 Congress funded a reconnaissance mission that sent a steamship up the Colorado River in support of the U.S. Army’s plan to invade the Utah Territory and to depose Brigham Young, its governor.

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

The Mormons, first led first by Joseph Smith and later by Brigham Young, were systematically driven from a series of American settlements by hostile neighbors and governmental action between 1831 and 1847. Their forced migration began in Kirtland, Ohio, and Jackson County, Missouri, where religious friction, economic disputes, and political rivalries sparked violent expulsions which included Missouri’s infamous Extermination Order in 1838¹. The Mormon refugees found temporary asylum in Nauvoo, Illinois, but the murder of Joseph Smith in 1844 reignited anti-Mormon violence that resulted in February 1846 with a Mass exodus out of the United States. An initial group of 1,650 Mormon pioneers traveled westward across the Great Plains in grueling conditions until they reached the Great Salt Lake in July 1847, which they hoped would become a permanent sanctuary for them. Over the next twenty years as many as 70,000 additional Mormons moved into the region which Mormons alternatively called the “State of Deseret” or “Zion”.

Historic Maps show the dramatic changes taking place in the American West

Maps that show the American West in 1847 reveal a dynamic landscape that was on the brink of a profound transformation. Texas had been given statehood in 1845, Oregon was incorporated as a territory in 1848, and California became a state in 1850. The end of the Mexican-American War and the signing of the Treaty of Hidalgo had finally opened the door for the U.S. to expand into the vast Indian lands that had previously been claimed by Mexico.

Congress annexes the Utah Territory

In 1849 Brigham Young proposed that the United States incorporate his massive provisional state, which encompassed almost all of modern Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. Congress rejected his idea and instead created a much smaller Utah Territory. To salve the insult to Brigham Young President Millard Fillmore appointed him as the Territorial Governor. But these federal actions outraged voters in the Eastern half of the United States who claimed that by incorporating Utah as a Territory the federal government had in effect sanctioned polygamy and other practices that voters found repugnant, and they demanded that punitive action be taken to put a stop to it.

President orders the Department of War to invade the Utah Territory

On May 28th 1857, President James Buchanan ordered one-third of the U.S. Army to invade the Utah Territory and to depose Brigham Young as its governor. In Utah this action sparked mass hysteria among its citizens, who braced themselves for a full-scale military invasion. In response, the Mormon militia burned US Army supply trains and practiced “scorched earth” tactics which were highly effective in delaying the arrival of the incoming troops.

In support of the invasion Congress passed an Army Appropriations bill that provided $75,000 for a Colorado River Exploring Expedition that would survey the southern end of the Colorado River along with Utah’s southern borders. The Army wanted to find out about the river’s ability to convey troops and supplies from the south, and they also wanted to eliminate a potential escape route that Brigham Young and his militia might make use of.

The $75,000 which Congress had provided was to spent to build and transport a custom steamship that would be rugged enough to survive collisions with rocks and other obstacles known to exist in the Colorado River. The U.S. Secretary of War John B. Floyd appointed Lieutenant Joseph Christmas Ives to command the expedition and to oversee the construction and the transport of the ship they would use to steam up the Colorado River.

The Construction and unbelievable transit of the iron-hulled steamship

Lieutenant Ives chose to have his custom-made 54-foot long steamboat built in Philadelphia. After a successful trial run on the Delaware River, the heavy metal vessel was disassembled, loaded in crates, and transported to a steamship which that brought it south to Colon, Panama. From Colon it was hauled overland on the Panama Railroad to a port on the Pacific where it was loaded onto another steamship bound for San Francisco. Once there the heavy crates were moved to the schooner Monterey, which was sent racing back down the Pacific coast, around the tip of Baja California, then northward to the top of the Sea of Cortez. The schooner would’ve slowed to a crawl as it approached Robinson’s Landing, its destination, where the little iron-clad steamship would be reassembled then finally put to work.¹

The Explorer begins its journey with 27 heavily-armed men on board

Thirty days later the Explorer departed from Robinson’s Landing with Lieutenant Joseph Christmas Ives in command and a heavily-armed 27-man crew. David C. Robinson – an experienced sailor who’d served on the riverboat General Jesup piloted the small vessel. Robinson’s ongoing challenge was making headway against fierce oncoming currents that were hellbent on driving all of them back to the Sea of Cortez. There were also shifting sandbars sometimes just inches below the water level, and dramatic tidal bores that rose up from behind them twice a day as the high tides poured in. But thanks to Robinson’s diligent piloting the ship and its crew arrived at Fort Yuma intact – but embarrassed – because Robinson drove them into a sandbar in full view of the hundreds of onlookers who’d gathered at the dock to watch their arrival. Adding insult to injury, upon docking Lieutenant Ives learned that another riverboat Captain George Alonzo Johnson, had beat them by becoming the first steamship captain to have made it all the way north to the infamous Black Canyon, (where Hoover Dam sits now).²

The Explorer Expedition spent two weeks at Fort Yuma before launching northward into (what would’ve been) uncharted territory. Members of the crew who were experienced with cartography took notes of the geography and the river conditions as the Explorer made its way slowly upstream. The crew pulled over multiple times to see what they could learn from Native American tribes who were camped along the river’s shoreline. Nobody knows if Lieutenant Ives was aware that when they passed the confluence of the Gila River they were in the same spot where Hernando de Alarcon had anchored 318 years earlier when he deposited supplies for members of the Coronado Expedition.³

As the crew of the Explorer continued up the Colorado River they observed the landscape transform into a dramatic, forbidding chasm dominated by towering walls of dark, volcanic rock. Lieutenant Joseph Christmas Ives and his men noted that the river grew increasingly narrow, swift, and treacherous, forcing the small steamboat to battle fierce rapids and other hazards lying just beneath the surface. The crew included the geologist John Strong Newberry and the illustrator Balduin Möllhausen, who documented the striking, raw geological formations and the unique desert vegetation that they saw clinging to the sheer cliffs. The crew felt an overwhelming sense of isolation and awe as the sun disappeared every day behind monumental cliffs that seemed to press down on them. Lieutenant Ives famously remarked the “profitless, chaotic locality seemed intended by nature to remain forever unvisited and unmarred by civilization“.⁴

The voyage ended abruptly on March 8, 1858, when the Explorer struck a sunken rock in the infamous Black Canyon, at the exact spot where Captain George Alonzo Johnson had chosen to turn around, four months earlier. The violent collision dislodged ship’s iron bow, and after reaching the shore the crew realized that their steamboat could travel no further. Lieutenant Ives and several men proceeded to row a small skiff another thirty miles upstream. They mapped the mouth of the Virgin River. The crew finished the expedition by hiking overland to Fort Defiance in Northwestern Arizona.

Meanwhile – the Utah War had come to a complete standstill after harsh winter conditions forced the U.S. Army and the Mormon Brigades to hunker down for the winter. The delay provided time for Thomas Kane – a prominent civilian mediator, to negotiate between both parties which ultimately ended with a peaceful resolution being reached. The Mormons agreed to submit to federal authority, and in exchange they received a full pardon from President James Buchanan.

Although Brigham Young continued as the president of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he stepped down as the Territorial Governor after the Utah War ended, and he passed away on August 29, 1877. The federal government admitted Utah as a state on January 4, 1896, after decades of denial due to the Mormon practice of plural marriage. The polygamy issue was finally resolved in 1890, when Church President Wilford Woodruff issued a manifesto that declared that the church had ceased teaching and practicing plural marriage. This religious shift, combined with Utah later writing a strict anti-polygamy clause into its 1895 state constitution, finally satisfied federal demands for cultural assimilation and cleared the path for statehood.⁵

.

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

California got its name from a popular Spanish romance novel that was published in 1510. The book, “Las Sergas de Esplandián” described California as a mythical island that was inhabited by Amazons and was filled with gold and pearls. So when Hernán Cortés arrived at the southern end of the Baja peninsula in 1535, its elongated appearance led him to believe they had found the legendary island. This misconception became so deeply embedded that European cartographers continued to publish maps that showed California as an island well into the 18th century.

Five years after Cortez’s expedition the Portuguese navigator Hernando de Alarcón set sail from Acapulco with two Spanish caravels, a tender, and 45 crewmen and headed back to the Sea of Cortez. Alarcón’s mission was to transport supplies to the 2,000 man Coronado Expedition that had left from the State of Nayarit, in Mexico, three months earlier. Alarcon and his men were ordered to rendezvous with a detachment from the Coronado Expedition at the confluence of the Colorado and Gila Rivers, just north of present-day Yuma.

Alarcón and his vessels enjoyed favorable winds and arrived at the northern edge of the Sea of Cortez in early August. Alarcón quickly determined that California was in fact not an island because there was no open-water passage that led back to the Pacific Ocean. The men made their way up through the Colorado river delta and by doing so made history by becoming the first Europeans to explore the lower Colorado River. But before long the conditions became perilous, as the ships encountered a terrifying natural phenomenon known as a tidal bore. The massive wall of water that was caused by incoming ocean tides colliding with the river’s outward current, nearly destroyed the fleet. The raging waters ran the caravels aground, tilting them dangerously and threatening to smash the hulls. But through strict discipline and skilled seamanship the crew somehow managed to stabilize the vessels and survive the furious tides.

When the river finally became too shallow to continue Alarcon ordered for the larger ships to be anchored, then he launched “tenders” (called Bergantinas). Historic illustrations show these small ships as having a single “lateen” sail and oar placements for rowing. Alarcon and a contingent of sailors then began the exhausting effort of rowing northward, against the river’s powerful current. Alarcon stopped at native villages along the way to converse with Indigenous groups and gather intelligence. Again – his primary objective was to rendezvous with a detachment of soldiers from the Coronado Expedition at the confluence of the Colorado and Gila Rivers. The soldiers would then use horses and wagons to transport the much-needed cargo back to the main column of Coronado’s expedition, which had continued to push northward to explore what is now the United States.

Weeks later Alarcón and his men finally reached the Gila River, near modern-day Yuma. But vastness of the terrain and the lack of communication tools prevented the two forces from meeting. When Alarcón finally because tired of waiting he buried a hoard of supplies and letters, at the base of a marked tree, then sailed back to his ships that were anchored in the delta. Several weeks later Captain Melchior Diaz found Alarcon’s letters and the supplies, and would’ve carried out his mission had he not been killed in an accident two days later. But that’s a story for another time…

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

Last week the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa released a study that reported that tectonic stress along the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults had reached its highest levels in 1,000 years.¹

Key Findings of the Report

Critical State: The research, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, reveals that stress levels have accumulated to unprecedented heights because more than 160 years have passed since the region’s last major fault rupture. ²

The “Earthquake Gate”: Scientists identified the Cajon Pass—where the two fault lines intersect—as a critical junction. This area could either halt a rupture or facilitate a massive joint rupture across both systems simultaneously, creating a significantly more destructive earthquake than a single-fault event. ³

Impact Areas: A dual-fault rupture would severely threaten densely populated Southern California regions, including Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and the Coachella Valley. 4

USGS: “Potential for an 8 meter surface displacement”

The San Andreas Fault bisects the city of Coachella. The section of the fault that extends through Coachella has a high probability of rupturing in the next 30 years. The resulting earthquake will be accompanied by extreme seismic shaking and lateral rupture of the ground that locally may exceed 20 feet. Other earthquake-induced hazards expected in the area include ground deformation due to liquefaction and slope failure. Earthquake scenarios indicate the infrastructure in the region will be damaged extensively by an earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. The water-distribution system especially will be hard-hit but other services, including the transportation network, will also be affected. The Coachella Canal is expected to be damaged by surface fault rupture and ground deformation, with the potential for an eight meter surface displacement and flooding if the Coachella Canal is ruptured in the Coachella area.⁵

Hazards for Water Conveyance Systems

The All-American Canal and its 123-mile branch, the Coachella Canal, form a critical water delivery system for southern California’s desert agriculture. However, this infrastructure faces several severe structural, environmental, and public safety threats. ⁶

San Andreas Fault Proximity: The Coachella Canal directly crosses seismically active zones. Regional hazard models indicate that a major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault is expected to cause severe surface fault ruptures and ground deformation. ⁷

Catastrophic Flooding: Damage to the canal walls from an earthquake could instantly breach the concrete system, causing rapid, severe flash flooding in surrounding residential and agricultural areas of the Coachella Valley. ⁸

Immediate Drowning and Public Safety Hazards

The Deadly Trap: The canals pose a massive public safety threat, with well over 140 recorded drownings in the Coachella Canal alone. While the water surface often looks calm, the internal currents are incredibly swift (moving at several feet per second) with powerful undertows. ⁹

Impassable Features: The canals feature steep, slick concrete walls that make it nearly impossible for a person or animal to climb out once they fall in. They also contain hidden underwater tunnels called “siphons” and automated water-delivery equipment that can trap and drown victims instantly. ¹⁰

Smuggler Exploitation: Because the All-American Canal runs parallel to the US – Mexico border, criminal cartels and human smugglers frequently force migrants into the dangerous currents to evade law enforcement, routinely resulting in fatalities. ¹¹

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

In terms of actual volume consumed, cattle depend significantly more on Colorado River water than people do. All total, the Colorado River water that’s consumed by the 40 million people who have access to it represents about 18% of the river’s total allocate use. Meanwhile cattle and their forage – specifically alfalfa and hay, use 46% of the river’s allocated use, making livestock the single largest consumer of the Colorado River.¹

The Data Breakdown

According to a landmark Nature Communications Earth & Environment study tracking the river’s allocation, the water consumption heavily favors cattle and the production of forage over use by cities. 2

Cattle Feed vs. Cities: Crops like alfalfa and grass hay consume roughly twice as much water as the combined municipal and industrial use of every single city that relies on the river – including massive hubs like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, and Las Vegas. ³

The Agricultural Monopoly: Irrigated agriculture accounts for 52% of the river’s overall water consumption (which includes natural evaporation). Of that massive agricultural share, 62% goes strictly to feeding livestock. ⁴

Upper Basin Extreme: In the Upper Colorado River Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), cattle-feed crops consume 90% of all agricultural irrigation water. This is three times more water than all municipal, commercial, and industrial uses combined in that region. 5

Critical Nuance

Water policy experts note that most of the 40 million people who are said to “depend” upon Colorado River water actually utilize water from a variety of sources: including surface water, recycled water, groundwater, captured rain water, water from state water projects, and in some cases desalinated water. Only five American cities rely solely on Colorado River water: Yuma, Lake Havasu, Bullhead City, Needles, and Green River Wyoming. ⁶

Las Vegas draws approximately 90% of its water from Lake Mead, making it perhaps the most vulnerable major city to reservoir decline. Phoenix and the broader Phoenix metropolitan area relies on the river for about 40% of its water through the Central Arizona Project canal. Tucson receives most of its water from the Colorado River via the same 336-mile Central Arizona Project. Denver and Colorado’s Front Range cities draw water from the river’s headwaters through transmountain diversions like the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. The Imperial Valley and Coachella Valley in California—among the nation’s most productive agricultural regions—use more Colorado River water than any other area. ⁷

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

Yesterday on the way to the airport, I told my friend Brad that a solution another friend provided – to help save the Great Salt Lake, had already been considered and was shot down because of its expense.

You see there’s solutions out there but many of them are unpalatable. Take dairy cows for instance – they’re cute, right? I like to imagine that my beloved Kerrygold butter comes from white cows with big brass bells around their necks, sniffing daisies and running free over miles of rich green fields in Switzerland. If you’re like me and you don’t want to know the facts, just walk away now and turn on the TV because Bob Ross is about to start painting.

The unfortunate fact is that dairy cows emit literally tons of pollution into the air, the groundwater, and soil. Worse – the forage they consume is using up the vast majority of our fresh water supply.

Precision Fermentation to the rescue

Just as vertical agriculture will be used in order to continue to produce some of our crops once the Colorado River’s gone, Precision Fermentation is gearing up to replace dairy cows. It uses genetically engineered microbes (like yeast or fungi) in bioreactors to produce exact, molecular duplicates of dairy proteins (e.g., whey and casein). This process provides revolutionary environmental advantages over traditional dairy farming – dramatically cutting emissions, water consumption, and land use while eliminating agricultural pollution.¹

Key Environmental Advantages

Land & Habitat Conservation: Cows require vast tracts of arable land for grazing and growing feed crops, which is a primary driver of deforestation. Fermentation takes place in vertical stainless-steel bioreactors, bypassing the need for pastures. This uses far less land and provides the opportunity to return millions of acres to natural ecosystems that could absorb massive amounts of carbon.

Drastic reductions in greenhouse gasses: Traditional dairy farming is a massive emitter of methane and nitrous oxide. Precision fermentation eliminates enteric fermentation (cow burps) and manure emissions, generating far fewer greenhouse gases than conventional dairy systems.²

The elimination of nitrate leaching: The urine from dairy cows pollutes groundwater with nitrates because it contains highly concentrated loads of urea, a nitrogen-rich compound. When cows urinate on pastures soil microbes rapidly convert this urea into ammonium and then into nitrate through a biological process called nitrification. Because pastures feature localized “urine patches,” the amount of nitrogen deposited drastically exceeds what the surrounding plants can absorb. The excess, highly soluble nitrate does not bind well to soil particles, causing it to leach downward through the soil layers during rainfall or irrigation and accumulate in the underlying water table.

“This day we arrived in the valley of the great Salt Lake. My feelings were such as I cannot describe. Everything looked bloomy and I felt heart sick.” Lorenzo Young, Brigham Young’s younger brother

by Robert Marcos

Utah’s Great Salt Lake sits at dangerously low levels

The Great Salt Lake is currently locked in a critical structural decline, hovering in a “serious adverse effects” range at nearly seven feet below its minimum healthy level. Decades of excessive human water diversions for agriculture and rapid urban growth, coupled with a warming climate, have stripped the lake of over half its historic water volume. This trajectory directly parallels the Aral Sea disaster in Central Asia, where Soviet-era river diversions for cotton farming completely decimated a massive inland sea, turning it into a barren desert of toxic salt flats. If Utah fails to drastically alter its current water policies and consumption, the Great Salt Lake faces the exact same fate of complete ecological collapse.¹

The Source of Half of the Wasatch Front’s Precipitation

The potential disappearance of the lake would critically disrupt the regional water cycle because half of the convective precipitation along Utah’s heavily populated Wasatch Front relies on the lake’s evaporation. As a terminal lake, its vast surface area fuels a vital localized hydrological sub-cycle, generating the famous “lake-effect” storms that dump immense snowpacks into nearby mountains. Recent research from Utah State University confirms that if the lake dries up completely, regional precipitation will face an approximate 50% reduction. This would trigger a devastating, self-perpetuating drought loop: less lake surface area means fewer storms, which shrinks mountain snowpacks and further dries the rivers needed to refill the basin.²

Potential for a Widespread Respiratory and Cardiovascular Crisis

The long-term consequences of a completely dried lakebed would be catastrophic for Utah’s public health, economy, and environment. With nearly 1,000 square miles of exposed lakebed, heavy winds would unleash massive, toxic dust storms laced with naturally occurring arsenic, mercury, and other hazardous minerals directly into the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. This airborne pollution would trigger widespread respiratory and cardiovascular crises, rendering the region largely uninhabitable. Furthermore, the collapse would wipe out the lake’s multi-billion-dollar mineral extraction and brine shrimp industries, decimate the habitat of 10 million migratory birds, and permanently cripple Utah’s iconic multi-million-dollar ski industry due to the permanent loss of winter snowpack.³

by Robert Marcos & Brad Barham, PhD

In 2022 – while conducting a study of the Colorado River crisis, Dr. Brad Barham – a Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, two of his undergrads and I watched a Powerpoint presentation given by the Imperial Irrigation District’s Watermaster, Merlon Kidwell. Kidwell retired last year after fifty years with the IID. Besides the IID’s hospitality that day, there were two fundamentally-important things we’ve never forgotten –

1. The IID maintains 3,000 miles of delivery canals and agricultural drains that convey 3.1 million acre feet of Colorado River water every year. This amount represents about a quarter of the Colorado River’s average annual 12.5MAF output since 2000.¹ Under its historic contracts with the federal government, the IID is exempt from paying for the water it receives, it does however pay for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the 80-mile long All-American Canal, its own internal water delivery systems, and a portion of the cost of maintaining the Imperial Dam.²

2. Similarly, the IID does not charge farmers for the water itself. It charges farmers (who are connected to the IID’s water delivery system) an annual fee for that connection, plus a flat $20 per acre foot for the costs associated with the delivery of their water. ³

Meanwhile, the San Diego County Water Authority pays a wholesale price that’s between $700 and $1,200 per acre-foot for that same (untreated) Colorado River water.⁴ With such a disparity in water prices it seems reasonable to ask if the IID could both conserve water and lower the price paid by municipal users by raising the price paid by farmers.⁵

It doesn’t take an economist to understand the “law of demand” which says: “As the price of goods or services go up, people will generally use less of it”. Today with Lake Powell hovering just above the dead pool level it’ has become crucial’s more urgent than ever to understand why the price of water that’s provided to Imperial Valley farmers hasn’t gone up considering the increased scarcity of Colorado River water.

For decades now the Imperial Irrigation District has demonstrated that they prefer the carrot to the stick – in other words the IID has provided farmers with financial incentives and the technology that’s required in order to conserve water. The IID also cannot raise water prices because of laws established by California Proposition 218.

California’s Proposition 218 was passed by voters in 1996 in order to protect taxpayers by requiring voter approval for local tax increases and restricting property-related fees to the actual, proportional cost of service delivery ⁶. Since the IID receives Colorado River water for free, they can only charge farmers $20 per acre-foot to recover the costs associated with the water’s conveyance – but not for the water itself. Consequently, to legally increase agricultural water rates, the IID must prove higher service expenses through a formal cost-of-service study, issue a 45-day advance notice to landowners, and then begin the “majority protest” process. Because water, sewer, and refuse collection fees are legally classified as “property-related fees,” the Imperial Irrigation District board could pass the rate increase automatically unless a majority of affected stakeholders vote “no” by submitting written protests.⁷ In this context the “affected stakeholders” are the legal landowners of the agricultural parcels that are subject to the water fee, and the ratepayers, tenants, or farmers who are directly responsible for paying the water bill under their lease terms. ⁸

However the cost of these (very successful) conservation measures – especially the cost of paying farmers to fallow some of their fields, are very high: about $250 million per year (or $300-450 per acre foot depending on conservation practices used). Given how Western water laws work, and the addition of Proposition 218, that is currently the most feasible and the most immediate path to water conservation in the Colorado River system.

A lower cost, more sustainable solution would require changing the rules that guarantee specific volumes of water at only the cost of conveyance to farmers across the basin. That will be a challenging transition, and will probably require federal legislation to be achieved.

The forecasted “Super El Niño” is expected to delay the start of Southern Arizona’s monsoonal season but by August it could trigger heavier, more intense rainfall, severe flash flooding, and unusually high humidity during its peak. While El Niño historically weakens global monsoons, its impact on the Desert Southwest creates unique atmospheric shifts for the June 15 to September 30 season.¹ Climate experts from the National Weather Service and the University of Arizona predict the season will unfold across three distinct phases: ²

A DELAYED AND DRIER ONSET

Early in the summer, El Niño’s atmospheric patterns alter the subtropical jet stream, creating persistent westerly winds across the Southwest.

Moisture Suppression: These westerlies act as a wall, driving out early moisture from the south and delaying the typical shift to monsoonal wind patterns.

Increased Fire Risk: A slower, drier start to the monsoon prolongs the summer dry spell, elevating the risk of wildfire ignition from dry lightning storms.

HIGH-INTENSITY PEAK (August into September)

Tropical Cyclone Activity: The incredibly warm ocean temperatures of a Super El Niño fuel severe hurricane activity off the Pacific coast of Mexico.

Tropical Moisture Pumps: While the hurricanes themselves rarely hit Southern Arizona directly, they act as massive atmospheric pumps, steering heavy tropical moisture straight into the Desert Southwest.

Rain Bombs and Flooding: As this extra moisture collides with the desert heat, it increases the likelihood of high-intensity storms, widespread flash flooding, severe dust storms, and heavy rainfall that could reach up to 150% of normal averages in some areas.

A SHIFT TO MOIST HEAT (after September)

High Humidity: Southern Arizona is famous for its dry heat, but the influx of Pacific moisture will cause humidity levels to skyrocket.

Stubbornly High Temperatures: Even with localized cloud cover and rain mitigating the most extreme temperature spikes, daily highs will remain brutally hot—frequently ranging between 100°F and 115°F. The added moisture will result in a heavy, oppressive “moist heat” rather than a dry one.

By Robert Marcos, photojournalist

Arizona, California, and Nevada are actively preparing for a future that may provide little or no Colorado River water through a combination of aggressive local conservation, infrastructure changes, and unprecedented collective agreements. On May 1st – driven by the imminent expiration of current river guidelines, the states finalized a joint Water Stabilization Plan to collectively slash usage by up to 3.2 million acre feet. J.B. Hamby, the Chairman of the Colorado River Board of California, said, “We’re putting forward additional measurable water contributions for the system. Without that, the system will continue to decline.” ¹

ARIZONA: Agricultural sacrifices and groundwater banking

Arizona holds the lowest-priority water rights among the major Lower Basin states, which means that it takes the earliest and deepest cuts during shortages.² Under multi-state and federal plans, Arizona has offered up to 760,000 acre-feet in voluntary reductions, nearly half of what typically flows through the Central Arizona Project canal.³ Central Arizona agriculture has borne the brunt of these reductions. In counties like Pinal, farmers have already been forced to operate at half their normal capacity, switching to high-tech drip irrigation or leaving fields fallow. ⁴

The state is shifting heavily toward managing its underground aquifers, heavily regulating new real estate developments that cannot prove a 100-year assured water supply independent of dwindling surface flows.

An article in the Manataba Messenger said, “In Phoenix, city leaders are getting ready for the possibility of Colorado River cuts by checking out alternative water sources and long-term reserves. Phoenix relies on several water sources, including the Colorado River through the Central Arizona Project. As future reductions become more likely, the city’s planning mirrors a broader trend across the Southwest: big cities are no longer seeing Colorado River shortages as just a distant threat. They’re preparing for a future where less river water might be available, and backup supplies might be needed to keep up with demand.” ⁵

CALIFORNIA: Agricultural efficiency and urban recycling

As the largest consumer of the river’s water, California has historically avoided the earliest shortage cuts, but now it has begun to force its massive agricultural districts to adapt to having less water.⁶ The Imperial Irrigation District which rceives 3.1 million acre feet of Colorado River water every year, is expanding its efficiency programs. On January 20th the IID Board of Directors approved the continuation of the District’s Deficit Irrigation Program for 2026. This program motives local growers to voluntarily pause irrigation on select perennial forage crops (such as alfalfa, Bermuda grass, and Klein grass) during peak summer water use windows. Growers are then financially compensated for their reduced crop yields.⁷

On May 15th the IID Board of Directors announced an amendment that would leave an additional 100,000 acre feet of Colorado River water in Lake Mead. The amendment increased the IID’s existing three-year conservation agreement capacity from 700,000 acre-feet to 800,000 acre-feet, in addition to the 106,111 AF conserved for Lake Mead in 2023. Cumulatively these programs are slated to add about 12 feet of elevation to Lake Mead by the end of the year.⁸

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, is investing billions of dollars into advanced local wastewater purification systems to reduce coastal cities’ reliance on imported river water –

Pure Water Southern California: MWD has partnered with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts to develop Pure Water Southern California, aiming to produce up to 150 million gallons of recycled water daily for 15 million people. MWD has allocated $150 million within its capital investment plan for the planning and final design of the project’s first stage, and has financed and operates a 500,000-gallon-per-day demonstration facility (the Grace F. Napolitano Innovation Center) to test advanced purification techniques before full scale construction.⁹

The Local Resources Program: MWD has provided financial subsidies to its 26 member public and private water agencies based on the volume of recycled water they successfully produced, and it has invested over $1.5 billion since 1990 to support more than 100 localized recycling and groundwater recovery projects across Southern California. Additionally, the MWD funds localized conversions, such as transforming unused sewer lift stations into active recycling plants for urban irrigation.¹⁰

Commercial and Research Grants: MWD has awarded grants to public and private entities to evaluate next-generation water-saving devices and urban reuse technologies. It has funded studies on innovative Membrane Bioreactors that are paired with reverse osmosis to reduce the energy and financial costs of recycling wastewater.¹¹

NEVADA: Focused on a new lower-lake pipeline and a war on turf

Nevada has the smallest allocation of the river but is widely considered to have established a blueprint for urban climate adaptation, having spent decades in preparation for the kind of low-water scenario the Southwestern US is now facing. ¹²

Low Lake Level Infrastructure: Nevada’s water manager, the Southern Nevada Water Authority has completed a “third” intake and a specialized low-level pumping station at Lake Mead. This will allow Las Vegas to continue drawing water even if Lake Mead drops below the deadpool level where water can no longer flow downstream to California and Arizona.¹³

A War on Turf: Nevada has passed strict laws mandating the removal of “non-functional turf” (decorative grass) at commercial, multi-family, and government properties. It also bans outdoor water features and prohibits new grass in future developments. ¹⁴

Indoor Water Recycling: Las Vegas treats and returns nearly 100% of its indoor wastewater back to Lake Mead. This cycle earns the state “return-flow credits,” stretching its small allocation significantly further than other states. ¹⁵

The Local Resources Program

Southern California’s Coachella Valley includes the cities of Palm Springs, Palm Desert. Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells and Indio. It is a hot, dry, low-desert region that nonetheless supports 100 to 120 commercial farms, 120 golf courses, dozens of world-class resorts and one of the nation’s highest rates of per capita water use.¹ The Coachella Valley sustains this (artificially) verdant environment with imported water from two sources: 430,000 acre feet of Colorado River water that’s diverted at the Imperial Dam and then conveyed by the Coachella Canal, and 194,000 acre feet of water from California’s State Water Project – but only if there’s sufficient snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains.

Both sources of imported water arrive via the Coachella Canal and the majority of it’s used by farms and by aquifer replenishment programs. The remainder is used by golf courses and for the irrigation of commercial landscaping. Municipal water (for residents and businesses) is pumped from the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin – an aquifer that at one time contained an estimated 39.2 million acre-feet of water, just in its upper 1,000 feet. Municipal water users, who consumed 5.6% more water in 2025 than they did in the previous year,³ natural recharge from rainfall and runoff currently provides about 21,000 acre-feet per year². So without the imported replenishment water the basin would plunge into an immediate and severe deficit. Water tables would drop rapidly in historically vulnerable zones like the East Valley and Palm Springs.³

This scenario is alarming for a variety of reasons –

The Colorado River is rapidly become unreliable as a source of water.⁴ Since both sources of imported water depend upon the Coachella Canal for delivery, 100% of the imported water will stop flowing just days after Lake Mead reaches deadpool. Again – not one drop of the imported water that the Coachella Valley depends upon will arrive in the Coachella Valley if that water can’t make it past Hoover Dam. A second, albeit less-likely danger is the known fact that the Coachella Canal crosses over the San Andreas Fault.⁴

Cheap water encourages farmers to grow water-intensive crops. Coachella Valley farmers who obtain raw irrigation water directly from the Coachella Canal can pay as little as $40.14 per acre foot. This cheap water encourages farmers to grow profitable but water-intensive crops – like alfalfa.⁵

Municipal water use in the Coachella Valley is increasing. Instead of the Valley’s water consumption falling – as we’ve seen in almost every other Southwestern municipality, the Coachella Valley’s municipal water use continues to increase due to a rising population and an increase in the irrigation of crops and landscaping due to climate change. On April 15, 2026 The Indio Post reported that urban water use – which includes municipal customers, golf courses, and other recreational users, climbed by 12,989 acre-feet, or 5.8% compared to the previous year.

Challenge #1 – Maintaining groundwater levels

The Coachella Valley Water District and four other water agencies have been doing their best to maintain groundwater levels through the use of groundwater replenishment facilities. These programs are designed to reverse decades of aquifer overdraft and ensure long-term water sustainability. By percolating 165,000 acre feet a year of imported water directly into the ground, the districts have successfully stabilized and even raised groundwater levels in historically depleted areas. But what has been left unsaid is that both sources of imported water – the Colorado River and the State Water Project, both use the same conveyance and both are under severe long-term threat from climate change. Therefore Coachella Valley’s water districts have to plan for the day when they have no sources of imported water, and will have to depend entirely on groundwater.⁵

Challenge #2 – Convincing residents to use less water

Individuals living in the Coachella Valley city of Bermuda Dunes consume between 217 and 380 gallons of water a day.⁶ While residents of Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Thousand Palms, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Thermal consumed an average of 188 gallons of water per day. And residents of the Desert Water Agency, which serves Palm Springs and Cathedral City, used an average of 178 gallons of water per day.⁷ The residents of other comparably-sized desert cities use far less water. On average residents of Tucson use as little as 72 gallons a day, residents of Phoenix 92 gallons, and residents of Albuquerque use just 56 gallons per day.

While the Coachella Valley relies entirely on imported Colorado River water to recharge its aquifers, and loops recycled water back to its farms and golf courses, other Southwestern desert cities have shifted to advanced purification technology that recycles 100% of their wastewater directly back into municipal drinking supplies. In the Arizona cities of Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tempe, they treat the recycled water to high standards so it can be used to irrigate sports fields, golf courses, commercial landscapes, and create or restore riparian habitats. It is also used to recharge aquifers and stored underground for use during times of shortage. Recycled water can extend water supplies, improve water quality, reduce discharge and disposal costs of wastewater, and save energy.⁸

Challenge #3 – Preparing for “Day Zero” when the Coachella Valley receives no more Colorado River water

If the current drought continues and Lake Powell reaches dead pool, it’s estimated that Lake Mead will also reach dead pool within two-to-four years. This means that absolutely no Colorado River water pass beyond Hoover Dam and into the lower Colorado River basin. The Colorado River Aqueduct, the All-American Canal, and the Coachella Canal would be shut down. In this worst-case scenario, the Coachella Valley would survive by pumping from its underground aquifer, though this would immediately trigger a severe, unsustainable deficit. Because the region averages only 3 inches of rainfall annually, its primary long-term buffer would be exhausted without Colorado River and SWA water being available to replenish it.⁹ To prevent the aquifer from going dry, the State of California would likely enforce extreme water rationing, ban all outdoor ornamental landscaping, and trigger a massive, forced downsizing of the local agricultural sector. ¹⁰

Why not do some of these things now instead of waiting until the Colorado River has dried up?

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

If Lake Powell ever dries up completely scientists excavating the exposed reservoir floor will uncover a massive, human-made geological record known as anthropogenic stratigraphy. This towering wall of trapped sediment, which already reaches up to 150 feet thick in some areas, acts like an open book detailing the history of Lake Powell. Researchers will find a distinct, repeating pattern of cyclic sand-mud interbeds that chronicle the reservoir’s seasonal fluctuations and regional hydroclimate. The thick layers of coarse sand will mark rapid, powerful depositional events fueled by annual spring snowmelt and dramatic upstream floods. Conversely, the alternating bands of thinly laminated, fine-grained lacustrine mud will reveal prolonged periods of high water levels when the reservoir was full and the currents slowed, allowing the finest suspended particles to settle to the canyon floor.¹

Beneath this structural rhythm, a geochemical analysis will expose a darker record of the West’s industrial and agricultural history. Because the dam permanently trapped Colorado River sediments that once flowed naturally to the sea, the dry lakebed will serve as a containment sink for concentrated toxins and heavy metals. Geologists and environmental scientists will encounter dense pockets of arsenic, lead, selenium, boron, and mercury swept down from upstream agricultural runoff and legacy mining districts. Most notably, the layers will hold chemical fingerprints from historical events like the 2015 Gold King mine spill and the submerged yellowcake uranium mill tailings pile near Hite. As water levels vanish, these hazardous materials will remain bound to the platy clay aggregates and iron oxide coatings of the sediment, posing a significant risk of toxic dust storms if re-mobilized by the wind.²

Finally, the deepest trenching will reveal a stark ecological and physical boundary line: the pre-dam canyon floor. At the very base of the mud, scientists will strike an erosional surface composed of native boulders, coarse river gravels, and heavily weathered sandstone that directly predates 1963. Preserved just above this bedrock, researchers will find an anaerobic time capsule of organic debris. This includes preserved strands of invasive tamarisk and Russian thistle, ancient cottonwood fragments, and dense layers of decaying organic matter that once starved the deep reservoir of oxygen. By using advanced tools like X-ray diffraction, environmental DNA (eDNA), and scanning electron microscopy, scientists will be able to reconstruct the precise timeline of how human engineering completely transformed, and ultimately choked, a vibrant desert river ecosystem.³

The 85-year old Colorado River Aqueduct – which was constructed over a 8-year period beginning in 1933, is a major water conveyance system that brings 1.2 billion gallons of Colorado River water to Southern California every day. The aqueduct was paid for by voters in 13 Southern California cities who overwhelmingly approved a $220 million municipal bond in order to finance the monumental construction project. Managed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the aqueduct stretches 242 miles across the Colorado and Mojave deserts, tunnels under two mountain ranges, and rises a total of 1,617 feet in elevation from its starting point downstream of Parker Dam near Lake Havasu.¹

Numerous engineering features mark the aqueduct, including dams, reservoirs, pumping plants, tunnels, canals, conduits, inverted siphons, and transmission lines. Each of these parts works together to provide what was determined to be the most efficient, cost-etfectlve, and safe combination of transporting water from the Colorado River to the southern California coastal basin. The aqueduct has always been much more than just a canal. Its engineering coincided with American during the Depression-era, when the appearance and promotion of technological “progress” provided the American public with a sense of accomplishment and pride. During its construction the aqueduct provided jobs for 35,000 people for over eight years.

The combination of the total height that water is lifted (1,617′) and the aqueduct’s 242-mile length was unprecedented, as was the aqueduct’s carrying capacity of 1,605 c.f.s. The vertical synchronous motors driving the pumps were the largest of these types of motors then constructed. The difficulties encountered during the construction of the Mt. San Jacinto tunnel received national attention, and engineers argued that it was one of the most difficult tunnel construction jobs undertaken in the history of world engineering. Some of the equipment introduced and engineering techniques employed during the aqueduct’s construction overall were celebrated for their ingenuity and ability to set standards for future projects of similar magnitude. The Parker diversion dam had to be erected upon bedrock 233′ deep, which at the time made it the world’s deepest. The Colorado River Aqueduct overall was the world’s most technologically-advanced water conveyance system, and it has proven its reliability by serving the needs of 19 million Southern California residents for the last 85 years.

In a letter published by Environmental Research Letters, Andrew Berardy and Mikhail V. Chester of Arizona State University examined the agricultural and beef industry’s dependency upon water and power. Athough their research was focused the effects of climate change in Arizona, their findings could be applied almost anywhere in the American Southwest.

“Arizona’s predominately irrigated agriculture relies on water imported through an energy intensive process from water-stressed regions. Most irrigation in Arizona is electrically powered, so failures in either energy or water systems can cascade to the food system, creating a food-energy-water nexus of vulnerability.” Using data provided by the USDA, the U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona crop budgets and region-specific literature, the two scientists predicted that a temperature increase above the baseline could decrease yields by up to 12.2% per 1° centigrade for major Arizona crops and would require increased irrigation of about 2.6% per 1° centigrade.¹

Modern agricultural production is made possible by systems working together to deliver energy and water resources necessary to provide a reliable food supply. This interdependency creates the food-energy-water nexus. Arizona is a major agricultural producer, supplying considerable animal feed, livestock, milled grain products, meat, and other food products to cities throughout the U.S.

The Phoenix region’s large volume of food related exports means that reduced yields would have a signifcant impact on overall export capacity for Arizona. The most significant food related exports are to cities near Arizona – including Los Angeles, San Diego, El Paso, and Las Vegas. Tucson receives 100% of its live animals and fish, 85% of its other agricultural products, 83% of its other foodstuffs, and 69% of its meat and seafood from within Arizona. Phoenix receives 87% of its other agricultural products, 73% of its animal feed, 57% of its cereal grains, 51% of its other foodstuffs, and 51% of its live animals and fish from within Arizona. Therefore, disruptions to the agricultural system in the greater Phoenix area would have both a local impact, and would be felt across the Southwest in California, Nevada, and Texas.²

Shocks and strains on energy and water production and delivery systems may result in failures which cascade to food systems. In addition, feedback loops across the nexus could create compounding vulnerabilities, as failures in one system may propagate to another. Potential disruptions such as population growth, climate change, and interruptions to energy and water supply cause problems in food, energy, and water systems that combine and cascade to have downstream impacts on food supply and farm viability, which feed back into population growth in an iterative cycle.

Climate change already has significant negative impacts on agriculture in the United States, causing substantial economic costs and raising serious questions about the vulnerability of food supply chain³. The Southwest is especially challenged due its rapidly increasing population, changing land use and land cover, limited water supplies, and long-term drought⁴. Arizona is largely a semi-arid desert receiving only 20.4 cm of rain across only 36 days per year on average and with an average yearly temperature of 24° centigrade. Despite a resulting reliance on imported water and sprawling housing developments reducing available arable land, Arizona has a strong agricultural history and significant specialty crop production.⁵ The strain of irrigation required for agriculture is manifested in crop losses for Arizona farmers, as reflected in figure 3, showing key drivers of yield loss as water shortage, water costs, energy costs, and equipment failure. In 2013 these problems affected about 15% of irrigated farmland in Arizona.

Failures in the Arizona food-energy-water nexus could cause disruptions throughout the Southwest as food supply chains for urban centers like El Paso, Los Angeles, and San Diego shift. There is also the potential for cascading impacts because these cities have their own exports which might be disrupted. As cities throughout the Southwest look to meet their own needs, there may be a significant change in food supply across the region. Regardless of potential systematic failures and reductions in crop yields, it is very likely that consumptive water use will increase as average temperature increases. Sustainable food supplies in Phoenix and Tucson, as well as other agriculturally productive regions of the Southwest, will require a greater amount of water drawn from sources that are already strained.

Please read the entire study, here

by Robert Marcos

Most of us might assume that our monthly utility bills are slowly paying off the power grid, but the reality is that the electrical grid is a financial treadmill that never actually stops. This constant cycle of compounding interest, depreciation, and emergency retrofits means that the grid is never truly paid off; instead, consumers are locked into an endless loop of funding an aging asset that falls deeper into debt with every necessary upgrade.¹

Energy lost during transmission: In the United States about 5% of generated electricity is lost during transmission and distribution, though some sources put the figure closer to 6–7% depending on how the losses are defined and measured.²

Physical Vulnerabilities: Critical substations are often located in extremely remote locations and are only protected by basic chain-link fences.

Threat of Electro-magnetic Pulse: Solar storms and high-altitude atomic detonations could knock out a power grid by inducing massive electrical currents in transmission lines that might overload and permanently destroy critical high-voltage transformers.

Sniper and Ballistic Attacks: Attackers can easily target and puncture fluid-filled high-voltage transformers from a distance.

The benefit of generating power where it’s needed

Generating power where it is consumed significantly reduces transmission losses that occur over long-distance power lines. In conventional centralized systems, electricity can lose a notable percentage of its energy as heat while traveling across vast grid networks. By producing electricity locally—through distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar, microturbines, or small-scale wind—these losses are minimized, resulting in greater overall system efficiency and more effective use of generated energy.³

Localized power generation also enhances grid resilience and reliability, particularly in regions vulnerable to extreme weather, wildfires, or infrastructure strain. Decentralized systems can operate independently or in microgrids, allowing critical facilities and communities to maintain power during outages that would otherwise disrupt centralized systems. This distributed approach reduces dependence on a single point of failure and supports faster recovery during emergencies.⁴

In addition, generating power at the point of use can provide economic and environmental advantages by aligning energy production with local needs and resources. It enables the integration of renewable energy sources tailored to regional conditions, reduces the need for costly transmission infrastructure, and can lower energy costs over time. For communities, businesses, and utilities, this approach supports cleaner energy adoption while fostering greater control over energy consumption and sustainability goals.⁵

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

We’ve heard thousands of times (without sources being provided) that 40 million people are dependent upon Colorado River water. But which cities in the American Southwest are 100% dependent and would vanish without it?

YUMA ARIZONA

Yuma, Arizona, relies on the Colorado River for all of its municipal drinking water and is heavily tied to the river for its massive agricultural economy. Yuma has a population of 103,500 permanent residents which share a Colorado River water entitlement of 980,000 acre feet: 97% of which is used for agriculture and the remaining 3% is allocated for domestic, commercial, and military operations – such as those at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground. Yuma conserves its water through high-tech agricultural irrigation, extensive canal automation, municipal restrictions, and wastewater recycling. Despite being a major agricultural hub, local farmers have reduced water usage by nearly 20% while doubling food production over the last three decades.

Municipal & City Efforts

The City of Yuma actively manages its municipal supply through strict conservation and drought response plans.²

Landscape Restrictions: The city encourages residents to adopt desert landscaping and transition away from water-heavy turf. Residents are advised to water only between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. to prevent evaporation.

City Facilities: During declared water shortages, the city limits operations of water features, reduces winter grass overseeding, and limits facility water use.

Wastewater Recycling: The city recycles about 40% of its treated municipal water, which is safely discharged back into the environment to recharge the local aquifer and supply the Colorado River.

GREEN RIVER, WYOMING

As of 2026, the city of Green River, Wyoming had an estimated population of 11,307 people. The city itself does not hold an independent interstate water right; instead, its water use is governed by Wyoming’s state allocation within the broader “Law of the River” framework. Under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948, the State of Wyoming is entitled to 14.00% of the total Upper Basin water allocation. This translates to a maximum full-supply entitlement of 1,043,000 acre-feet of water per year, the vast majority of which is sourced from the Green River basin.³

The city of Green River, Wyoming manages water conservation through modernized infrastructure, rigorous system auditing, and targeted wastewater recycling, operating in tandem with broader basin-wide conservation blueprints. Because Wyoming faces growing pressure to safeguard its Upper Colorado River Basin share, local municipal initiatives focus heavily on eliminating system losses and maximizing structural efficiency.⁴

LAKE HAVASU, ARIZONA

Lake Havasu, Arizona, has a permanent population of 59,871 and is entitled to 28,582 acre feet of Colorado River water, annually. The city employs a multi-faceted approach to water management:⁶

Advanced Wastewater Recycling: The city operates three wastewater treatment plants that produce A+ quality reclaimed water. This recycled water is used to irrigate local golf courses and parks instead of draining fresh drinking water supplies, and the surplus is safely returned to the Colorado River for downstream use.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI): Lake Havasu is replacing approximately 32,000 residential water meters with smart technology. This system provides near real-time usage data and leak detection alerts via the EyeOnWater Platform, allowing residents to quickly spot and fix running toilets or plumbing leaks.

Mandatory and Voluntary Measures: The city’s conservation plan includes guidelines that limit non-essential uses like irrigation and prevent water waste. Residents are encouraged to water early in the morning to reduce evaporation and use mulch to lock in soil moisture.

BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZONA

Bullhead City Arizona has a permanent population of 43,200 and an annual entitlement to 15,210 acre feet of Colorado River water. Bullhead City, Arizona, actively combats Colorado River water shortages through phased municipal codes. Key actions include:⁷

Phased Restrictions: The city’s code outlines voluntary rules for Tier 1 shortages (fixing leaks, taking shorter showers), which escalate to mandatory bans on misting systems, decorative fountains, and driveway washing during Tier 2 shortages.

Turf Reduction Programs: Bullhead City offers rebates for replacing high-water-use grass with desert landscaping. The city also partners with local HOAs, using state grants to fund large-scale grass removal and park revitalization projects.

Device Rebates: The city provides direct financial incentives for residents and businesses to install smart irrigation controllers, high-efficiency toilets, washing machines, and hot water recirculation systems.

Aquifer Injection: The city recovers effluent (reclaimed water) at the Section 10 Wastewater Treatment Plant, injecting it into the Colorado River aquifer to ensure it is returned to the Colorado River system as return flow.⁸

PARKER, ARIZONA

Parker, AZ, is almost completely dependent on the Colorado River for its water supply. The town relies on the river both as its direct municipal drinking source (via the Colorado River Indian Tribes water utilities) and to support its river-driven agricultural and recreational economy. ⁹

While many other Arizona cities rely on a mix of groundwater, reclaimed water, and imported river water delivered via the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal system, Parker pulls its municipal water directly from the mainstem of the Colorado River. ¹⁰

Because the region is heavily tied to the river, changes in Colorado River Basin water management guidelines, drought conditions, and federally mandated supply cuts directly impact the community. However, Parker’s water is largely insulated from severe immediate shortages because the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) hold some of the most senior and legally untouchable water rights in the entire Lower Basin. ¹¹

BLYTHE, CALIFORNIA

The city of Blythe, CA, relies entirely on the Colorado River for its municipal water supply. The city draws its water entirely from the river via local diversions managed by the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID). ¹² The city has no alternative sources like deep groundwater basins, State Water Project aqueducts, or desalination. ¹³

The municipal water supply for the City of Blythe, California, relies entirely on groundwater pumped from deep wells ranging between 250 and 650 feet deep. This groundwater system is highly secure in terms of legal availability due to senior historic claims in the surrounding Palo Verde Valley, and it consistently complies with federal health-based drinking water standards managed by the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the local municipal supply faces ongoing challenges with aesthetic and physical qualities. The groundwater is naturally characterized by abnormally high levels of water hardness and elevated Total Dissolved Solids, which can cause cloudiness, scaling, and bitter tastes. These factors occasionally trigger secondary maximum contaminant level violations for color and taste, prompting local officials to promote strict household water conservation habits and water monitoring to preserve resource quality. ¹⁴

The Gila River has served as one of the most historically significant waterways in the American Southwest. In 1540 the Coronado Expedition had to construct rafts in order to cross the swollen river, which stretches 649 miles across New Mexico and Arizona. The Gila River has acted as an agricultural lifeline, a changing geopolitical border, a crucial westward migration corridor, and the birthplace of America’s wilderness conservation movement.¹

Four years ago I drove to Yuma and then turned north in order to reach the confluence of the Colorado and the Gila Rivers. After launching my drone my very first impression was that the Colorado River was flowing into the Gila, not the other way around. How could I tell? The Gila River was completely dry a half-mile east of the confluence.

Because of extensive upstream dams, irrigation canals, and city diversions feeding places like Phoenix and Tucson, the lower half of the 649-mile river is dried up completely. It typically becomes a dry, sandy riverbed long before reaching its natural confluence with the Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona.²

Massive Upstream Diversions

The Gila River basin drains nearly 60,000 square miles. However, major structures like the Coolidge Dam and downstream diversion dams capture virtually all of its reliable surface water. The water is instead funneled into agricultural valleys and municipal pipes, leaving the final stretches of the riverbed barren.³

Rare Exceptions and Flooding

The Gila River only reaches the Colorado River during exceptional flood events. When massive winter snowmelt or powerful late-summer monsoons overwhelm upstream reservoirs, water must be released from the Painted Rock Dam. For example, historic wet winters have occasionally caused the Gila to violently discharge into the Colorado for brief periods, but these are anomalies rather than a steady, daily contribution.⁴

The “Reverse” Water Flow

Paradoxically, rather than the Gila supplying the Colorado River, the Colorado now supplies the Gila. Because Arizona over-drafted the Gila River system over the last century, the federal government built a massive 336-mile canal system. This canal actually pumps roughly 1.5 million acre-feet of water out of the Colorado River every year to supply the cities and farms sitting within the dry Gila River basin.⁵

Conservation Credits (Paper Water)

While the Gila River doesn’t add physical water to the Colorado, local entities actively help protect the Colorado River system through legal and conservation agreements. For instance, the Gila River Indian Community frequently signs landmark conservation deals with the U.S. government. They agree to leave large portions of their legal Colorado River water allocations untouched in Lake Mead to prop up dropping water levels in exchange for federal funding.⁶

In 1949 the Bureau of reclamation installed a diversion on Colorado’s West Marcos River that began channeling water to the brand new Jackson Gulch Reservoir. The reservoir had been created to provide irrigation water to Mancos area farmers of European descent. Somehow the Bureau of Reclamation overlooked the fact that the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe owned senior rights to that water, and about a year after the diversion was created the Tribe’s farm downstream dried up and turned to dust. Out of necessity, tribal members turned to cattle ranching.

Thirty-six years later in 1986, the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Tribes gathered to celebrate the passage of the Colorado Indian Water Rights Settlement. Then in 1994 for the first time in their reservation’s history, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe received “wet water” in the amount of 25,100 acre feet a year, of both municipal and agricultural water from the McPhee Reservoir near Dolores.

There was only one problem. During the water rights negotiation the Mountain Ute had to subordinate their senior rights to Mancos River water for junior rights to water from the McPhee Reservoir. Consequently, as severe, climate-driven droughts began to hit Southwestern Colorado, the tribe, (because of its junior rights), began to see severe cuts to their water deliveries – sometimes as little as 10% of their full allocation. These water cuts have had a devastating effect on the Tribe’s award-winning 7,700 acre Farm & Ranch Enterprise – including the involuntary fallowing of fields and massive layoffs of both tribal and non-tribal employees.

For more on this story please visit Water Education Colorado

No, they do not. While it’s technically true that 40 million people across seven states and Mexico have water systems that are supplied in part by the Colorado River, it’s misleading to imply that 40 million people depend on the Colorado River entirely. But the statement – which was taken out of context, has been repeated so often by the media and others that it’s now widely-accepted as a fact. It originated from a Bureau of Reclamation report that actually says, “Although agricultural users depend on 70 percent of Colorado River water, between 35 and 40 million people rely on the same water for some, if not all, of their municipal needs”.¹

The following towns are 100% dependent on water from the Colorado River: Yuma, Lake Havasu, Parker, Needles, Blythe, Bullhead City, Laughlin, and Green River, Wyoming. The total of their populations are 254,346 people.²

Top three reasons why the shortened “40 million” phrase is misleading

1. Agriculture consumes the vast majority of the Colorado River’s water, not individuals

The phrase implies that 40 million people rely on the river primarily for drinking, bathing, and basic survival. But in reality agricultural irrigation consumes roughly 75% to 80% of the river’s water. A massive portion of that goes specifically toward water-intensive cattle feed crops like alfalfa and hay. Domestic, household use accounts for only about 10% to 13% of the total supply. The narrative of “40 million thirsty citizens” masks the fact that the crisis is fundamentally an agricultural management problem rather than a residential population crisis. 

2. Metropolitan areas typically have a wide variety of water sources

Many of the 40 million people counted in this statistic live in large coastal or metropolitan cities—such as Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver, and Phoenix—that do not rely solely on the Colorado River. These cities utilize a diversified portfolio of water sources, including local groundwater, northern state aqueducts, state-wide recycling systems, and other local river basins. Saying they “depend” on the Colorado River implies total reliance, when it often provides only a fraction of their municipal supply. 

On average, the Colorado River only supplies roughly one-third of Southern California’s urban water.³ The rest comes from the State Water Project (or Northern California snowpack), local groundwater, and from water recycling programs, yet the Bureau of Reclamation counts all 19 million residents of this geographic area as being “dependent on Colorado River water”.

3. Aggressive water recycling and conservation has significantly reduced our dependence

Using the word “depend” creates a fatalistic narrative that if the river’s flow drops, 40 million people will run out of water. In practice, many of the urban centers counted in the 40 million figure are highly resilient due to aggressive wastewater recycling and conservation efforts. For example, Las Vegas and the state of Nevada recycle nearly 85% of their treated wastewater back into Lake Mead. Because these cities reuse the same water multiple times, their actual net depletion of the river is much lower than their gross population would suggest.

4. 1.8 million Cows use more Colorado River water than 40 million people

The Bureau of Reclamation should change their headline to: “1.8 Million Cattle depend on the Colorado River” because dairy and beef producing operations use more Colorado River water than people do. ³ Statistically metropolitan areas use 14 to 18% of the (total allocated) Colorado River water while beef and dairy production uses 32% when the growth of forage is included. ⁴

Parker Dam is the exact geographic “fork in the road” for Southwest water distribution. It acts as the forebay for two of the most critical aqueducts in the United States. The Colorado River Aqueduct which is managed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which pumps water 242 miles west to Los Angeles and San Diego. And the Central Arizona Project which pumps water 336 miles east to supply Phoenix and Tucson.¹

Lake Havasu is a dynamic environment that’s impacted by upstream agricultural drainage, mineral springs, and fluctuating flows from Hoover Dam, and so salinity can spike rapidly. Hourly monitoring allows Bureau of Reclamation technicians to provide real-time telemetry data to MWD and CAP so they can adjust their treatment facilities or blending ratios before millions of gallons of highly saline water enter their pipelines.²

If the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels of water tested at Parker Dam are too high, it could set off a cascading economic, industrial, and agricultural crisis across California and Arizona. TDS is the combined concentration of minerals, salts, metals, and small organic substances dissolved in water. That includes common minerals like calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and bicarbonates, as well as chloride, sulfate, nitrate, trace metals such as copper, zinc, and sometimes contaminants like pesticides or industrial byproducts.³

The Effects of high TDS for Residential Water Users

High TDS typically means “hard” and corrosive water. If Parker Dam passed high-salinity water into the aqueducts, it would cause the buildup of scale in home appliances, water heaters, and municipal pipes across Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix. Scale can drastically reduce the lifespans of home appliances, clog plumbing infrastructure, and degrade household water filters. It forces MWD and local utilities to incur massive financial costs to blend Colorado River water with lower-salinity northern water sources just to make it palatable and safe for home use.⁴

The Effects of high TDS for Agricultural Water Users

Water from Parker Dam also feeds the massive agricultural hubs of the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, as well as Yuma, Arizona. Irrigation water that’s high in salt acts as a silent killer for crops like alfalfa, lettuce, and citrus fruits. High salt content alters soil chemistry, lowering overall crop yields and burning plant roots. It forces farmers to use significantly more water just to “flush” the accumulated salts out of the root zones, compounding the West’s water scarcity issues.⁵

Colorado River salinity requirements for Water that flows into Mexico

IBWC Minute 242 regulates Colorado River salinity by requiring that water delivered to Mexico at Morelos Dam has an annual average salinity no more than 115 parts per million (ppm), with a plus or minus 30 ppm variance, above that of the water at Imperial Dam. This comparative standard ensures water quality by preventing high-salinity agricultural drainage from being added before crossing the border. Detailed information on this treaty can be found on the International Boundary and Water Commission website.⁶

by Robert Marcos

As our attention is focused on the Colorado River’s diminished streamflow, there are other dangers lurking in the shadows.

As river flows diminish the total dissolved solids (TDS) it contains become more concentrated. And as that languid water heats up in the summertime cyanobacteria can bloom – which further degrades water quality. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) thrive in the Colorado River system when specific physical, chemical, and climatic conditions overlap. Major bodies along the basin, such as Lake Powell, Lake Havasu, and the Blue Mesa Reservoir, can experience rapid algae blooms under the following conditions:¹

Thermal Thresholds Cyanobacteria growth accelerates significantly when water temperatures exceed 68°F, outcompeting other harmless algae. Optimal growth rates typically occur at temperatures above 77°F. The combination of intense summer heat and reduced snowpack runoff creates peak risk conditions from June through September.²

High Nutrient Loading: Excess agricultural fertilizer runoff – infused with phosphorus and nitrogen, livestock waste, and urban stormwater feed the bacteria.

Internal Loading: In deep reservoirs like Blue Mesa, oxygen-depleted bottom waters trigger the release of historical, sediment-bound phosphorus back into the water column.

Wildfire Aftermath: Runoff from regional burn scars carries massive loads of ash and nitrates directly into feeding tributaries.³

River Regulation: Major dams and impoundments artificially slow down river velocity.

Drought Depletion: Persistent droughts drop the total water volume, lengthening the hydraulic retention time. This gives the bacteria prolonged periods to multiply without being flushed downstream.⁴

Thermocline Barriers: Intense sunlight creates a distinct warm, less dense upper layer of water separated from the cold deeper water.

Buoyancy Advantage: Many harmful cyanobacteria types (like Microcystis) regulate their buoyancy. They rise to the calm, sunlit surface layer to trap light while exploiting the stable water column to form thick surface scums.⁵

Low Turbidity: When sediment settles in slow-moving sections or reservoirs, water clarity increases. Sunlight penetrates deeper into the water column, accelerating the photosynthetic replication of the bacteria.⁶

The threat presented by higher concentrations of TDS

Hydrologists are highly concerned about the increase in Total Dissolved Solids in the Colorado River because elevated salinity inflicts an estimated $350 million in annual economic damages across the Southwest. Driven by climate change, prolonged droughts, and agricultural runoff, rising TDS poses specific, localized threats:⁷

Agricultural Damage: High-salinity water reduces crop yields and stunts the growth of salt-sensitive crops like citrus, vegetables, and alfalfa grown in the Imperial and Coachella valleys.

Infrastructure & Municipal Costs: Salty water corrodes municipal water pipes, shortens the lifespan of residential water heaters and appliances, and burdens water treatment facilities with expensive reverse osmosis remediation.

International Obligations: High TDS levels complicate compliance with the 1944 Water Treaty, which dictates the quality and quantity of Colorado River water the United States must deliver to Mexico.

Ecological Degradation: Elevated salinity levels disrupt the delicate biological balance, negatively impacting native fish and aquatic habitats in the river basin.To manage these threats, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum implements ongoing watershed management and mitigation programs to intercept salts before they reach the river system.⁸

To manage these threats, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum implements ongoing watershed management and mitigation programs to intercept salts before they reach the river system.⁹

by Robert Marcos

Beavers are experiencing a resurgence across much of the contiguous United States, most visibly in the Pacific Northwest (including parts of Oregon and Washington), the Mountain West (such as Yellowstone and adjacent basins), and the arid Southwest, where they are being actively reintroduced into degraded desert streams to restore wetlands and water storage. They have also rebounded in many eastern and midwestern states, forming thriving populations along rivers, streams, and ponds from the Northeast through the Midwest, while remaining sparse or absent only in a few deep‑South regions.¹

The resurgence of beavers is creating a wide range of ecological, hydrological, and sometimes economic benefits because they act as “ecosystem engineers” that reshape streams and wetlands in ways that support many other species and services.²

Water storage and drought resilience

Beaver dams slow runoff and create ponds and wetlands that store rain and snowmelt on the landscape, which helps maintain base flows during dry periods. In some basins, beaver activity has been linked with up to about 60% more open water during drought compared with pre‑beaver conditions, effectively deepening local water storage and raising groundwater levels.³

Flood and erosion control

By temporarily holding back pulse flows, beaver‑engineered wetlands reduce peak flood volumes downstream, sometimes cutting flood flows by around 50–60% in trials. They also trap sediment and slow the movement of eroded material after storms or fires, which helps protect stream channels and reservoirs from siltation.⁴

Biodiversity and habitat

Beaver‑created wetlands and ponds increase habitat complexity, supporting more insects, amphibians, fish, birds, and other wildlife than comparable un‑dammed reaches. The mosaic of ponds, canals, log jams, and oxidized–reduced microhabitats boosts species richness and can benefit runs of fish such as salmon and trout by creating refuge pools and cooler water refugia.⁵

Water quality improvements

Beaver ponds act as low‑tech filters: sediments and attached pollutants settle out, and microbes in pond sediments help break down nitrogen and other contaminants. This has been documented in both agricultural and urban settings, where beaver‑modified reaches show reduced sediment loads and lower nutrient export downstream.⁶

Climate and carbon resilience

Beaver‑engineered wetlands can store carbon in pond sediments and surrounding vegetation, and their slow‑release hydrology helps buffer landscapes against both floods and droughts—a key feature in climate‑change‑adapted watersheds. In the American West and other arid regions, that “nature‑based” storage is increasingly seen as a low‑cost tool for watershed resilience and water‑supply augmentation.⁷

By Robert Marcos

In a drier future, if Southern California’s municipalities lost all access to imported water, they’d need twenty to thirty new desalination plants – each producing 50 million gallons of water a day, to make up for the 2.6 million acre feet of water that the region’s 19 million residents currently use.¹

Unfortunately we know that desalination plants take far too long to build, require far too much energy, and at $3000 to $3600 per acre foot – the water they produce is far too expensive.² This is why the state’s official “water supply strategy” promotes the development of wastewater recycling and stormwater capture first, with desalination considered as a last resort.³

Wastewater Recycling

The recycling of wastewater is a favored solution because it treats water that’s already within the system. Wastewater recycling – also known as water reclamation, follows a multi-stage purification process that accelerates the Earth’s natural water cycle. It typically begins with primary treatment, where wastewater is held in settling tanks to allow heavy solids to sink and be removed. In secondary treatment, oxygen is added to aeration tanks to help naturally occurring microbes consume dissolved organic pollutants. The process then moves to tertiary treatment, involving fine-grained filtration through sand, coal, or membranes, followed by disinfection using chlorine or ultraviolet (UV) light to kill remaining pathogens. For potable (drinking) water applications, advanced systems may add reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation to remove trace chemicals and salts. This treated water is then distributed through a dedicated “purple pipe” system, separate from standard drinking water lines, for uses like landscape irrigation, industrial cooling, and groundwater replenishment.⁴

San Diego’s multi-year “Pure Water” wastewater recycling project is expected to cost over $5 billion, with Phase 1 alone costing approximately $1.5 billion and future phases projected to significantly raise the total expense. Phase 1 is expected to produce 30 million gallons of potable water daily, with the entire system potentially costing $5 billion or more.⁵

Stormwater capture

In a city like Los Angeles, stormwater capture is the process of collecting rainfall and urban runoff from open spaces, rooftops, and streets to either use directly or—more commonly—to allow it to soak into the ground to recharge local groundwater basins for future use. This is achieved through large-scale infrastructure like spreading grounds and dams, as well as community-level projects like rain gardens and permeable pavement. While the infrastructure itself is highly reliable—with the county currently capable of capturing enough water to serve millions of people during wet years—the overall supply remains inconsistent because it depends entirely on highly variable seasonal rainfall. For instance, capture totals can swing drastically from roughly 120 billion gallons in a record wet season to just 11.9 billion gallons in a dry one, making it a valuable but unpredictable supplement to the region’s imported water sources.⁶

The cost to create a stormwater capture system in Los Angeles varies drastically based on scale, ranging from $100 for a simple home rain barrel to over $70 million for massive regional infrastructure projects.⁷

by Robert Marcos

As record-breaking heatwaves and droughts become more frequent, natural sources of water that insects and wildlife have historically depended upon are drying up. In response a growing number of homeowners are transforming their yards into life-saving “hydration hubs”. In addition to serving the needs of animals these simple actions help people to move from regret to action and then even pleasure as they watch deer, opossums, bees, and other wild animals obtain lifesaving water.¹

Deer act as vital ecosystem engineers by managing plant growth and promoting biodiversity through their grazing habits. As they move across various habitats, they disperse seeds via their fur and waste, aiding in forest regeneration and the spread of native flora. Furthermore, they serve as a primary food source for large predators, while their carcasses provide essential nutrients to scavengers and the soil, maintaining a balanced and nutrient-rich food web.²

Opossums act as “nature’s sanitation workers” by providing essential pest control and waste removal services right in our backyards. As opportunistic scavengers, they keep neighborhoods clean by consuming overripe fruit, roadkill, and organic waste that might otherwise attract less desirable pests like rats or roaches. They also help maintain ecological balance by hunting common garden nuisances such as snails, slugs, and even venomous snakes, to which they have a natural immunity. Furthermore, their low body temperature makes them highly resistant to rabies, meaning they are far less likely to spread the disease than other urban wildlife.³

Pollinators like bees, butterflies, and bats are the silent backbone of our local ecosystems, facilitating the reproduction of nearly 80% of the world’s flowering plants and one out of every three bites of food we eat. By transferring pollen between blooms, they ensure the production of the fruits, seeds, and nuts that feed both humans and wildlife, while simultaneously maintaining the genetic diversity necessary for resilient landscapes. Beyond agriculture, their work supports the growth of oxygen-producing plants and provides the foundational habitat for countless other species, making their presence a direct indicator of a healthy, thriving environment.⁴

Red-tailed hawks are apex predators that maintain ecological balance by regulating the populations of small mammals, including rodents, rabbits, and squirrels. By controlling these populations, they provide free pest control for both urban environments and agricultural lands, which helps prevent overgrazing of vegetation and crop damage. Beyond their role as hunters, they are valuable indicator species; their presence and reproductive success reflect the overall health and biodiversity of the local ecosystem. Additionally, their large nests can provide secondary habitat for smaller bird species, such as house sparrows, while their opportunistic scavenging contributes to natural nutrient cycling.⁵

by Robert Marcos

I was dumbfounded to hear a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey say, “I wish we could date this water so we’d have a better idea where it came from”. We were standing alongside a tiny creek that led into Colorado’s White River, and the scientist was essentially wondering if the water in the stream came from rainfall, or had risen from a shallow aquifer. Generally rainfall would be “younger” and water from aquifers would be older – sometimes by many thousands of years. But how could anyone possibly determine the age of water?

Answer: by analyzing its chemical composition.

The USGS dates groundwater using chemical and isotopic tracers whose concentrations change in known ways over time in the atmosphere and then get preserved in recharging water. For young groundwater—typically less than about 50–70 years old—USGS commonly uses substances like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆), and tritium and its decay product helium‑3. These are measured in specialized facilities such as the Reston Groundwater Dating Laboratory, which analyzes dissolved gases and transient tracers in samples from wells and springs. The key idea is that atmospheric histories of these tracers (for example, industrial production curves for CFCs or tritium from nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s–60s) provide a time stamp that can be matched to what is found in the water.¹

One example is tritium-based age classification – where a single measurement of tritium is used to classify groundwater as “modern” (recharged in 1953 or later), “premodern” (before 1953), or a mixture of the two. The year 1953 roughly marks the onset of elevated tritium from atmospheric nuclear testing, making it a convenient boundary between older, background conditions and post‑bomb‑pulse recharge. By comparing measured tritium to location‑ and time‑specific thresholds, USGS can quickly determine whether a sample reflects recent recharge that may carry contemporary contaminants or older water that has been isolated from the modern surface for decades or longer.

For slightly older water—hundreds to tens of thousands of years—USGS uses longer‑lived isotopic tracers such as radiocarbon (carbon‑14) dissolved in inorganic carbon. Radiocarbon decays predictably over time, so its remaining fraction in groundwater indicates how long it has been since the water equilibrated with atmospheric carbon at the surface. At even greater ages, other isotopes and noble gases may be used to extend the window into tens of thousands of years or more. No single method is perfect; each tracer has limitations, such as contamination from local sources, mixing of waters of different ages, or chemical reactions that alter concentrations. As a result, USGS often applies multiple tracers together and interprets them with groundwater flow models to better constrain age and understand the distribution of ages in a well or discharge area.

USGS dates groundwater because age is fundamental for managing water resources and assessing vulnerability to pollution. Age indicates how quickly water moves through the subsurface, how long it will take for land‑use changes to affect wells and springs, and whether contaminants like nitrates, pesticides, or per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) reflect current practices or legacy inputs. By linking age to contaminant trends, managers can judge whether improvement efforts will show benefits in years, decades, or even longer. Age information also supports sustainable yield estimates, helps distinguish short‑term variability from long‑term change, and reveals dependencies on very old water that may take thousands of years to replenish.

by Robert Marcos

The water in Amargosa Valley is a scientific oddity in that it serves as a living time capsule, and it supports life in one of our planet’s harshest environments. The Amargosa River flows underground for roughly 185 miles – surfacing only occasionally to create lush oases in the Mojave Desert.

Here are some remarkable aspects of this unique water system:

Ancient “Fossil Water”: Much of the groundwater in the Amargosa Basin is fossil water that was recharged during the last Ice Age, between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago. The water travels through a massive regional aquifer of limestone and dolomite rock from sources as far away as the Spring Mountains.¹

A “Bottomless” Cavern: The system feeds Devils Hole, a water-filled limestone cavern in the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. Divers have never found its bottom, but it has been explored to depths of over 500 feet.

Geological Sensitivity: The water level in Devils Hole is so precisely tuned to the Earth’s crust that it acts like a giant seismograph. Massive earthquakes thousands of miles away in Japan or Mexico have caused “tsunamis” several feet high inside this tiny desert pool.²

Extremophile Habitats: The valley’s springs support the Devils Hole pupfish, which has the smallest habitat of any vertebrate species on Earth. These fish survive in water that is 93°F and nearly devoid of oxygen, conditions that would be lethal to most other fish. The pupfish are closely monitored by an interagency group – consisting of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Scientists from these agencies frequently count the number of fish, collect their eggs, and are are undertaking captive rearing and “population augmentation” (which means they release captive-bred fish into the water in order to support the existing population, which is struggling).

Global Biodiversity Hotspot: Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge is home to 26 endemic species of plants and animals that exist nowhere else on Earth. This high concentration of unique life, isolated in “islands of water” within the Mojave Desert, has earned the area the nickname “The Galapagos of the Desert”. The endangered fish include the Devils Hole pupfish, Warm Springs pupfish, Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish, and the Ash Meadows speckled dace. Several unique species of endemic plants include the Amargosa niterwortthe Ash Meadows milkvetch, the Ash Meadows blazingstar and Spring-loving centaury.³

Deep-Fault Thermal Springs: The heat in local thermal springs, such as those near Tecopa, is likely caused by deep water circulation along faults rather than a shallow volcanic heat source. The geothermally-heated water in the Amargosa Valley – including the water at Devils Hole, is heavily influenced by the region’s limestone and dolomite bedrock. As rainwater from the nearby Spring Mountains moves through deep underground fractures, it is heated by the Earth’s core and dissolves various minerals along the way.⁴

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

Water that’s banked in Lake Mead is officially called “Intentionally Created Surplus“, or ICS. The ICS allows major water users in the lower basin to store conserved or unused Colorado River water in the reservoir for their future use.

As of May 2026, Lake Mead’s water volume was 8.3 million acre-feet – or roughly a third of its total capacity. But after publishing this article we were made aware that we should subtract Lake Mead’s 2.3 MAF deadpool from that amount, which brings it down to about 6 MAF. Currently the ICS holds about 2.3 million acre feet of that water, which represents about 38% of Lake Mead’s available water.

Here’s a list of the water agencies and the estimated amount of water that each of them have currently banked in Lake Mead –

Arizona: According to official tracking from the USBR and the CAP, the state of Arizona’s total balance of accumulated Intentionally Created Surplus water stored in Lake Mead as of May 15th is approximately 310,000 to 350,000 acre-feet.

California: As of May 2026, California has roughly 1.2 to 1.4 million acre-feet of water banked in Lake Mead through the ICS and other conservation programs. Major participants include the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Imperial Irrigation District, and the Palo Verde Irrigation District.⁴

Nevada: As of May 2026, Nevada has approximately 479,184 acre-feet of water banked in Lake Mead through the ICS program. This total represents a major portion of Nevada’s overall “water savings account,” which includes several different banking locations and programs.⁵

Mexico: As of May 2026, Mexico has approximately 200,000 acre feet of water banked in Lake Mead through the ICS program and related binational agreements. Mexico was granted the right to store water in Lake Mead following a 2010 earthquake that damaged its irrigation infrastructure. By 2026, these stored volumes have stabilized at around 200,000 acre-feet as Mexico uses the lake as a buffer against shortages.⁷

by Robert Marcos

Last week the lower basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, along with tribal leaders, offered to leave somewhere between 700,000 to a million acre-feet of water in the Colorado River system through 2027–2028. The states described it as more than 3.2 million acre-feet of savings by 2028 and a way to stabilize Lake Mead and Lake Powell while longer-term negotiations continue.¹

What caught my eye about this story is that Mexico – which by law had received 1.5 million acre feet of Colorado River water annually, was already conserving some of that water due to a previous agreement that promised to conserve 400,000 acre-feet between 2023–2026.²

Reportedly, farmers south of the border are unhappy with these arrangements. Farmers in Mexicali Valley said they feel frustrated with the mandatory Colorado River water conservation, and they reported that they’ve been “cheated” out of resources they desperately need to survive. While Mexico agreed to specific water reductions as part of a binational plan with the U.S., many farmers in the Valle de Mexicali have reached a breaking point due to unpaid compensation.³

The prevailing sentiment of farmers in Mexicali Valley is characterized by the following:

Financial Betrayal: Many farmers in Northern Baja’s district 14 agreed to leave thousands of acres of land fallowed in order to conserve Colorado River water – in exchange for $4.5 million dollars in direct payments. However, they claim the Mexican government failed to pay them, which has left these farmers without any income whatsoever.⁴

Opposition to New Water Laws: Recent sweeping changes to Mexico’s national water law have stripped long-held water rights away from farmers, consolidating control in the hands of the federal government. Farmers view this as a move to prioritize urban centers like Tijuana and Ensenada over agricultural needs.

Sovereignty Concerns: There is a strong feeling that the Mexican government is surrendering national sovereignty by complying with U.S. water demands while its own agricultural sector suffers from “death” through deprivation.

Escalating Resistance: Farmers have responded with aggressive protests, including blockading major trade routes at the U.S.-Mexico border with semi-trucks and seizing control of critical dams. Some have even threatened to “spill” their water or return to farming—even if unprofitable—just to prevent the government from redirecting it elsewhere.⁵

by Robert Marcos

In 2013 Southern California’s San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was retired eleven years ahead of schedule. This was because of severe, premature wear in the tubes of its replacement steam generators that led to a radioactive leak and made the cost and regulatory uncertainty of a full repair unfeasible for its operators.¹ Worse, the closure occurred just after ratepayers in San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties had spent $1.88 billion for an overhaul of the plant.² A year later the California Public Utilities Commission approved a $4.7 billion settlement where ratepayers were made responsible for approximately $3.3 billion of the plant’s closing costs, to be paid over a 10-year period.³

Ratepayers continued to pay for “undepreciated net investments” in the retired nuclear plant—essentially paying off the remaining debt for construction and equipment that had not yet been fully depreciated before the early shutdown. Even after the shutdown, utilities were allowed to collect funds for maintaining safety and security at the retired site.⁴

The San Onofre debacle illustrates how utilities use regulatory “cost recovery” and “stranded asset” mechanisms to pass billions in losses from failed or retired facilities onto ratepayers. Nationally, this system allows investor-owned utilities to maintain profits even after large projects fail, as seen with coal plant retirements and canceled transmission lines.⁵

How Ratepayers get Soaked for closed power generation facilities

Utilities nationwide use several key tactics to recover costs from assets that no longer produce power:

Stranded Asset Recovery: When a plant like San Diego’s San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant shuts down prematurely, utilities often seek to recover their remaining “undepreciated investment”. For San Onofre, a controversial settlement originally placed $3.3 billion of the $4.7 billion shutdown cost on ratepayers over 10 years.⁶

Guaranteed Returns on Failed Investments: Utilities typically enjoy built-in profit margins (often around 9-10%) on their infrastructure investments. Even after a plant is shuttered, they may continue to collect these returns. In the San Onofre case, regulators eventually reduced the shareholder return to less than 3% for the retired assets, which still left customers paying for the principal investment.

Replacement Power Costs: When a major facility goes offline, utilities must buy electricity from elsewhere. Ratepayers often bear these “purchased power” costs. San Diego and Southern California customers saw estimated costs of $350 million to $1.1 billion just for replacement electricity following the San Onofre outage.

Decommissioning Surcharges: Long-term cleanup and waste storage costs are frequently funded through special ratepayer-backed accounts. Decommissioning San Onofre is estimated to cost $4.7 billion, much of which was pre-funded by customers during the plant’s operating years.

The “Uneconomic Dispatch”

This model extends beyond nuclear power to fossil fuels and infrastructure:

Coal Plant “Uneconomic Dispatch”: Utilities nationwide continue to run expensive coal plants that cannot compete with cheaper gas or renewables because they can recover fuel and operation costs from customers. This “uneconomic dispatch” cost U.S. consumers an estimated $24 billion from 2015 to 2024.

Securitization: Some states use “securitization”—issuing low-interest bonds to pay off a utility’s remaining investment in a closed plant. While this can lower customer bills compared to standard utility returns, it still ensures the utility is paid in full for a non-working asset.

Failed Infrastructure: Similar to the faulty steam generators at San Onofre, ratepayers have been held responsible for abandoned projects like PG&E’s scrapped transmission line to Canada ($20 million) and Duke Energy’s retired Crystal River nuclear plant in Florida ($1.3 billion in bonds).

Vertical agriculture using shipping containers that recycle fish water is a method known as containerized aquaponics. This system creates a closed-loop, symbiotic ecosystem where fish and plants mutually benefit one another within a highly controlled environment.¹

How the Recirculating System Works

The process mimics natural pond ecosystems through a cycle of nutrient exchange. Fish (typically tilapia, catfish, or trout) are raised in tanks at the base of the container. They produce waste rich in ammonia as they are fed. Beneficial bacteria in the system’s biofilters convert this toxic ammonia into nitrites and then into nitrates, which serve as a natural fertilizer for plants. This nutrient-rich water is pumped upward to irrigate rows of plants stacked vertically in trays or towers. As the plants absorb the nutrients, they act as a natural filter, cleaning the water. This purified water is then gravity-fed or pumped back down to the fish tanks to begin the cycle again.²

Key Components in a Shipping Container Farm

Housed in standard 20-or 40-foot containers, these units include specialized technology to maintain the ecosystem.
Climate Control: HVAC systems regulate temperature, humidity, and CO2 levels regardless of external weather.
LED Lighting: Tailored light spectrums simulate sunlight and optimize plant growth year-round.
Automation & Sensors: Smart systems monitor pH levels, oxygen saturation, and nutrient flow, often allowing for remote management via smartphone.
Renewable Energy: Some modular units, like those from FarmPod, use solar panels to power pumps and lights, making them off-grid capable.³

Benefits and Efficiency

Water Conservation: These systems use up to 90–95% less water than traditional soil-based farming because the water is constantly recycled.
High Yield in a small footprint: A single container can produce the equivalent of 1 to 4 acres of traditional farmland output.
Urban Adaptability: Because they are modular and mobile, they can be placed in parking lots, on rooftops, or in urban “food deserts” to provide hyper-local produce.
Chemical-Free: The closed-loop nature eliminates the need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, producing organic-quality crops and fish simultaneously.⁴

by Robert Marcos

In 2022, University of California Davis published the results of a three-year study on covers crops, which was carried out on ten commercial farms and research sites in California’s Central Valley. The study examined the impact of winter cover cropping on soil health and water retention in irrigated agricultural systems with a focus on almond and tomato crops, which are two of the most common crops grown in the region.¹

Three cover crop systems were included in the study and then compared with adjacent control fields that were left bare, at the same site. The systems included: 1) a cover crop in processing tomato fields; 2) a cover crop planted in between rows of almond trees; and 3) allowing whatever native vegetation was available to grow in between the almond tree rows. The planted cover crops were a mix of legumes, grasses, and brassicas.

The results were impressive. Researchers found that the cover crop fields had higher levels of soil organic matter, soil nitrogen, and microbial activity, indicating improved soil health. In addition, the cover crop fields had higher levels of water infiltration and retention, meaning that they were better able to hold onto water during periods of drought or water stress. The researchers found that the cover crops did not compete with cash crops for water, and that the same amount of water used in the control fields without cover crops was able to support the same amount of crop yield in the cover crop fields. In one case in Davis, there was heavy rainfall at one point during the study. The water loss via evapotranspiration was greater in the bare control plot, showing that use of cover crops improved water retention.

The study provided important evidence of the benefits of winter cover cropping in California’s Central Valley, particularly for improving soil health and reducing water usage in agricultural systems. The findings suggest that cover crops can help farmers make more efficient use of their water resources, potentially reducing the need for additional irrigation, and providing environmental benefits such as reduced erosion and improved water quality.

Top 5 Cover Crops for use in the Western US

For the Western United States – including the arid regions of California, Arizona, and Nevada, the best nitrogen-fixing cover crops are selected for their drought tolerance and ability to thrive in either high heat or mild winters.²

1. Cowpea: Best For: Summer heat in low-elevation deserts. Highly drought-tolerant with a taproot that can reach up to eight feet deep to access water. It thrives when temperatures exceed 100° F and can fix roughly 100–175 lbs of nitrogen per acre. The ‘Iron Clay’ variety is widely recommended for use in the Southwest.
2. Alfalfa: works best for long-term soil restoration. Often called the “queen of forages,” alfalfa is a perennial legume with deep roots that break up subsoil and reach nutrients deep in the earth. It is one of the most powerful nitrogen fixers, capable of producing 250–500 lbs of nitrogen per acre.
3. Crimson Clover: Used as winter cover in the Southwest or for spring cover in the north. A fast-growing annual that establishes quickly in the fall to provide winter protection. It is frequently used in mixtures with radish to improve soil structure while fixing roughly 70–150 lbs of nitrogen per acre.
4. Hairy Vetch: is excellent as a winter-hardy coverage and weed suppression.
   Why It Works: It grows slowly in the fall but resumes vigorous growth in the spring, creating a thick mat that smothers weeds. It is known for high nitrogen fixation (over 100 lbs per acre) and performs well in the cooler, non-agricultural environments of the West.
5. Lablab: works best during the summer-to-fall transition in Arizona. Lablab is specifically noted for its performance in the hot weather of central Arizona. It produces high biomass and can contribute 50–200 lbs of nitrogen per acre. Unlike some other summer legumes, it continues vegetative growth late into the year without flowering immediately, offering more flexible termination dates for growers.

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

They say that bad news will travel around the world three times while good news is still putting its shoes on, which is exactly how I feel about this news about our water use: Our transition from coal-fired power generation to wind and solar has turned out to be one of the most effective ways to conserve our nation’s fresh water.

Transitioning from coal-fired power generation to renewable wind and solar has significantly reduced water consumption, and has provided critical relief to water-stressed regions. While coal plants once competed directly with agriculture and municipalities for freshwater, the shift to renewables allows billions of gallons of water to remain in local ecosystems and aquifers.¹

The electric power sector uses a large amount of water, mostly for cooling. Thermoelectric power plants (including natural gas, nuclear, and coal plants) boil water to create steam, which spins a turbine to generate electricity. The steam leaving the turbine must be cooled back into water to be used to generate more electricity. Plants withdraw water from nearby rivers, lakes, or oceans and pass that water through the steam leaving the turbine. That process cools and condenses the steam back into water. In 2021, 73% of the utility-scale electricity generated in the United States came from thermoelectric power plants.²

Traditional coal-fired power plants are incredibly water-intensive – requiring approximately 19,185 gallons of water per megawatt-hour, (primarily for cooling), while wind and photovoltaic solar power generation requires no water – except for periodic washing to remove dust and bird droppings. Nationally, replacing the remaining coal fleet with wind and solar could decrease electricity-related water consumption by over 99%, potentially making 2.6 billion cubic meters of water available for other uses each year.³

Environmental benefits

Protecting Local Ecosystems: Retiring fossil fuel plants directly restores local river health. For instance, some subbasins are projected to see a 57% increase in annual streamflow by 2050 as plant withdrawals cease, benefiting local agriculture and wildlife.

Efficiency Gains: The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that the changing energy mix—led by the rise of renewables—is responsible for roughly 80% of the downward trend in water withdrawals by the electric power sector.

Climate Resilience: This is a critical shaft for drought-prone regions. In the American West, moving to low-water energy sources leaves much-needed freshwater in its natural environment.

Regional Shifts in Water Stress

The impact of this transition has been most visible in arid regions where coal production and cooling previously dominated local water use. Coal plants in states like Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico have historically consumed enormous volumes of surface water from the Colorado River and other critical basins. Retiring these plants is projected to significantly curtail annual water withdrawals, with some rivers seeing a net increase in streamflow of up to 57% by 2050.⁴

In Texas and California replacing fossil fuel generation with wind and solar PV can decrease water consumption by over 98%. This shift is particularly impactful in Texas, which has seen the largest absolute reduction in coal generation in the U.S. over recent years.⁵

In China a transition toward renewables in northwestern regions (like Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang) has been essential for alleviating “extremely high” water stress. Research shows that closing coal mines in these areas leads to a rapid restoration of Terrestrial Water Storage, increasing water availability by an average of 18.8 mm per year through groundwater recovery.⁶

by Robert Marcos

A landmark 2015 USGS study revealed that overall water consumption in the United States had declined even though our population had increased. A study in 2025 showed that that downward trend has continued. Scientists involved in the study reported that the decline has been driven by significant efficiency gains in the power and manufacturing sectors, and by improved household conservation.¹

The EPA reported that municipal efforts to conserve water have been paying off. This includes the use of water saving faucets, toilets, and showers, plus the recycling of waste water. Meanwhile – due to climate change, other parts of the world have seen their demand for fresh water rise by as much as 40%.²

Detailed Comparison of Water Use (2015 vs. 2025)

Total Withdrawals: In 2015, the U.S. withdrew approximately 322 billion gallons per day, the lowest level reported since 1970. By 2025, total withdrawals have continued to stabilize or decline despite population increases, largely driven by significant reductions in thermoelectric power and industrial sectors.³

Wastewater Reuse: A major shift in the decade leading to 2025 was the rapid expansion of the municipal wastewater reuse market. Total reuse capacity was projected to increase by 61% by 2025, with potable reuse (treatment to drinking water quality) rising from 15% to 19% of total reuse capacity.⁴

Residential Consumption: The average American used 82 gallons per day at home in 2015. By 2025, widespread adoption of EPA WaterSense certified fixtures has allowed typical families to reduce this consumption by at least 20% through more efficient toilets, faucets, and showerheads.⁵

Positive developments in major sectors

Power generation: Electrical power generation has reduced the use fresh water by shifting from coal to renewables, like wind and solar, which require little to no water, and by implementing dry-cooling technologies. These improvements have dropped U.S. water withdrawal intensity from 14,928 gal/MWh in 2015 to 11,857 gal/MWh in 2020, as the energy mix shifts toward less water-intensive sources.⁶

Agricultural irrigation: Farmers have improved water efficiency by transitioning from flood irrigation to advanced pressurized systems, like drip and micro-irrigation. These systems deliver water directly to the plant’s root zone, significantly reducing losses from evaporation and runoff. Additionally, many operations now utilize precision agriculture technologies, including soil moisture sensors and GPS-guided machinery, to apply water only when and where it is needed based on real-time data. Complementary land management practices like conservation tillage (no-till) and the use of cover crops further enhance water retention by improving soil health and reducing surface evaporation.⁷

Industrial/Mining: The mining industry is conserving fresh water primarily by transitioning to closed-loop recycling systems that treat and reuse process water multiple times within a facility. Many companies are also adopting thickened tailings technology, which removes more water from waste streams before disposal, and utilizing alternative sources like desalinated seawater or treated municipal wastewater. Additionally, the shift toward dry stacking—where waste is filtered into a sandy substance—significantly reduces the water lost to evaporation or seepage in traditional storage ponds.⁸

Geographic and Economic Shifts

Regional Demand: By 2025, regions like the Southwest and Colorado River basin faced increased pressure due to drought, leading to a 16.9% decline in specific sectors like golf course irrigation through aggressive management.

Investment: The market for municipal reuse and wastewater infrastructure reached an estimated $11 billion by 2025, with Florida and California accounting for over 80% of this activity.

Note about groundwater use estimates

While researching this article I was concerned the accuracy of ground water use estimates. It’s widely-known that most wells are not metered and that many farmers, ranchers, and land owners, are opposed to metering the groundwater they pump. But it appears that the USGS estimates ground water use with highly sophisticated satellite technology like those below.

Satellite Monitoring Methods

GRACE, (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment): These twin satellites “weigh” the Earth by measuring minute changes in gravity caused by the movement of water. By subtracting surface water and soil moisture from total water storage, scientists can estimate changes in deep groundwater.

InSAR (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar): This radar technology measures millimeter-level changes in land elevation. When aquifers are over-pumped, the ground above them often sinks (subsidence), which InSAR detects and uses to infer water level declines.

Landsat: This program monitors land surface characteristics, such as crop health and heat. The USGS uses this to map evapotranspiration, which helps estimate how much groundwater is being pumped for irrigation.
Satellite Telemetry: This is the most common operational use of satellites. The USGS equips thousands of physical wells with instrumentation that transmits real-time water level data directly to USGS ground stations via satellite.

by Brad Barham, PhD and Robert Marcos

There’s a 33-to-1 disparity in the cost of Colorado River water that’s being utilized by the residents of San Diego, versus the residents of Brawley – both of which are in Southern California and are just 97 miles away from each other. The disparity stems from differences in two primary areas: water rights and conveyance. San Diego’s municipal water rates – which are the fourth highest for a major city in the United States, are also inflated by the city’s massive investment in recycling and desalination.

Brawley’s Senior Water Rights

Residents of Brawley are served by the Imperial Irrigation District, which holds some of the most senior water rights on the Colorado River, in particular among major users. The IIDs rights predate the 1922 Colorado River Compact and fall under “present perfected rights” which make them an exceptionally high-priority. The IID holds rights to approximately 3.1 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually, making them the largest single user of Colorado River water.¹

It’s also worth noting that the IID pays nothing for the 3.1 million acre feet of water they’re entitled to. They do however pay multiple-millions of dollars for the operation and maintenance of California’s Imperial Dam, and the All-American Canal. Farmers and residents of the Imperial Valley pay only $20 per acre-foot for the water itself, since they only need to cover local delivery costs.² Meanwhile San Diego, which does not have senior rights must buy water at market rates. Beginning in 2026 San Diego pays the Metropolitan Water District $671 per acre-foot of water—33 times what Brawley pays for the same water.

Infrastructure and Transportation

The city of Brawley is adjacent to the All-American Canal, so it requires a minimal amount of infrastructure to move the water into town. Whereas San Diego’s imported water utilizes two large canal systems: The Edmund G. Brown California Aqueduct from the State Water Project, and the Colorado Aqueduct that travels 242 miles from Lake Havasu in the east. San Diego – in the face of chronic drought and the increased stress of climate change on imported water sources, has made long-term commitments to making water conservation a permanent way of life. Historically dependent on importing up to 90% of its water from the Colorado River and Northern California, the region is now aggressively diversifying its water portfolio to ensure sustainability: aiming to reduce demand through mandated restrictions, turf replacement programs, and widespread public education.

San Diego is preparing for a drier future

San Diego has launched massive and innovative infrastructure projects, most notably the “Pure Water San Diego” program which aims to produce nearly half of the city’s water locally by 2035, with the use of advanced water purification technology that will convert recycled wastewater into high-quality drinking water.

In 2015 the region pioneered the use of desalination with the Claude “Bud” Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant, which is the largest desalination plant in the United States. The plant produces up to 54 million gallons of high-quality drinking water per day, which is about 10% of the water San Diego needs, at a cost of about $3,800 per acre foot.

But the stability that these projects promise comes at a high price. Residents who were already frustrated with high energy bills now face skyrocketing water bills too. Water rates in San Diego have seen steep increases, with projections showing a 14.7% hike in 2026, followed by another 14.5% in 2027. These are largely to pay for the Pure Water program in addition to higher costs for imported water. Residents and critics have expressed frustration that water rates could rise by 44% over four years, causing many to question the rising cost of living in the region.

by Robert Marcos

Residents in the San Diego region currently pay between $3,707 and $5,179 per acre-foot of water¹, making San Diego’s municipal water the fourth most expensive in America – after San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland.²

For years San Diego relied almost entirely on a single source of municipal water: the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. However, a severe drought in the early 1990s exposed the region’s vulnerability. This crisis sparked a multi-decade strategy by the San Diego County Water Authority to diversify its portfolio, effectively trading lower costs for long-term supply reliability.³

To break its dependence on Los Angeles, San Diego secured its own water rights through massive, high-cost agreements. This included a historic 2003 deal with the Imperial Irrigation District in the Imperial Valley, where the city pays farmers to conserve water and send it west. This “ag-to-urban” transfer, combined with paying to line the All-American Canal to prevent seepage, provided a secure but significantly more expensive supply than traditional imported water.⁴

The region further increased costs by investing in “drought-proof” technology, most notably the Claude “Bud” Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant, which opened in 2015. While it provides about 10% of the region’s water, it is the most expensive source in the portfolio, costing roughly $2,700 per acre-foot—far higher than imported Colorado River water. San Diego is also currently building the multi-billion dollar Pure Water recycling system to turn wastewater into drinking water, adding another layer of heavy infrastructure debt to monthly bills.⁵

Paradoxically, San Diegans’ success in water conservation has also contributed to rising rates. Because the Water Authority built massive infrastructure based on much higher population and demand projections, it must now spread the fixed costs of those debts and maintenance across fewer gallons of water sold. When residents use less water, the price per gallon must increase to cover the billions in outstanding loans for dams, pipelines, and treatment plants.⁶

Today the cumulative effect of these investments has made San Diego’s water rates among the highest in the country, with total bills projected to rise over 60% by 2029. While other California cities face potential shortages during droughts, San Diego often has a surplus; however, the cost of that security is borne entirely by local ratepayers through a complex “chain reaction” of wholesale price hikes and debt service.⁷

by Robert Marcos, Photojournalist

For decades, the desert town of Borrego Springs – in eastern San Diego County, thrived upon what appeared to be an unlimited supply sunshine and groundwater. Lacking an alternative supply of water this isolated community was entirely dependent on the prehistoric groundwater that was lying beneath it. This finite resource acted as the lifeblood for two competing interests: a flourishing agricultural sector and a steady expansion of residential and resort development.¹

The valley’s economic foundation was laid by industrial-scale agriculture. Beginning in the mid-20th century, farmers realized that the high water table and intense desert sun created perfect conditions for citrus, grapes, and nursery crops. Water was pumped aggressively to transform the arid landscape into a lush production hub. At its height, agriculture accounted for roughly 70% of the valley’s water consumption, providing the jobs and revenue that initially put Borrego Springs on the map.

Parallel to the farming boom, the town marketed itself as a serene, upscale getaway, leading to significant residential growth. Developers built golf courses, luxury resorts, and sprawling retirement communities that promised a “green” lifestyle in the middle of the desert. These amenities required massive amounts of groundwater to maintain verdant fairways and private pools. For years, the abundance of the aquifer made it easy to ignore the fact that the community was growing far beyond the environment’s natural recharge rate.²

However, the “golden age” of water use eventually hit a breaking point as the aquifer began to rapidly decline. Decades of extracting more water than the earth could replace caused the water table to drop by more than 100 feet in some areas. As the ground sank and the cost of pumping from deeper depths rose, the sustainability of the valley’s twin economies came into question. The very resource that invited growth became the primary limiting factor for its future.³

Today, Borrego Springs stands as a cautionary tale of desert over-extraction. Under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the community has been forced to implement drastic water reductions, leading to the fallowing of many farms and strict mandates for residents. While the groundwater once fueled a dream of limitless desert prosperity, its depletion now dictates a new era of conservation, proving that growth without replenishment is ultimately a race toward an empty well.⁴

by Robert Marcos, photojournalist

The Salton Sea is a paraodox for a multitude of reasons. The most striking is that the Salton Sea can exist only as long as the Imperial Valley continues to drain 1.3 million acre feet of salt and pesticide-laden runoff into it, annually. That’s exactly how much the Sea loses to evaporation every year. So ironically, the more Colorado River water that’s conserved by Imperial Valley’s farmers the faster the Salton Sea is going to dry up.¹

Fact: In 1924 the federal government officially designated the Salton Sea as a permanent repository for agricultural drainage, which authorized the Imperial Irrigation District to use it as a drainage basin for irrigation runoff. This was necessary because increasing salt levels in the soil were threatening to put thousands of acres of highly-productive farmland out of production.²

The Imperial Valley functions as a critical “winter salad bowl” for the United States, yet this massive agricultural output creates a severe environmental health paradox for its residents. While intensive farming produces millions of tons of vegetables, it relies on practices like agricultural burning and heavy pesticide application that release fine particulate matter and toxic chemicals into the air. This pollution is compounded by a shrinking Salton Sea, which acts as a basin for agricultural runoff; as it dries, it exposes toxic lakebed dust containing arsenic and pesticides that wind then carries into local communities. Consequently, children in the Imperial Valley suffer from asthma at rates nearly double the California state average, with roughly one in five children diagnosed—a direct cost of the region’s agricultural success borne by its most vulnerable residents.³

The Salton Sea’s Top 10 Contradictions

1. It’s a vital yet highly-polluted refuge: The Sea acts as a critical Pacific Flyway habitat for millions of birds, yet it is highly contaminated with agricultural toxins, heavy metals, and selenium.
2. Sustained by Wastewater: The lake requires constant inflow of polluted farm drainage (tailwater) to survive; restricting this agricultural runoff is necessary for water quality but speeds up its drying.
3. Agriculture vs. Air Quality: Farming irrigation sustains the lake, but as water efficiency increases, less water reaches the sea, accelerating the exposure of dry lakebed (playa) and the resulting toxic dust storms.
4. Species Management vs. Habitat Collapse: State agencies work to protect endangered species, but the increasing salinity is killing the fish and food sources those species need.
5. Environmental Destruction as Restoration: Major restoration projects often involve breaking up existing, albeit shrinking, habitats to create smaller, managed ponds.
6. Terminal Lake Reality: It is a closed basin that cannot flush itself, meaning all contaminants from decades of agriculture are trapped and concentrated indefinitely.
7. Water Transfers vs. Regional Health: The Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) transfers water to urban areas, reducing inflows to the sea and damaging local communities’ health for external economic gain.
8. Natural vs. Artificial Conflict: It is managed as a wildlife refuge but was created entirely by a catastrophic engineering failure of a canal, resulting in a fragile “artificial” ecosystem.
9. Salinity vs. Stability: Efforts to reduce nutrient inflow (to curb algae) can lead to faster shrinking, while allowing nutrients causes massive fish die-offs and odor.
10. The “Green” Paradox: Developing the area for green energy—namely lithium extraction—requires long-term stability in a region deemed too dangerous for human health due to toxic air. 

by Robert Marcos

The concept of eco-nihilism has emerged as a somber byproduct of the modern climate crisis, representing a shift from proactive environmentalism to a philosophy of futility. Unlike traditional environmentalism, which is rooted in the hope of preservation and restoration, eco-nihilism posits that the ecological collapse of the planet is already underway and ultimately irreversible. The growth of this movement is largely fueled by the persistent gap between scientific warnings and political action. This increase in nihilistic environmental beliefs has been driven by several factors:

The “Foregone Conclusion” mindset: Many people, especially Gen Z, view climate catastrophe as inevitable. This leads to a “who cares” or “carpe diem” attitude, where long-term dreams are abandoned in favor of living only for the moment because the future feels “canceled”.

Perceived Futility: Seeing a lack of significant action from governments and corporations can make individual efforts (like recycling or reducing carbon footprints) feel meaningless.

Betrayal Trauma: Psychologists note a sense of “moral injury” or betrayal among youth who feel that older generations and leaders have failed to protect the planet, leading them to lose trust in the world’s underlying order and meaning.

Large-scale studies highlight the depth of this existential distress –

Frightening Future: A landmark 2021 survey of 10,000 young people (ages 16–25) across 10 countries found that 75% believe the future is “frightening”:

Impact on Daily Life: Over 45% of respondents in that same study reported that their feelings about climate change negatively affect their daily functioning.

Choosing Not to Have Children: Nearly 40% of young people globally are hesitant to have children due to climate change.

“Optimism” Nihilism vs. “Doomism”

While “climate doomism” often leads to paralysis and inaction, some adopt a form of Optimistic Nihilism. They accept that the world as they know it might end, but use that realization to lower the pressure of societal expectations and focus on immediate, small-scale kindness and personal joy.

Many climate activists and psychologists warn that nihilism can be a “luxury” or a coping mechanism that leads to compliance with the status quo, whereas “therapeutic hope”—acting as if change is possible—is necessary for mental resilience and actual progress.

by Robert Marcos

Climate change is significantly disrupting global coffee production by altering the specific environmental conditions—mild temperatures and predictable rainfall—that coffee plants require to thrive. These shifts are leading to reduced yields, lower bean quality, and a dramatic decrease in land suitable for cultivation.

Key Impacts on Coffee Production

Drastic Yield Reductions: Research indicates that for every increase in average air temperature, coffee production can decrease by approximately 14%. Top producers like Brazil, Vietnam, and Colombia have already experienced significant yield losses due to extreme heat and prolonged droughts.

Loss of Suitable Land: Projections suggest that up to 50% of the land currently used for coffee farming could become unproductive by 2050. This is forcing farmers to migrate to higher, cooler elevations, which is often limited by available terrain and can lead to further deforestation.

Accelerated Pest and Disease Spread: Warmer, wetter conditions are expanding the range of devastating threats like coffee leaf rust (a fungus) and the coffee berry borer (a beetle). These pests are now reaching higher altitudes that were previously too cool for them to survive, causing billions in damages.

Declining Bean Quality: Rising temperatures cause coffee cherries to ripen too quickly, resulting in smaller beans with less complex flavor profiles and lower acidity. This particularly threatens the specialty coffee market, which relies on the delicate Arabica variety.

By Robert Marcos

As of early 2026, many American cities face critical threats to their municipal water supplies due to a combination of overdrawn aquifers, shrinking reservoirs, and aging infrastructure. While historically associated with the Southwest, water stress has increasingly impacted the Northeast and Midwest due to infrastructure failures and shifting climate pattern

Here are twenty American cities most threatened by a potential reduction of municipal water supplies:

Phoenix, AZ: Rapid population growth and heavy reliance on the Colorado River, which is facing record-low supply levels.

Las Vegas, NV: Highly dependent on Lake Mead, which has hovered near “dead pool” levels where water can no longer flow downstream.

Los Angeles, CA: Relies on water imported from hundreds of miles away; recent wildfires have also exposed weaknesses in emergency water-flow capacity.

San Antonio, TX: Its primary source, the Edwards Aquifer, is under intense pressure from drought and high demand.

Miami, FL: Faced with “saltwater intrusion,” where rising sea levels push salt water into the freshwater aquifers used for municipal drinking water.

El Paso, TX: Situated in the Chihuahuan Desert with very few local water sources; it is racing to open a large-scale water purification facility in 2026.

Salt Lake City, UT: Threatened by dwindling snowpack and the shrinking of the Great Salt Lake, which affects regional groundwater recharge.

San Diego, CA: Faces chronic drought and heavy reliance on external sources, leading to massive investments in desalination and recycling.

Atlanta, GA: Struggling with aging, century-old pipes that suffer frequent major breaks, leading to multiple citywide states of emergency.

Lincoln, NE: Highly vulnerable to extreme climate swings and drought that impact its regional water table

Chicago, IL: Despite its proximity to Lake Michigan, the city faces significant water loss due to aging infrastructure and stressed inland aquifers.

New York City, NY: Massive demand and future climate pressure, combined with “subsidence” (sinking land), strain its massive tunnel delivery system.

Denver, CO: Declining snowpack in the Rockies has significantly reduced the flow of the rivers the city depends on.

Jackson, MS: Suffered a near-total system collapse due to decades of underfunding and storm damage, leaving residents without safe water for weeks.

San Jose, CA: Dealing with overdrawn aquifers that have led to significant land sinking and infrastructure damage.

Riverside, CA: High population growth and limited local supply have created a narrow margin of water safety.

Corpus Christi, TX: Its reservoirs have reached dangerously low levels, forcing the city to spend hundreds of millions on new groundwater projects.

Santa Fe, NM: A small city with extremely high vulnerability to prolonged drought due to its limited catchment area.

Philadelphia, PA: Faces increasing risk from saltwater moving up the Delaware River, which can contaminate municipal intakes.

Mathis, TX: A critical example of a small municipality where the only water source, Lake Corpus Christi, reached such low levels that intake valves risked drawing sludge. 

Western water law must evolve from rigid allocation toward flexible, climate‑smart governance that treats scarcity as the new normal rather than as a temporary emergency. This means rebalancing private rights, public interests, and ecological needs as hydrologic baselines shift.¹

First: Prior appropriation’s “first in time, first in right” framework must incorporate stronger rationality and waste limits that reflect hotter, drier conditions, so senior rights cannot indefinitely lock in inefficient or low‑value uses while communities and ecosystems face crisis. Enforcing existing public interest and beneficial use doctrines can gradually reorient supplies toward municipal, tribal, and environmental needs without immediately dismantling the system.²

Second, law must explicitly integrate surface and groundwater, recognizing their physical connectivity and managing them conjunctively rather than independently. This includes permitting and monitoring currently under‑regulated aquifers, tying new pumping to basin‑wide sustainable yield, and curbing withdrawals that quietly undermine river flows and senior rights.³

Third, states need adaptive institutions—water banks, drought reserves, and public or tribal “water trusts”—that can temporarily or permanently acquire rights for critical uses and instream flows. Well‑designed markets and compensated transfers can move water from low‑value irrigation to cities, habitat, and cultural uses while softening political resistance from existing right holders.⁴

Finally, western water law must better protect ecosystems and vulnerable communities by embedding minimum environmental flows, tribal water security, and rural drinking water reliability into baseline allocation rules, not as afterthoughts. Climate change is making yesterday’s assumptions about snowpack and river yield obsolete, so western water law must become more precautionary, data‑driven, iterative, and able to adjust allocations as science reveals a rapidly changing hydrology.⁵

While it looks like a dusty, silver-gray desert shrub, guayule – which originated in Northern Mexico, is essentially a “living rubber factory. As of 2026 the plant gaining serious traction as a potential savior for farmers in the American Southwest—particularly in Arizona and California—who are facing catastrophic cut to their use of Colorado River water.¹

Why Guayule may be a “Rescue” Crop

Farmers in the West are in a bind: water intensive crops like alfalfa, corn, and cotton are becoming nearly impossible to grow with dwindling water allotments. Guayule is stepping into that gap for several reasons:

Extreme Water Efficiency: Guayule uses roughly 50% less water than cotton or alfalfa. In Pinal County, Arizona, it’s estimated that switching to guayule could save 15% of the total agricultural water usage.²

Heat & Salt Tolerance: It doesn’t just survive the desert heat; it thrives in it. It can also handle the high-salinity soil that often plagues fields where irrigation water has evaporated over decades.

Domestic Rubber Security: Currently, almost all the world’s natural rubber comes from Hevea trees in Southeast Asia. Guayule provides a domestic, “Made in the USA” source of rubber for tires and medical supplies.³

Hypoallergenic Latex: Unlike traditional rubber, guayule latex lacks the proteins that cause “Type I” latex allergies, making it a premium material for surgical gloves.

The “Catch”

The hurdle isn’t growing the guayule; it’s the infrastructure. Farmers can’t switch overnight because they need specialized processing plants to extract the rubber from the shrub’s bark. However, companies like Bridgestone have been scaling up commercial-grade tire production using guayule, signaling that the supply chain is finally catching up to the climate reality.⁴

Other Resilient Contenders

While Guayule is the heavy hitter for the Southwest, a few other “underreported” crops are being trialed to rescue Western and Plains farmers in 2026:

Kernza: A perennial grain with 10-foot-deep roots. It doesn’t need to be replanted every year, preventing soil erosion and sequestering massive amounts of carbon.

Teff: An ancient Ethiopian grain that is highly drought-tolerant and serves as a high-value, water-wise forage for horses and livestock.

Amaranth: A “pseudo-cereal” that requires very little water and produces highly nutritious seeds and leaves, often used in health-food markets.

Hemp: Industrial hemp requires significantly less water per kilogram than cotton and other crops. So it can flourish with less irrigation, making it ideal for regions with scarce water resources. Hemp’s deep roots improve soil structure, which aids in water retention and prevents soil erosion and its cultivation helps to minimize agricultural runoff.

by Robert Marcos

In the past two to three years there’ve been important advances both in enteric methane‑reducing feed additives and in manure‑focused technologies, and several options have progressed from the laboratory to commercial use.

What’s new?

3‑NOP (Bovaer): Now the most advanced commercial additive, approved in 60+ countries and marketed in the U.S. by Elanco, with typical methane reductions of about 30% in dairy and beef cattle at very low doses. It works by inhibiting a key enzyme in the rumen’s methanogenesis pathway without harming animal performance¹.

Red seaweed and bromoform products: Asparagopsis‑based seaweed supplements can cut enteric methane by over 80–90% in controlled studies, and work is shifting toward purified bromoform or standardized products rather than raw seaweed to control variability and safety. Several pilot trials are underway in Australia, the EU, and the U.S., but broad regulatory approval is still pending².

Other additives under study: Research programs (e.g., Teagasc, CSU AgNext) are testing oils, grain‑industry by‑products, probiotics, and other inhibitors; some trials in housed cattle report up to 30% methane reduction with no productivity loss, though pasture‑based delivery remains a major challenge³.​

Adoption status: A recent technical review notes that methane‑inhibiting feed additives are now the fastest‑emerging enteric solution, with strong private investment but limited on‑farm uptake so far due to cost, regulation, and farmer skepticism⁴.