#Colorado Basin River Forecast Center Water Supply Discussion January 1, 2026v

Click the link to read the discussion on the CBRFC website:

The Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC) geographic forecast area includes the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB), Lower Colorado River Basin (LCRB), and Eastern Great Basin (GB).

Water Supply Forecasts

January 1 water supply forecasts are generally well below normal and summarized in the figure and table below. Snowpack and soil moisture are the primary hydrologic conditions that impact the water supply outlook, while future weather is the primary source of forecast uncertainty.

January 1, 2026 seasonal water supply forecast summary.

Water Year Weather

The 2025–26 winter season has thus far featured record-setting warmth and limited precipitation, driven

by a persistent high-pressure ridge over the CBRFC area. Most of the major climate sites in and around the CBRFC area experienced their warmest (e.g. Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, Pocatello) — or second warmest (e.g. Flagstaff, Grand Junction, Denver) — December on record. An active northern stream riding over the ridge has delivered above average precipitation to the northern fringes of the UCRB and GB, but given the warm maritime influence, snow accumulation has remained unimpressive.

The water year as a whole tells a different story. In October, several rounds of heavy rain tied to decaying tropical storms brought record flooding to portions of AZ, southern UT, and southwest CO — making it one of the wettest Octobers on record. November brought continued above average precipitation to the LCRB, but well below average precipitation was observed elsewhere. Water year 2026 precipitation is summarized in the figure and table below.

Water year 2026 precipitation summary.

Snowpack Conditions

UCRB January 1 snow water equivalent (SWE) conditions are highly variable and range between 35–100% of normal. Storm systems this winter have been warmer than normal with high snow levels resulting in much of the precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. SWE conditions are very poor across most of the UCRB, with numerous SNOTEL stations across western CO reporting January 1 SWE values at or near record low. The exception is the Upper Green headwaters, where SWE is near to above normal. UCRB January 1 snow covered area is around 28% of the 2001–2025 median, which is the lowest on record dating back to 2001. 1 LCRB January 1 SWE conditions are at or near record low across much of southwest UT, central AZ, and west-central NM.

GB January 1 SWE conditions are also very poor, ranging between 25–65% of normal. SWE at the majority of SNOTEL stations across UT are below the 10th percentile, with several stations reporting record low January 1 SWE. January 1 snow covered area across UT is record low at just 15% of the 2001-2025 median.1 SWE conditions are summarized in the figure and table below.

Left: January 1, 2026 SWE – NRCS SNOTEL observed (squares) and CBRFC hydrologic model.
Right: CBRFC hydrologic model SWE condition summary.

Soil Moisture

CBRFC hydrologic model fall (antecedent) soil moisture conditions impact water supply forecasts and the efficiency of spring runoff. Basins with above average soil moisture conditions can be expected to experience more efficient runoff from rainfall or snowmelt while basins with below average soil moisture conditions can be expected to have lower runoff efficiency until soil moisture deficits are fulfilled. The timing and magnitude of spring runoff is impacted by snowpack conditions, spring weather, and soil moisture conditions.

Soil moisture conditions heading into the 2026 spring runoff season are below normal across most areas as a result of warmer and drier than normal weather during the 2025 water year. Water year 2025 precipitation was around 80% of average across the UCRB and GB and around 60% of average across the LCRB. The least favorable soil moisture conditions exist across central UT and the Colorado River headwaters. Soil moisture conditions across southwest CO and central AZ are exceptions, where very wet October–November weather led to improved soil moisture that is near or above average. CBRFC hydrologic model soil moisture conditions are shown in the figures below.

November 2025 CBRFC hydrologic model soil moisture conditions –
as a percent of the 1991–2020 average (left) and compared to November 2024 (right).

Upcoming Weather

After a cold and somewhat snowy system sweeps through the CBRFC area this week, high pressure looks to dominate the region for the foreseeable future, which will suppress any chances for significant precipitation. The 7-day precipitation forecast and the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) 8–14 day temperature and precipitation outlooks are shown in the figures below.

7-day precipitation forecast for January 7–13, 2026.
Climate Prediction Center precipitation probability forecast for January 15–21, 2026.
Climate Prediction Center temperature probability forecast for January 15–21, 2026.

References

1. Rittger, K., Lenard, S.J.P., Palomaki, R.T., Stephenson, L. (2026). Snow Today. Boulder, Colorado USA. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Data source: MODIS/Terra/SPIRES.

This year’s snow season off to record-low start: But hey, if Bo Nix and the Broncos can come from behind, so can Mother Nature — Jay Adams (DenverWater.org)

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Jay Adams):

December 31, 2025

Colorado is off to a record-low start to the snow season.

But with snowpack, like in football, what’s important is not how you start. It’s how you finish.

Just ask Bo Nix and the Denver Broncos.

This season, the Broncos made history with 12 comeback victories — a new National Football League record.

Elder pointed to the team’s big win against the New York Giants on Oct. 19, 2025.

“I think most of us thought the Broncos were done in that game after going scoreless for three quarters, but then they had an amazing turnaround in the fourth quarter and came back to win at the last second,” said Nathan Elder, Denver Water’s manager of water supply.

“Let’s hope Mother Nature can do the same as Bo Nix and deliver a big comeback this winter.”

Snowmaking at Keystone Ski Resort on Dec. 31, 2025. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Record low start to the snowpack

Elder said the first three months of the 2025-26 snow season, from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31, 2025, ranked as the driest on record in Denver Water’s water collection area.

The records date back to the winter of 1979-80, when SNOTEL measuring gauges started being used to measure mountain snowpack.

Denver Water’s previous year-ending, record-low snowpack on Dec. 31 occurred during the winter of 1980-81.

This year, as of Dec. 31, 2025, the snowpack in the South Platte and Colorado river basins where Denver Water collects water stood at 51% and 49% of normal, respectively, according to SNOTEL measurements.

Snowpack in the South Platte River Basin at the end of December 2025 stood at 51% of normal. Image credit: U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Snowpack in the Colorado River Basin at the end of December 2025 stood at 49% of normal. Image credit: U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The lack of powder days is not only tough on Colorado’s ski resorts, but low snowpack also raises concerns about river levels and our water supply which comes primarily from mountain snow.

A skier navigates through early season conditions at Breckenridge on Dec. 23, 2025. Photo credit: Denver Water.

“We definitely prefer a snowier start to winter over a dry one,” Elder said.

“But we still have about four months left in the snow accumulation season. We will need a lot of snow to catch up to get back to normal.”

The first three months of the snow season typically account for about 20% of the annual snowpack. The good news is that the snowiest months of March and April are still ahead.

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

Elder said that along with the low snowfall, strong winds and above-normal temperatures created windy and warm weather, which led to increased sublimation of the snowpack (think of sublimation like evaporation just for snow).

“In mid-December, we actually saw a noticeable drop in the snowpack in the South Platte River Basin, which is very rare for that time of year because it’s usually too cold for snow to melt,” Elder said.

What to expect in 2026?

While unfortunately there’s no crystal ball for snow forecasting, Elder pointed to other years that experienced similarly slow starts to the snowpack for a guess as to where this season could end up.

For Denver Water, snowpack typically peaks in mid-to-late April.

The lowest peak occurred during the winter of 2001-02, when snowpack peaked at just 56% of normal. The second-lowest peak was measured during the winter of 2011-12, when mountain snowpack peaked at 58% of normal.

Both of those seasons started slow and snowfall stayed below normal levels all winter long.

In contrast to those two dismal winters, Elder said the winter of 1999-2000 offers a glimmer of hope.

“That season started slow, but snow came on strong in April and May and we ended up right around normal in terms of peak snowpack by the end of the season,” he said.

Water managers also watch for a couple of big storms that could quickly bolster a lackluster snowpack.

Taking action

Denver Water’s reservoirs are currently at 83% of capacity, which is 4% below average for this time of year.

Dillon Reservoir in Summit County had open water on Dec. 24, 2025, due to warm conditions. The reservoir’s average “ice-in” date is Dec. 24. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Elder said that while the reservoir levels are expected to be in relatively good shape heading into summer, it’s too early to say if there will be any watering restrictions.

“We live in a dry climate with increasingly variable weather patterns, which means all of us need to pitch in to help conserve the precious water supplies that we have,” Elder said.

“Now is a good time to check your faucets and toilets for leaks, and fix any you find inside your home. It’s also a good time to start planning how to remodel your yard this summer to save water outside.”

Denver Water’s website has free tips, including a step-by-step DIY Guide that can help you replace thirsty Kentucky bluegrass with water-smart plants, available at denverwater.org/Conserve.

In 2026, the utility will again be offering customers a limited number of discounts on Resource Central’s popular, water-wise Garden In A Box kits and turf removal.

It’s also important to water your plants and trees during dry winter stretches in the metro area.

It’s important to water trees and plants during dry periods in the winter months. Soaker hoses are a great way to efficiently water a tree. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Unseasonably warm December sets temperature records as Colorado #snowpack remains poor: #Drought conditions are continuing to spread across the Western Slope, reaching ‘exceptional’ levels in Eagle and Pitkin counties — The Sky-Hi News

Click the link to read the article on the Sky-Hi News website (Ryan Spencer). Here’s an excerpt:

January 5, 2026

Across Colorado, this past December was among the hottest ever recorded. Both Denver and Grand Junction recorded their second-hottest December on record, according to the National Weather Service. Steamboat Springs, where the period of record dates to 1893, had its hottest December ever, averaging about 30 degrees through the month.

Dillon townsite prior to construction of Dillon Reservoir via Denver Water

In Dillon, where the period of record dates back to 1910, this past December was also the second-warmest on record, with a monthly average temperature about 28 degrees, about one degree cooler than 1980, which was the hottest December…At one weather station in Vail, temperatures averaged about 26 degrees Fahrenheit last month, making the hottest December recorded in the period of record that dates back to 1985. In Aspen, the average monthly temperature in December was 30 degrees, compared to the normal average monthly temperature of about 22 degrees for that month…

Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map January 4, 2026.

Across the state, the snowpack was also at or near record lows in several river basins, including those where popular ski resorts are located. Statewide, the sat at 59% of the 30-year median as of Friday, ranking in at the 5th percentile, meaning that 95% of years on record had more snow at this time. The Roaring Fork Basin and the Yampa River Basin both ranked in at the 3rd percentile. Meanwhile, the Eagle River Basin and the Colorado-Kremmling to Glenwood Springs Basin both came in at the zeroth percentile, meaning that the snowpack is the worst on record.

Colorado Drought Monitor map December 30, 2025.

With low amounts of precipitation and hot weather, drought conditions continue to sweep over the Western Slope, according to the most recent U.S. Drought Monitor map. Substantial portions of Eagle and Pitkin counties are now facing exceptional and extreme drought. Extreme drought has also pushed into Grand County, while the rest of Northwestern Colorado is facing moderate to severe drought.

#Conservation studies findings on #Colorado’s Western Slope have lessons for water managers: Western Slope water users want Front Range to match cuts — Heather Sackett (AspenJournalism.org) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Colorado State University researcher Perry Cabot talks to a group about forage crops at the Fruita field station. Cabot studies the effects of irrigation withdrawal and forage crops that use less water. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):

December 12, 2025

The findings of recent water-conservation studies on the Western Slope could have implications for lawmakers and water managers as they plan for a future with less water.

Researchers from Colorado State University have found that removing irrigation water from high-elevation grass pastures for an entire season could have long-lasting effects and may not conserve much water compared with lower-elevation crops. Western Slope water users prefer conservation programs that don’t require them to withhold water for the entire irrigation season, and having the Front Range simultaneously reduce its water use may persuade more people to participate. Researchers also found that water users who are resistant to conservation programs don’t feel much individual responsibility to contribute to what is a Colorado River basinwide water shortage. 

“It’s not a simple economic calculus to get somebody to the table and get them to sign a contract for a conservation agreement,” said Seth Mason, a Carbondale-based hydrologist and one of the researchers. “It involves a lot of nuance. It involves a lot of thinking about tradeoffs.” 

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

Over the past 25 years, a historic drought and the effects of climate change have robbed the Colorado River of its flows, meaning there is increasing competition for a dwindling resource. In 2022, water levels in Lake Powell fell to their lowest point ever, prompting federal officials to call on the seven states that share the river for unprecedented levels of water conservation. 

The Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) have experimented for the past decade with pilot programs that pay agricultural water users to voluntarily and temporarily cut back by not irrigating some of their fields for a season or part of a season.

The most recent program was the federally funded System Conservation Pilot Program, which ran in the Upper Basin in 2023 and 2024, and saved about 100,000 acre-feet of water at a cost of $45 million. The Upper Basin has been facing mounting pressure to cut back on its use, and although some type of future conservation program seems certain, Upper Basin officials say conservation must be voluntary, not mandatory.

Despite dabbling in these pilot conservation programs, Upper Basin water managers have resisted calls for cuts, saying their water users already suffer shortages in dry years and blaming the plummeting reservoirs on the Lower Basin states (California, Nevada and Arizona). Plus, the Upper Basin has never used its entire allocation of 7.5 million acre-feet a year promised to it under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, while the Lower Basin uses more than its fair share. 

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

But as climate change continues to fuel shortages, makes a mockery of century-old agreements and pushes Colorado River management into crisis mode, the Upper Basin can no longer avoid scrutiny about how it uses water. 

“We need a stable system in order to protect rivers,” said Matt Rice, director of the Southwest region at environmental group American Rivers, which helped fund and conduct the research. “(Upper Basin conservation) is not a silver bullet. But it’s an important contributing factor, it’s politically important and it’s inevitable.”

Researchers from Colorado State University used this monitoring station to track water use on fields near Kremmling. Researchers have found that Western Slope water users are more likely to participate in conservation programs if there is a corresponding Front Range match in water use reduction. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Findings

Papers by the researchers outline how water savings on Colorado’s high-elevation grass pastures — which represent the majority of irrigated acres on the Western Slope — are much less than on lower-elevation fields with other annual crops. Elevation can be thought of as a proxy for temperature; fewer frost-free days means a shorter growing season and less water use by the plants. 

“Our results suggest that to get the equivalent conserved consumptive-use benefit that you might achieve on one acre of cornfield in Delta would require five acres of grass pasture if you were up near Granby, for example,” said Mason, who is a doctoral candidate at CSU. “This is a pretty important constraint as we’re thinking about what it means to do conservation in different locations across the West Slope.”

In addition to the science of water savings, Mason’s research also looked at the social aspects of how water users decide to participate in conservation programs. He surveyed 573 agricultural water users across the Western Slope and found that attitudes toward conservation and tendencies toward risk aversion — not just how much money was offered — played a role in participation. 

Many who said they would not participate had a low sense of individual responsibility to act and a limited sense of agency that they could meaningfully contribute to a basinwide problem.

If you don’t pay attention to the attitudes of water users, you could end up with an overly rosy picture of the likelihood of participation, Mason said.

“It may do well to think less about how you optimize conservation contracts on price and do more thinking about how you might structure public outreach campaigns to change hearts and minds, how you might shift language as a policymaker,” he said. “A lot of the commentary that we hear around us is that maybe this isn’t our problem, that this is the Lower Basin’s problem. [ed. emphasis mine] The more you hear that, the less likely you are to internalize a notion of responsibility.”

Mason also found that a corresponding reduction in Front Range water use may boost participation by Western Slope water users. The fact that Front Range water providers take about 500,000 acre-feet annually from the headwaters of the Colorado River is a sore spot for many on the Western Slope, who feel the growth of Front Range cities has come at their expense. These transmountain diversions can leave Western Slope streams depleted. 

Western Slope water users often describe feeling as if they have a target on their back as the quickest and easiest place to find water savings.

“I think they tend to be appreciative of notions that have some element of burden sharing built into them,” Mason said. “So they aren’t the only ones being looked at to contribute as part of a solution to a problem.”

Perry Cabot, a CSU researcher who studies the effects of irrigation withdrawal and forage crops that use less water, headed up a study on fields near Kremmling to see what happens when they aren’t irrigated for a full season or part of a season. The findings showed that fields where irrigation water was removed for the entire season produced less hay, even several years after full irrigation was resumed. Fields where water was removed for only part of the season had minimal yield loss and faster recovery. 

“In the full season, you can have a three-year legacy effect, so that’s where the risk really comes in if you’re a producer participating in these programs,” Cabot said. “For three years after, you’re not getting paid even though you’ve diminished that yield.”

At the CSU research station in Fruita, Cabot is studying a legume called sainfoin, a forage crop and potentially an alternative to grass or alfalfa. He said sainfoin shows promise as a drought-tolerant crop that can be cut early in the season, allowing producers to have their cake and eat it too: They could maintain the income from growing a crop, avoid some of the worst impacts of a full-season fallowing, and still participate in a partial-season conservation program. 

“I’d like to see flexible options that allow us to think about conservation happening on fields that still have green stuff out there,” Cabot said.

This field near Kremmling participated in an early study on the effects of removing irrigation water. Researchers found the effects of full-season fallowing can have lasting impacts. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Part of the solution

The Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District has been one of the loudest voices weighing in on conservation in recent years, helping to fund Cabot’s and Mason’s studies, as well as conducting its own. The River District, which represents 15 counties on the Western Slope, is not a fan of conservation programs, but it has long accepted their inevitability. It has advocated for local control and strict guidelines around a program’s implementation to avoid negative impacts to rural agricultural communities. 

River District General Manager Andy Mueller said there is still a lot of resistance to a conservation program in Colorado — especially if the saved water is being used downstream to fuel the growth of residential subdivisions, computer-chip factories and data centers in Arizona. In addition to wanting the Front Range to share their pain, Western Slope water users don’t want to make sacrifices for the benefit of the Lower Basin. [ed. emphasis mine]

“They want to be part of the solution, but they don’t want to suffer so that others can thrive,” Mueller said. “That’s what I keep hearing over and over again from our producers on the ground: They are willing to step up, but they want everybody to step up with them.”

Water experts agree Upper Basin conservation is not a quick solution that will keep the system from crashing. Complicated questions remain about how to make sure the conserved water gets to Lake Powell and how a program would be funded. 

And as recent studies show, the tricky social issues that influence program participation, multiseason impacts to fields when water is removed and the scant water savings from high-elevation pastures mean the state may struggle to contribute a meaningful amount of water to the Colorado River system through a conservation program. 

“If the dry conditions continue, it’s hard to produce the volumes of water that make a difference in that system,” Mueller said. “But are we willing to try? Absolutely. It has to be done really carefully.”

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

Warm weather boosts fishing, hurts skiing and water reserves in Southwest #Colorado — The #Durango Herald #snowpack #drought

Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map January 3, 2025.

Click the link to read the article on The Durango Herald website (Jessica Bowman). Here’s an excerpt:

December 30, 2025

All it takes is a quick step outside to confirm that, so far, winter in La Plata County – and across much of Southwest Colorado – is unseasonably warm. Durango set record-breaking highs on Dec. 24 and Dec. 25, when the temperature climbed to 60 degrees, 5 degrees warmer than previous records for those dates, according to in-town data from the National Weather Service. The warm temperatures have been accompanied by a drier-than-normal December and scarce early season snowfall. While it has impacted and raised concerns across sectors like cattle ranchers, water management and tourism – sectors largely dependent on winter weather – no one is throwing out hope for a good winter. [ed. emphasis mine]

Local businesses have been impacted by the weather differently – good or bad, dependent on the seasonal recreation it sells. Scant snowfall is bad news for powder hounds, and bad business for ski shops that depend on winter recreation business…And while ski-related businesses wait for snow, Durango’s fishing industry has seen increased activity, as warmer temperatures keep rivers accessible later into the season…If warm, dry conditions persist long-term, Glenn said, the outlook could shift. Low river levels and heightened wildfire risk would pose serious challenges for the fishing industry in future seasons…

For the region’s ranching community, winter precipitation is closely tied to long-term water security. Low snowpack can mean less water available once irrigation ditches reopen in the spring. Although the warm weather has limited snowfall so far, heavy rains in the fall helped replenish local reservoirs, providing some reassurance heading into summer, said Wayne Jefferies, president of the Archuleta Cattlemen’s Society…Lemon and Vallecito reservoirs are now nearly three-quarters full – a significant improvement from projections at the end of last summer…

Colorado Drought Monitor map December 30, 2025.

Still, Jefferies said a lack of snowfall remains concerning. If dry conditions persist into early 2026, reservoir levels alone may not be enough to offset reduced snowmelt. Ranchers – who often joke that they are “grass farmers” – rely heavily on snowmelt to recharge underground moisture that supports healthy forage growth. Beneath the surface, soil and gravel layers act like a sponge, [Wayne] Jefferies said. Snowmelt is needed to saturate that sponge before irrigation water and rain can effectively reach grasses. Without sufficient snow and spring runoff, those underground layers remain dry, he said. When irrigation begins, much of the water is absorbed below ground, leaving less available for grasses to grow. The result can be weaker forage, reduced grazing capacity and added strain on ranching operations. Jefferies added this isn’t new. Southwest Colorado has experienced persistent drought conditions for much of the past two decades, punctuated by only brief periods of relief…

Water managers, meanwhile, are entering winter in a stronger position than usual thanks to the fall floods. The October flooding caused reservoirs to rise rapidly. Vallecito Reservoir, which stores water for the Pine River Irrigation District, rose 25 feet in just a few days, said Ken Beck, PRID superintendent. The surplus of water reserves after a dry summer is a good buffer for next year, and has eased the stress of relying solely on winter precipitation, Beck said, although water supply is always subject to some degree of uncertainty.

President Trump vetoes bill to fund pipeline to bring clean water to southeast #Colorado: U.S. Representative Boebert’s Epstein vote, Colorado’s imprisonment of Tina Peters have drawn the president’s ire recently — The #Denver Post #ArkansasRiver #ColoradoRiver

Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.

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

December 31, 2025

House Resolution 131, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, both of Colorado, sought to jumpstart a project that has languished since 1962. The bill, one of two vetoed by Trump on Tuesday, would extend the repayment period for the project and lower the interest rate. It passed both chambers of Congress by voice vote earlier this year…Trump, who has recently lashed out at Colorado for a slew of grievances, cited the project’s $1.3 billion price tag and said it was supposed to be paid for by local municipalities — not the federal government — in his veto statement…

9News first reported the veto. In a statement to the news station, Boebert said, “If this administration wants to make its legacy blocking projects that deliver water to rural Americans, that’s on them.” She also told the network that she hopes “this veto has nothing to do with political retaliation for calling out corruption and demanding accountability. Americans deserve leadership that puts people over politics.”

Boebert, a Republican representing Colorado’s 4th Congressional District and a longtime ally of the president, recently broke with him by voting to mandate the release of the so-called Epstein files, a trove of documents about the notorious sex criminal with longtime ties to Trump. Trump has also singled out Colorado for retribution over the state’s imprisonment of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters.

Chris Woodka, senior policy and issues manager at the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which is overseeing the project, said his team is working with Colorado’s congressional delegation on next steps.

Map of the Arkansas River drainage basin. Created using USGS National Map and NASA SRTM data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79039596

A World Out of Balance — Brian Richter (SustainableWaters.org) #climate

Above: The Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. Future water flows through the canyon are now highly uncertain due to complications from a very low water level in Lake Powell upstream of the canyon, and concerns about the structural integrity of the lowest dam outlets at Glen Canyon Dam. This situation threatens the water security of major cities and highly productive farmland, and imperils extraordinary freshwater ecosystems. Photo by Brian Richter

Click the link to read the article on the Sustainable Waters website (Brian Richter).

December 31, 2025

‘Sustainability’ is a foundational tenet of modern natural resource management. The concept of sustainable development gained global recognition in 1987 when the United Nations’ Brundtland Commission published its report on Our Common Future, in which sustainable development was defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In simple terms, this means avoiding the depletion of natural resources and loss of species over time.

Brian Richter

Our research group has just published our third detailed assessment of water resources management in three major river basins in the western United States. Our three studies — focusing on the Colorado River, the Great Salt Lake basin, and the Rio Grande-Bravo — clearly document that water managers and political leaders are failing in their efforts to manage these water resources for long-term sustainability, meaning that they have not balanced water consumption with natural replenishment from snowmelt runoff, rainfall, and aquifer recharge. As a result, reservoir and groundwater levels are falling, rivers are shriveling, and numerous endangered species are in great jeopardy. The livelihoods and well-being of tens of millions of people dependent on these water systems, along with the extraordinary ecological systems and species sustained by these waters, are now at great risk.

As a Native American friend said recently, “our world is out of balance.”

These systemic failures share a common history with hundreds of other stressed river basins and aquifers around the planet. For thousands of years, the human populations dependent on each water source were small enough that water consumed for human endeavors had little to no impact on water sources and associated ecosystems, i.e., their use of water was ‘renewable’ and ‘sustainable.’ But over the course of the 20th century, the growth of human populations and associated food needs grew rapidly — largely without constraint or control — to the point of consuming all of the renewable annual water supplies in many river basins, including the three we studied. Then as we entered into the 21st century, climate warming began reducing the replenishment of rivers, lakes, and aquifers. The balance between water consumption and replenishment became overweighted on the consumption side as the replenishment side got lighter. Our world went out of balance.

The Risks of Continued Imbalance Are Very Frightening

The potential consequences of this imbalance are nothing short of horrific and dangerous in the three basins we studied. Here are some of the highlights from our trilogy of recent papers:

Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
  • Colorado River Basin: Since 2000, more water has been consumed than replenished in this basin in three out of every four years, on average. These recurring deficits in the basin’s annual water budget has been offset by depleting water stored in the basin’s reservoirs and aquifers, analogous to pulling money out of a savings account to make up for overdrafts in a checking account. As a result, the basin’s two biggest reservoirs — Lake Powell and Lake Mead — are now 70% empty. There is great concern that if the water level in Lake Powell drops below 3490′ elevation (see graph below), it could become physically impossible to release sufficient water through the Grand Canyon to meet the water needs of ~30 million people downstream. In a worst case scenario, the volume of water flowing out of Glen Canyon Dam could intermittently shrink to a trickle if the dam’s managers determine that continuous use of the lowest river outlets is too structurally risky and releases into the Grand Canyon must be drastically reduced. This calamity would further imperil unique freshwater ecosystems and wipe out the $50 million/year whitewater rafting industry in the Grand Canyon. We estimate that average annual water consumption needs to be reduced immediately by at least 13% below the recent 20-year average to rebalance water consumption with natural replenishment in this basin.
Credit: Sustainable Waters
Sunset from the western shore of Antelope Island State Park, Great Salt Lake, Utah, United States.. Sunset viewed from White Rock Bay, on the western shore of Antelope Island. Carrington Island is visible in the distance. By Ccmdav – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2032320
  • Great Salt Lake Basin: The lake has lost nearly half of its volume since 2000, dramatically shrinking the area of the lake’s surface and exposing extensive salt flats around the lake’s perimeter. Those salty soils are loaded with toxic heavy metals including arsenic, lead, and mercury. Recurring high winds blow that dangerous dust into the nostrils and lungs of more than two million people living in the Salt Lake City area. Brine shrimp living in the lake also suffer at low lake levels due to extreme salinity, greatly reducing the food supply for more than 10 million migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway and decimating production of brine shrimp eggs that are a critical feed source for the world’s aquaculture industry. The reduced evaporation from a shrinking lake also impacts the formation of storm clouds that drop the “world’s greatest snow” onto the Wasatch Mountains, site of the upcoming 2034 Winter Olympics. Water consumption in the basin needs to be rapidly reduced by 21% to stabilize the lake.
Credit: Sustainable Waters
Rio Grande, Colorado | National Park Service
  • Rio Grande-Bravo: Reservoir storage in this large international basin is now three-quarters empty. New Mexico’s reservoirs hold only 13% of their capacity, presenting a “Day Zero” scenario in which the remaining reservoir storage could be wiped out in just one or two more bad water years. This has created heated political conflict: New Mexico has been failing to deliver the volume of water it owes to Texas under the Rio Grande Compact, and Mexico has been unable to deliver sufficient water to the US under the terms of an international water treaty. Also of great concern is plundering of the vast groundwater reserves in the basin that has accelerated as surface water supplies have run short (see map of groundwater depletion below). Only half of the water being consumed for human endeavors in this basin is sustained by natural replenishment; the other half depends on unsustainably depleting reservoirs and groundwater aquifers and drying the river.
Credit: Sustainable Waters

Governance Failures

The response to these crises has been woefully inadequate. Instead of addressing these imbalances at the scale and speed necessary to avert catastrophe, political leaders and water managers have been unable or unwilling to mobilize sufficient corrective actions to rebalance these water budgets. From my observations, there are multiple interacting causes of these governance failures:

  • There is continuing belief among many political leaders and water users that more bountiful replenishment years in the future will restore the massive accumulated deficits in reservoir and aquifer volumes. This belief runs contrary to the evidence of 25+ years of declining water trends and many scientific assessments warning that replenishment will continue to decline due to climate warming and aridification.
  • Water users have not been adequately or truthfully educated about the potential consequences of continued depletion of reservoirs and aquifers, and the rapid rate at which risks are increasing. The lack of honest communication and misunderstanding of pending dangers perpetuates complacency and inaction. What is needed is full and honest disclosure about the degree to which water consumption is out of balance with replenishment, and which water users and economic sectors are at great risk from deepening water shortages in future years.
  • Fearing hostile reaction to any mandated cutbacks in water consumption, political leaders lack the will to force or incentivize the actions required to rebalance consumption with (diminishing) replenishment. There are no plans in the three basins described above for correcting imbalances at the necessary scale and speed. Legislative appropriations to address these crises have been orders of magnitude smaller than what is needed. These meager appropriations serve to placate the general public by giving the impression that responsible actions are being taken, serving as a smoke screen hiding the monstrous dangers on the horizon.
  • Instead of facing the reality that consumption needs to be speedily reduced, water managers continue to flout pipe dreams for augmenting water supplies such as long distance water importation schemes (bring water from the Great Lakes! bring water from the Yukon!), or desalinating ocean water, or recycling water ‘produced’ from oil and gas fracking operations. There is no truthful reporting of how much additional water can be secured by these schemes, how much that water will cost, and who will be able to afford it. Irrigated agriculture is by far the dominant water consumer in the three basins we studied, but there is no way that farmers are going to be able to afford these water augmentation dreams.

The Way Forward: Sustainability Principles

Throughout my career I’ve always said that one should not deliver criticism without also offering solutions. In my Chasing Water book I outlined seven principles for sustainable water management.

Seven Principles

Credit: Sustainable Waters

I continue to believe in this recipe for water sustainability. But I need to offer some important clarifications:

  • Principle #1 is arguably the most important. Given that water consumed on farms is typically much greater than is consumed in cities, it is critically important to meaningfully engage farmers in water planning because they will bear the greatest burden of any limitations placed on water consumption. They can bring their best ideas forward, and in doing so help to ensure that water plans address both their concerns and their abilities to adapt. But it is essential that any water plans be built upon an honest and technically credible assessment of how much water will be available in the future.
  • Principles #2 and #3 should not be permanent, static volumes. Under a changing climate, the imposed limits need to be adaptive to changing water availability; during wet periods more water can be consumed, but lesser volumes should be allocated during dry times. I believe that the best way to do this is to set a 5-year fixed volume (a “cap“) on annual consumption based on an average of how much water has been available in the recent 5 years, and then allocate portions or shares of that volume to each user (i.e., to each geopolitical unit, community, or individual water user). The cap volume needs to be updated every five years. I like a 5-year adaptive cap because it gives water users enough time to plan and implement changing allocations while not allowing any overconsumption to cause severe problems before readjusting the cap.
  • Principle #6 acknowledges the reality that water conservation measures can be costly for both rural and urban users, and can impact the profitability of farms. Subsidization of these expenses or losses will be essential in rebalancing these water systems for sustainability, enabling both urban and rural communities to transition to lower water use as rapidly as possible, and with least economic and social impact. The price tags may seem exorbitant or impossible at first blush, but the costs of continued unsustainable water use will be much, much greater.
  • Principle #7 requires investment in continuously monitoring reservoir, aquifer, and river levels, and enforcement of water allocations. One of the most important indicators of management performance is whether reservoir or aquifer levels or annual river flow volumes are declining. If this is the case, allocations need to be adjusted until balance returns.

Passing the Torch to a New Generation

Today is my retirement day.

In my Chasing Water book, I mused about the fact that when I was born in 1956, the western US was in the grips of one of the longest and most severe droughts in American history. It seems fitting to have spent my professional life focusing on water scarcity and environmental flows.

But I now find it quite depressing to acknowledge that our society has still not become any better at sustainable water management. Many river basins, including the three summarized above, are now facing their most dangerous crises.

When I was teaching water sustainability at the university level, I would point out to my students that in my birth year of 1956 virtually all of the Colorado River’s water was being consumed. Why we allowed greater and greater use of water in that river basin for another half-century continues to astonish and bewilder me to this day. Why is our species so incapable of recognizing clear and present dangers and so inept at responding accordingly?

But I leave you eternally hopeful. The students that I’ve taught, and the many younger adults I’ve met through my work in more than 40 countries, have the intellect and the passion to bend the arc of water management back towards sustainability, if we give them the chance. I urge them to take up this charge, to find ways to gain positions of authority and power to lead toward better days ahead.

I’ll leave these next generations with one bit of advice: The management of water cannot remain solely in the hands of hydrologists and engineers and economists. We need legions of young new professionals that understand social science, political science, behavioral science. And we need artists.

After all, managing water is about people, and the human spirit.

Adiós

Can beavers help heal burn scars after wildfires? #Colorado researchers built their own dams to find out — The #Denver Post

A beaver dam analog in Rocky Mountain National Park’s Kawuneeche Valley. Photo by Eric Brown, courtesy of Northern Water

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

December 30, 2025

High in the mountains west of Fort Collins, teams of scientists and engineers are pretending to be beavers.

They may not be swimming or chewing trees, but researchers with the U.S. Forest Service and Colorado State University are building [beaver dam analogs] in burn scars to study how wetlands created by the dams impact ecosystem restoration and water quality after wildfires. The research led by Tim Fegel is some of the first of its kind, he said. Scientists have studied how meadow and wetland restoration affects wildlife habitat, but there’s been little exploration of how wetlands created by beaver dams could change water quality post-wildfire, said Fegel, a biogeochemistry lab manager with the Forest Service who is leading the project.

“It’s kind of a brave new world for us with this type of work,” said Fegel, who is also a doctoral candidate at Colorado State University.

Wildfires destabilize soils and make them less capable of absorbing rain and snowmelt, resulting in higher runoffs and increased flood probability. High volumes of water, combined with a lack of vegetation roots to hold soil in place, mean that more sediment and debris travel downstream, impacting water quality and water treatment systems.

A burnt sign on Larimer County Road 103 near Chambers Lake. The fire started in the area near Cameron Peak, which it is named after. The fire burned over 200,000 acres during its three-month run. Photo courtesy of Kate Stahla via the University of Northern Colorado

Five years ago, the Cameron Peak and East Troublesome wildfires ripped through Colorado’s northern mountains, charring more than 620 square miles across watersheds that provide water for hundreds of thousands of people who live along the Front Range. That’s where Fegel and other researchers think the [beaver dam analogs] can help. Fegel hopes the work will provide land managers and water utilities with more data and, potentially, another water-quality tool. The team installed beaver-style dams across the Cache la Poudre and Willow Creek watersheds — both burned in the 2020 wildfires — to help slow water flow and instead spread the water over a floodplain. Engineers designed the dams, which are generally made of large logs hammered into the earth with branches and other material.

Ash and silt pollute the Cache la Poudre River after the High Park Fire September 2012. Photo credit: USDA

Gross Dam’s successful year: Dam raise 95% complete — Jay Adams (DenverWater.org) #BoulderCreek #FraserRiver #ColoradoRiver #COriver #SouthPlatteRiver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Jay Adams):

December 12, 2025

Workers raise dam 109 feet in 2025. Next year’s goal: Reaching the top.

The Denver Water team working on Gross Dam in Boulder County is celebrating a successful year after the dam raise is 95% complete.

“In 2025, we raised the height of the dam by 109 feet above the original structure,” said Jeff Martin, Denver Water’s program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. “We have 22 feet left to go to reach the new height and we’re on track to reach that in 2026.”

The dam-raising aspect of the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project wrapped up for the season on Nov. 14, due to the drop in temperatures. The project is designed to nearly triple the water storage capacity of Gross Reservoir.

In 2025, workers raised the height of Gross Dam by 109 feet. The final 22 feet will be completed in 2026 to reach the dam’s new height of 471 feet. Photo credit: Denver Water.

“We have to stop placing roller-compacted concrete when the temperatures drop below freezing,” said Casey Dick, deputy program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.

“To prepare for winter, we put blankets on top of the new concrete to keep it from getting too cold. That’s because if the concrete freezes while it is still curing, it can lead to a weakened final product.”

Work associated with the dam raise will resume in spring 2026, when the weather warms up enough to complete the final 22 feet.

Protective “blankets” were placed on top of the dam to insulate the new concrete, so it does not fully cure over the cold, winter months. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Once that work is complete, the dam will be 471 feet tall, which is 131 feet higher than the original. The completed dam also will be longer across its crest, or top. The original crest was 1,050 feet long; the higher dam will have a crest that stretches 2,040 feet from one side of the canyon to the other.


Learn more about the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.


This year marked the second year of dam raising construction work at Gross.

As of December 2025, workers had placed more than 730,000 cubic yards of concrete. To put that in perspective, Empower Stadium at Mile High, where the Denver Broncos play their home football games, required just 29,000 cubic yards of concrete to build, about 4% of the concrete placed so far on Gross Dam.

Protective “blankets” were placed on top of the dam to insulate the new concrete, so it does not fully cure over the cold, winter months. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Roller-compacted concrete is a special mix of concrete that allows crews to place it on the dam and then spread it out. The concrete is firm enough to be able to drive machinery on top of it. The process is a fast and efficient method of raising the dam. During the construction work, crews raised the height of the dam by about 1 foot per day.

Construction crews use GPS technology and survey equipment to keep track of how high they’ve raised the dam.

“The way we keep track of the elevation gain is that the bulldozers are equipped with GPS-grade control technology, which ensures that each layer of concrete is spread to the correct thickness,” Dick said.

“Once the concrete is rolled and vibrated into place, each layer ends up being 1 foot thick. It’s then checked by surveyors with their equipment to verify the exact elevation.”

The bulldozers are equipped with GPS-grade control technology to monitor the height of the concrete as it is spread across the top of the dam and keep track of the elevation. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Work won’t completely stop over the winter.

Mechanical and pipe work will be done inside the dam, and crews will build a stilling basin at the base of the dam. The basin’s function is to slow the speed of water coming down the dam’s spillway and safely redirect the water into South Boulder Creek.

Work on the stilling basin at the base of the dam will continue over the winter. The stilling basin is designed to slow the flow of water coming down the spillway and channel it into the creek. Photo credit: Denver Water.

“This season was a huge success, and our team met a ton of challenges in raising Gross Dam,” Martin said. “We had legal challenges and adverse weather challenges. We also had wildfire safety operation challenges that shut down our power supply up here. Despite all those setbacks, the dedicated team of 500 men and women rose to the challenge. I’d just like to thank everybody who committed themselves to this project and helped us make 2025 a success.”

Jeff Martin, Denver Water’s program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, stands at the south side of the dam. Once completed, the dam will reach up to white line on the rock wall. Photo credit: Denver Water.

#ColoradoRiver Continues to Bring Unlikely Parties Together at the Colorado River Water Users Association — Daniel Anderson (Getches-Wilkinson Center) #CRWUA2025 #COriver #aridifcation

Image by Lex Padilla

Click the link to read the article on the Getches-Wilkinson Center website (Daniel Anderson):

December 29, 2025

The Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference met in Las Vegas [December 16-18, 2025]. Each year, over a thousand government officials, members of the press, municipal water district leaders, water engineers, ranchers, and tribal members meet to discuss the management of the mighty Colorado River. Hanging over the three-day conference was a stalemate between the upper and lower basin states over how to manage the Colorado River after current operational guidelines expire at the end of 2026.

Throughout the conference, the states’ inability to reach a consensus deal produced ripple effects. The stalemate held back progress on both near term shortage concerns (experts predict that Lake Powell will be only 28% full at the end of the ’25-’26 water year) and long-range planning, such as the development of the next “Minute” agreement between the United States and Mexico.

The closing act of CRWUA 2025 was an orderly (and familiar) report from each of the basin states’ principal negotiators that their state is stretched thin but remains committed to finding a consensus agreement. This final session had no discussion or Q&A. The basin states now have until February 14th to provide the Bureau of Reclamation with their consensus deal, which would presumably be added to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) draft that is expected to be released in early January. With time running short, many worry that public participation in the EIS process – vital to informed decision-making – will be greatly reduced.

Still, as Rhett Larson of Arizona State University said on the first day of the conference, “Desert rivers bring people together.” Tribal governments continue to innovate in the areas of conservation and storage, even in spite of ongoing challenges to meaningful access of federally reserved tribal water rights. For instance, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, or CRIT, shared news of a Resolution and Water Code recently passed by their Tribal Council which work together to recognize the Colorado River’s personhood under Tribal law. This provides CRIT with a holistic framework for on-reservation use and requires the consideration of the living nature of the Colorado River in off-reservation water leasing decisions. John Bezdek, who represented CRIT at the conference, put it this way: “If laws are an expression of values, then this tribal council is expressing to the world the importance of protecting and preserving the lifeblood of the Colorado River.” Among others, Celene Hawkins of The Nature Conservancy and Kate Ryan of the Colorado Water Trust also shared about the unique, and often unlikely, partnerships formed to protect stream flows and the riparian environment across the Colorado River basin.

Notwithstanding the basin states’ current deadlock, one theme rang true at CRWUA 2025: Despite the dire hydrologic and administrative realities facing decision-makers today, the Colorado River continues to bring unlikely parties together.

Map credit: AGU

With stakes sky high, 3 takeaways from this year’s #ColoradoRiver conference — The Las Vegas Review-Journal #CRWUA2025 #COriver #aridification

Left to right: Becky Mitchell, Tom Buschatzke, Brandon Gebhart, John Entsminger, Keith Burron, Gene Shawcroft, JB Hamby, Estevan López. Photo credit: Yes To Tap via X (Twitter)

Click the link to read the article on the Las Vegas Review-Journal website (Alan Halaly). Here’s an excerpt:

December 19, 2025

The single most important gathering of Colorado River Basin officials came and went — with no significant announcements regarding the often frustrating yet crucial seven-state negotiations for how to divvy up the river over the next 20 years…Here are three takeaways as the states wrestle with basinwide overuse of water, declining river flows due to a warming world and how to meet the federal government’s Valentine’s Day deadline for a consensus-based deal.

States far from deal — with less than 60 days left

Unlike last year’s conference, the seven states agreed to sit on a panel that was added to the agenda for the last day. The ballroom was still packed for the early morning session. That’s because the stakes are high for states to meet Burgum’s Feb. 14 deadline for a seven-state agreement. Should they not deliver one, Burgum could intervene and states are likely to sue. The Lower Basin states have agreed to shoulder the brunt of a massive deficit the system faces that totals 1.5 million acre-feet, or almost 489 billion gallons. However, the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming say they don’t have more water to give should cuts in their jurisdictions become necessary. Conflicts exist with state laws, too…

Temporary deal could be on the table to avoid courtroom

Nevada’s governor-appointed negotiator, John Entsminger, spoke last on the panel and called out the other six states for failing to cede any ground on further conservation in their remarks. Without some compromise from each state on these long-standing arguments, the negotiations are “going nowhere,” he said. While the states have been expected up until this point to deliver a 20-year deal, Entsminger suggested on the panel that a temporary, five-year deal could be on the table to comply with the Feb. 14 deadline.

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

Poor outlook sending shockwaves throughout basin

The underlying issues of the Colorado River are making this moment much more precarious. Several experts presented a dismal picture for the system at large. Carly Jerla, senior water resource program manager at the Bureau of Reclamation, said the agency’s most recent projections place flows into Lake Powell anywhere between 44 percent to 73 percent of average this upcoming year. And since 2006, that replenishment of the reservoir has declined about 15 percent because of poor snow years, evaporative losses and more…

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

Jack Schmidt, who leads the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University, has published several papers this year alongside a group of experts throughout the basin. By his estimation, should snowpack in the Rocky Mountains fail to impress again this winter, water managers may be blowing through a crucial buffer that ensures water can be released from Lake Powell into Lake Mead — and that hydropower generation can continue.

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

New report outlines the crisis on the #ColoradoRiver and the ongoing threats: Analysis comes out as water users meet in Las Vegas — The Deseret News #CRWUA2025 #COriver #aridification

A wall bleached, and stained, in Lake Powell. Photo credit Brent Gardner-Smith @AspenJournalism.

Click the link to read the article on The Deseret News website (Amy Joi O’Donoghue). Here’s an excerpt:

December 16, 2025

A new report from Colorado Law’s Colorado River Research Group warns the Colorado River Basin is “out of time,” describing conditions so severe they threaten the region’s water supply, economy and governance. Called “Colorado River Insights 2025: Dancing with Deadpool,” the report details a dire assessment of the basin’s worsening crisis and offers options for reform. According to the report, reservoirs that once stored four years of river flows are now more than two-thirds empty. The authors note a single dry year or two could push Lake Powell and Lake Mead below critical thresholds, jeopardizing hydropower, water deliveries, and even physical conveyance downstream. The report concludes that current operating rules through 2026 are unlikely to prevent this scenario. 

“This report underscores that the basin is out of time, the crisis is no longer theoretical,” said Douglas Kenney, director of the Western Water Policy Program of the Getches-Wilkinson Center at the University of Colorado Law School and chair of the Colorado River Research Group.

“Post-2026 negotiations must produce durable, equitable, climate-realistic solutions — and they must do so urgently. The message is stark: the Colorado River system is now dancing with Deadpool.”

Among the key challenges:

  • Severe shortage risk: The authors warn that if the next two winters are dry, combined usable storage in Powell and Mead could fall below 4 million acre-feet — far short of what’s needed for water supply and compact obligations.
  • Climate-driven decline: Rising temperatures, shrinking snowpack efficiency and ocean-atmosphere interactions are reducing runoff and precipitation. 
  • Safety nets collapsing: Groundwater reserves are rapidly depleting, while federal capacity — funding, staffing and science programs — are eroding. Interstate cooperation is fraying, and litigation may be on the table.

Authors stress that many challenges are self-inflicted and, in their view, solvable with technical, legal and financial tools already available.

Colorado River Basin Plumbing. Credit: Lester Doré/Mary Moran via Dustin Mulvaney and Twitter

The Year in Water 2025: The #ColoradoRiver — Brett Walton (circleofblue.org) #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Circle of Blue website (Brett Walton):

December 24, 2025

The year is ending with the Colorado River at a critical juncture.

Figure 4. Graph showing active storage in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and in Powell+Mead between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies

The big reservoirs Mead and Powell remain perilously low and the seven states that share the basin have been unable to agree on cuts that would reduce their reliance on the shrinking river.

Reservoir operating rules expire at the end of 2026. If no agreement is reached the federal government could step in, or the states could take their chances in court. It’s a risky move that no one in principle seems to want. Yet brinkmanship and entrenched positions have stymied compromise.

Native America in the Colorado River Basin. Credit: USBR

The basin’s Indian tribes, which collectively have rights to more than a quarter of its recent average annual flow, are adamant that their interests – and more broadly, the river itself – be protected. “Any progress made in the negotiations to date is merely rationing a reduced supply, not actively managing and augmenting it as a shared resource with strategies and tools that can benefit the entire basin,” the leaders of the Gila River Indian Community wrote on November 12.

The Colorado River Indian Tribes, whose riverside reservation includes lands in Arizona and California, voted in November to extend legal personhood to the river under tribal law.

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

National Park Sites Along #ColoradoRiver Grappling With Declining Water — National Parks Traveler #COriver #aridification

National Park Service officials at Lake Powell (above) and Lake Mead are grappling with declining Colorado River levels/NPS file.

Click the link to read the article on the National Parks Traveler website. Here’s an excerpt:

December 23, 2025

At Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada, “the National Park Service’s focus remains on sustaining boating access and visitor services across the park, including operations at Hemenway Harbor, Callville Bay Marina, Echo Bay, Temple Bar Marina, and South Cove to the extent feasible,” the National Parks Traveler was told.

“As part of that effort, construction began at Hemenway Harbor last summer to extend the launch ramp and help maintain access as conditions change. Lake levels are closely monitored, and NPS operations continue to be adjusted as needed to support safe recreation while protecting park resources,” the Park Service said.

Two years ago Lake Mead officials adopted a plan to “maintain recreational motorboat access in the event water declines to 950 feet.” As of Tuesday, the elevation was 1061.76 feet, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. At Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, which straddles the Utah-Arizona border, the Park Service has spent more than $100 million in recent years to extend boat ramps and relocate a takeout for river runners coming down the Colorado River through Canyonlands National Park.

“The public is encouraged to make informed decisions before they plan their visit to Lake Powell by viewing lake level data on the Bureau of Reclamation website at 40-Day Data | Water Operations | UC Region | Bureau of Reclamation and projected reservoir levels at 24-Month Study | Upper Colorado Basin | Bureau of Reclamation,” the Park Servicxe said.

Fig. 1. The Colorado River Basin covers parts of seven U.S. states as well as part of Mexico. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey

Feds demand compromise on #ColoradoRiver while states flounder amid water shortage — Jennifer Solis (States Newsroom) #COriver #aridification #CRWUA2025

Colorado River negotiators are seen, from left to right: Becky Mitchell (Colorado), Tom Buschatzke (Arizona), Brandon Gebhart (Wyoming), and John Entsminger (Nevada). (Photo by Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)

Click the link to read the article on the States Newsroom website (Jennifer Solis):

December 25, 2025

Western states that rely on the Colorado River have less than two months to agree on how to manage the troubled river – and pressure is mounting as the federal government pushes for a compromise and a troubling forecast for the river’s two biggest reservoirs looms.

Top water officials for the seven Colorado River Basin states — Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming — gathered for the three-day Colorado River Water Users Association conference at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas last week.

Colorado River states have until Feb. 14 to reach a new water sharing agreement before current operating rules expire at the end of 2026 —or the federal government will step in with their own plan.

Despite the fast-approaching deadline, states reiterated many of the same issues they did during previous years at the conference, namely, which water users will need to sacrifice more water to keep the Colorado River stable as overallocation, climate change, and rising demand sucks the river dry.

Nevada’s chief river negotiator and general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority John Entsminger offered a succinct but sharp assessment of the negotiations during a panel discussion Thursday.

“If you distill down what my six partners just said, I believe there’s three common things: Here’s all the great things my state has done. Here’s how hard/impossible it is to do any more. And here are all the reasons why other people should have to do more,” Entsminger said.

“As long as we keep polishing those arguments and repeating them to each other, we are going nowhere,” he continued.

The seven states that share the river’s flows have been deadlocked for nearly two years over how to govern the waterway through the coming decades — even as water levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell are forecasted to reach record lows after two straight years of disappointing snowpack across the West.

The Colorado River’s headwaters saw a weak snowpack last winter, contributing to one of the worst spring runoff seasons on record. Water flow into the river this year was only 56% of average, leading to significant reductions in Lake Powell, according to the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation.

Federal officials also released a troubling forecast of expected flows for the river in 2026, which were significantly lower than previous predictions. Projections from the Bureau of Reclamation found the Colorado River’s inflow next year would likely be 27% lower than normal, with worst-case scenarios predicting even lower flows.

Without a strong winter snow season, it’s possible Lake Powell’s levels could drop low enough to cease hydropower production by next October — a scenario that would also limit the department’s ability to send water downstream to Arizona, California and Nevada.

The federal government has refrained from imposing its own plan for the river, preferring the seven basin states reach consensus themselves. But the Interior Department has ramped up pressure on states to reach a deal.

The Bureau of Reclamation’s Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron said he and other federal officials have intensified efforts to bring states to a consensus, flying out West every other week since early April to meet with the seven states’ river negotiators.

“The expiration of the current agreements is not a distant horizon. It’s less than a year away. The time to act is now,” said Cameron.

Within the next few weeks, the Bureau of Reclamation will release a range of proposals to replace the river’s current operating rules, but said they would not identify which set of operating guidelines the federal government would prefer

During the conference, negotiators for the seven states repeated that they are still committed to finding a consensus despite missing previous deadlines. California’s biggest water districts said they were willing to “set aside many of their legal positions” in order to reach a seven-state agreement.

However, a long-term multidecade strategy for managing low river flows is likely out of reach.

“I went into this process…advocating strenuously for a 20- to 30-year deal,” said Entsminger. “I no longer believe that’s possible with the time we have left and with the hydrology that we’re facing.”

Entsminger said the “best possible outcome at this juncture” is a short-term five-year deal that sets new rules around water releases and storage at Lakes Powell and Mead.

During a panel of state negotiators, states highlighted water conservation efforts they have undertaken to reduce water use and protect the river, but all explained why their state can’t take on more cuts.

Figure 4. Graph showing active storage in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and in Powell+Mead between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies

“Our savings accounts are totally depleted,” said Utah’s’s river negotiator, Gene Shawcroft. “Reserviours were full when we started this process. They’re empty now.”

One of the biggest disagreements between the Upper and Lower Basin states is over which faction should have to cut back on their water use during dry years.

The Lower Basin – Nevada, Arizona, and California – have agreed to take the first 1.5 million acre-feet in water cuts needed to address deficits and evaporation that are reducing flows in the river, but say any additional cuts during dry years must be shared with upstream states. Under the current agreement, Lower Basin states must take mandetory cuts when water levels in Lakes Powell and Mead are low.

The Upper Basin, which is not subject to mandatory cuts under the current guidelines, say they already use much less water than downstream states and should not face additional cuts during shortages.

Any more cuts to water users in downstream states during dry years will be politically perilous, explained Arizona’s top negotiator, Tom Buschatzke. Arizona requires the state legislature to approve any changes to Colorado River management rules impacting the state.

Buschatzke called for the Upper Basin – Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah – to split any additional water cuts with the Lower Basin states 50-50.

“We need conservation in the Upper Basin that is verifiable and mandatory,” Buschatzke said, during the panel.

“I have to go to my legislature and get that approval,” he continued. “And I will say right now, I do not think there is anything on the table from the Upper Basin that would compel me to do that today.”

New Mexico’s river negotiator, Estevan López, responded, “I think we’ve been pretty clear. We are unwilling to require additional mandatory reductions on our water users.”

This story was originally produced by Nevada Current, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Stateline, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

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

#ColoradoRiver Reservoir Storage: Where We Stand — Jack Schmidt, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Kathryn Sorensen, Katherine Tara (Colorado River Research Group) #COriver #aridification #LakeMead #LakePowell

Click the link to read the report from “Dancing with Dead Poll” on the Getches-Wilkinson website (Jack Schmidt1, Anne Castle2, John Fleck3, Eric Kuhn4, Kathryn Sorensen5, Katherine Tara6) Here’s Chapter 1:

In Brief

The rains of mid-October caused significant flooding in the San Juan River basin and increased reservoir storage throughout that basin and in Lake Powell.7 However, basinwide reservoir storage remains low, and the October rainfall offerings were insufficient to alleviate the peril of declining overall water supply.

While the attention of the Basin’s water management community remains focused on the thus far unsuccessful effort to forge a seven-state agreement on future long-term operating rules, the Basin continues to face the risk of short-term crisis. If winter 2025-2026 is relatively dry and inflow to Lake Powell and other Upper Basin reservoirs is similar to that of 2024-2025, low reservoir levels in summer 2026 will challenge water supply management, hydropower production, and environmental river management. Under such a scenario, it is likely that less than 4 million acre feet in Lake Powell and Lake Mead would be realistically available for use during the nine months between late summer 2026 and the onset of snowmelt runoff in 2027. If winter 2026-2027 is also dry, water supply would be further constrained. The present reservoir operating rules that remain in place through 2026 are insufficient to avert this potential water supply crisis. Action to further reduce consumptive water use across the basin is needed now.

How did we get here?

The Basin’s reservoirs were nearly full in late summer 1999,8 acting as a buffer against dry years and serving their fundamental purpose. At that time, the 46 Colorado River Basin reservoirs tracked by the Bureau of Reclamation in its Hydro database held 59.5 million acre feet (maf) in active storage,9 more than four times the Basin’s average consumptive uses and losses in the 1990s (Fig. 1).10 Beginning in 2000, five years of below average runoff11 resulted in a 46% reduction in storage in the Basin’s reservoirs.12 During that time, the reduction in storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead accounted for 90% of the Basin’s total loss in storage, because most of the Basin’s water was stored in those two reservoirs.

Figure 1. Graph showing active storage in Colorado River basin reservoirs between January 1, 2021, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies

During the next fourteen and a half years, the amount of storage in the Basin’s reservoirs changed little, despite four years of large runoff (2005, 2011, 2017, and 2019). The increase in storage during the few wet years was nearly completely consumed during the more frequent dry years, and active storage in Powell and Mead was only 5% greater in late July 2019 than it had been at the beginning of 2005.13 When dry years of low runoff returned between 2020 and 2022,14 the Basin’s water users had little of the buffer that they had at the beginning of the 21st century. Combined active storage of Powell and Mead was halved again between mid-July 2019 and mid-March 2023,15 reducing the combined contents of these two reservoirs to only 27% of what it had been in late summer 1999.16 If next winter’s runoff is as low as it was in 2025 17 and consumptive use is not significantly reduced, Powell and Mead will drop below the previous unprecedented low stand of mid-March 2023.

How much of active storage is realistically available?

One of the challenges of the current water supply crisis is uncertainty over how much water is actually available in the reservoirs for use. Although Reclamation regularly reports the amount of water in active storage, our analysis identifies realistically accessible storage as the more appropriate metric of the amount of water that is available for use without challenging the integrity of the dam structures, efficient production of hydroelectricity, or implementation of environmental river management protocols, especially in Grand Canyon.

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

Reservoir water that can be physically released from a dam is termed active storage. In virtually all reservoirs, there is a small amount of water below the elevation of the lowest outlets–the infamously named dead pool. Active storage is everything above dead pool–water that can be physically released through the reservoir’s lowest outlets.

We know, however, that not all the water above dead pool is readily usable. Engineering assessments have indicated that infrastructure constraints at Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams require that higher reservoir elevations be maintained, thereby constraining utilization of the lowest part of the active storage. We defined realistically accessible storage as the volume of water whose release does not impact previously identified engineering or hydropower-production constraints.

At Glen Canyon Dam, for example, the lowest release tubes, called the “river outlets,” are at elevation 3370 ft. Reservoir water below that elevation cannot be released and constitutes the dead pool. Above the river outlets, at elevation 3490 ft, are the intakes for the power generating turbines, known as the penstocks. The penstocks are the conduits that withdraw water from the reservoir into the powerplant to generate electricity, and thereafter discharge the water to the Colorado River downstream from the dam. When the reservoir falls below the elevation of the penstocks, the river outlets are the only means of discharging water through the dam (Fig. 2). The river outlets are not routinely used to release water; virtually all normal releases go through the penstocks.

Experience has shown that the river outlets were not designed for continuous release at the discharge rates required to meet downstream obligations. If the river outlets were to be used continuously, there is significant concern that structural damage to those outlets could occur.18

Accordingly, Reclamation has determined that it will take steps to avoid Lake Powell elevation declining below 3500 ft, considered a safe elevation for continuous withdrawal of water through the penstocks without risk of harm caused by cavitation to the turbines that produce electricity.19 Similarly at Lake Mead, Reclamation has indicated its intent to protect the reservoir from going below elevation 1000 ft.20

Figure 2. Diagram showing schematic of Glen Canyon Dam elevations at which Lake Powell’s waters can be released downstream, and the volumes of water defined by these elevations. Active storage between 3370 and 3500 ft is not realistically accessible for continuous downstream release without risk to engineering infrastructure at the dam and powerplant. Hydroelectricity cannot be produced below 3490 ft, and 3500 ft has been established as a minimum safe level for intake through the penstocks.

The total volume of active storage in Lake Powell above dead pool but below elevation 3500 ft is 4.2 maf. Release of this stored water is constrained, because it cannot be safely withdrawn through the penstocks, and continuous use of the river outlets is considered unwise. At Hoover Dam, there is 4.5 maf of active storage below elevation 1000 ft, also not realistically accessible. In these two largest reservoirs of the Colorado River Basin, there is a total of 8.7 maf of active storage below the elevations required for safe and efficient operation of the infrastructure (Fig. 3). Thus, of the 14.9 maf of active storage at Lake Powell and Lake Mead on November 15, 2025, only 42% of that active storage, 6.2 maf, was realistically accessible.

Figure 4. Graph showing active storage in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and in Powell+Mead between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies

Implementation of environmental river management protocols at Glen Canyon Dam are constrained when the elevation of Lake Powell is low. Since 1996, controlled floods, administratively termed High Flow Experiments (HFEs), have been conducted at Glen Canyon Dam to rebuild eddy sandbars along the river’s margin and conserve sediment. HFEs are now an essential component of the Long Term Experimental and Management Plan for Glen Canyon Dam.21 Reclamation did not, however, release an HFE in 2021 or 2022 when sediment conditions were sufficient to trigger implementation of the HFE Protocol because Lake Powell was low. In early October of those years, when decisions about implementing HFEs were made, active storage in Lake Powell was 7.3 maf (elevation 3545.3 ft) and 5.8 maf (elevation 3529.4) in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Reclamation cited low storage as the reason not to release those controlled floods.22 Although administrative decisions change with time, it is doubtful that any HFEs would be released if Lake Powell fell below elevation 3500 ft.

Low reservoir levels also impact Reclamation’s ability to control the invasion into Grand Canyon of smallmouth bass, and other warm water reservoir fish species, that dominate the recreational fish community of Lake Powell. These nonnatives are significant predators and competitors of endangered or threatened native fish species and live near the surface of Lake Powell. At moderate and low reservoir elevations, water withdrawn through the penstocks (termed fish entrainment) includes some fish that survive passage through the powerplant turbines and are delivered into the Colorado River downstream from the dam. These fish have the potential to successfully spawn downstream from the dam if river temperatures are relatively warm, such as occurs when Lake Powell is low and water is only released through the penstocks.

This infographic shows how as Lake Powell water levels decline, warm water containing smallmouth bass gets closer to intakes delivering water through the Glen Canyon Dam to the Grand Canyon downstream. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey

Reclamation has implemented a protocol to eliminate the potential of smallmouth bass population establishment in Grand Canyon by releasing some cooler water through the river outlets when the water released through the penstocks is warm. The objective of these Cool Mix releases is to disrupt smallmouth bass spawning downstream from the dam. Water released through the river outlets bypasses the powerplant and does not produce electricity, and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) must purchase electricity on the open market to replace electricity that the agency contractually committed to provide. WAPA estimated that the cost of replacing contracted electricity was $18.9 million23 and $6.5 million24 during the Cool Mix releases of 2024 and 2025, respectively. The risk of fish entrainment from Lake Powell increases significantly as Lake Powell’s elevation drops, and the need to implement the Cool Mix protocol therefore increases. The risk is minimized if Lake Powell is higher than 3590 ft (10.8 maf active storage) and significantly increases when Lake

Powell is below 3530 ft (5.8 maf active storage).25 When water is no longer withdrawn through the penstocks, the risk of entrainment decreases, because all water passes through the lower elevation river outlets.

What would happen if the coming winter and spring snowmelt is similar to 2024-2025?

In an analysis released in September 2025, we reviewed what might happen in the coming year if runoff is the same as it was last year and Basin consumptive uses and losses are the average of the past four years. We used a simple mass balance approach and estimated the available water supply and consumptive uses and losses, and calculated the difference between the two. The available water supply is the sum of the natural flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry plus inflows that occur in the Lower Basin, primarily in Grand Canyon. Consumptive uses and losses are those associated with diversions that support irrigated agriculture, municipal and industrial use, water exported from the Basin by trans-basin diversions, and reservoir evaporation. The difference between supply and use is the net effect on reservoir storage. We then estimated the effect of the Basinwide imbalance between supply and use on the combined realistically accessible storage in Powell and Mead, i.e., above elevations 3500 and 1000 ft in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, respectively.

In the scenario that we considered, we assumed that natural flow at Lees Ferry in the coming year will be 8.5 maf, the same as in Water Year 2025,26 and inflow in the Grand Canyon is 0.8 maf. Thus, we assumed a total supply in the coming water year of 9.3 maf. We analyzed a scenario wherein consumptive uses and losses in the United States portion of the Colorado River would be the average of the most recent four years (2021-2024), namely 11.5 maf,27 and we assumed that 1.4 maf would be delivered to Mexico.

The gap between supply and use under this scenario is 3.6 maf, which would have to be met by additional withdrawals from reservoir storage. Assuming that 75% of this deficit would be withdrawn from Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2.7 maf), then the realistically accessible storage in these two reservoirs would be reduced to 3.5 maf, slightly less than the 21st century low that occurred in mid-March 2023 (Fig. 3). Our analysis of this one realistically low inflow scenario–the coming year’s supply is just like last year’s and consumptive uses and losses are the average of the past four years–is consistent with, but less dire than, Reclamation’s most recent 24-Month Study minimum probable forecast28 for the coming year. That study projects that total storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead will be drawn down by 3.8 maf during the next year, 2.9 maf from Lake Powell alone. Under Reclamation’s minimum probable projection, the elevation of Lake Powell would drop below 3500 ft in August 2026. All of the remaining realistically accessible storage, 2.5 maf in the scenario modeled by Reclamation, would be in Lake Mead. Under the assumption that the current operating rules remain in effect in 2027, Reclamation’s projection is that the elevation of Lake Powell would stay below elevation 3500 ft through at least July 2027.

Further complicating the situation is that the status and ownership of water in Lake Mead at very low storage levels is unclear. Lake Mead holds (a) water available for allocation in the Lower Division under the prior appropriation system, (b) at least some amount of the water due to Mexico under treaty obligations, and (c) assigned water. Assigned water, commonly known as Intentionally Created Surplus or ICS, is water that can be delivered independent of the Lower Basin’s prior appropriation water allocation system and that is held in Lake Mead by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of a specific entity. Assigned water also includes delayed water deliveries held for the benefit of the Republic of Mexico that can be delivered subsequently in amounts in excess of the U.S. treaty obligation to Mexico of 1.5 maf/year. Owners of assigned water have the right to withdraw that water when Lake Mead water levels are above 1025 ft, but entitlement holders in the priority system also have a right to water deliveries, as does Mexico via treaty.

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

So long as there is water in Lake Mead adequate to fulfill all required and requested deliveries, no conflict arises. However, as the amount of water in Lake Mead decreases, the potential for a clash increases. International treaty obligations take precedence over deliveries pursuant to the priority system within the U.S., but it is unclear how competing priorities and entitlements will be resolved within the U.S. Holders of higher-priority entitlements would likely contest the Secretary’s authority to reduce their deliveries while withholding assigned water from the priority system. As of the end of 2024, there was approximately 3.5 maf of assigned water in Lake Mead, almost the same as the amount of realistically accessible water in storage above elevation 1000 ft. If Lake Powell ever became a “run of the river” facility, the potential for conflict over access to water in Lake Mead would also increase.

Implications

We are not weather forecasters and have no crystal ball that reveals the coming winter snowpack. We are not predicting that our assumptions about the gap between supply and use/losses and the resulting drawdown of Lake Powell and Lake Mead will inevitably occur. Our scenario is merely one of many possibilities, but our assumptions are sufficiently realistic to serve as a warning of how close the Basin is to a true water crisis. Our results should serve as a call to action. We need to adopt additional and immediate measures across the Basin to reduce water consumption even further during the next year, well before any new guidelines are in place.

Taking steps now to decrease consumptive uses across the Basin will reduce the need to implement draconian measures next summer or in the following years. Every acre foot saved now is an acre foot available for our future selves, slowing the rate of reservoir decline and creating more room for creative Colorado River management solutions. If, on the other hand, we delay reducing water usage and addressing reservoir drawdown, we may find ourselves in more significant distress at the beginning of the Post-2026 guidelines. As we wrote in October, continued reduction in Lake Powell releases also brings the Basin perilously close to the Colorado River Compact “tripwire,” the point at which the ten-year rolling total of water delivered from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin might trigger litigation asking the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret long avoided ambiguities in rules written a century ago by the drafters of the Colorado River Compact.

We do not presume to make specific recommendations about the steps that should be taken immediately to reduce consumptive use in the Basin. There are many smart and experienced individuals in the Colorado River community whose sole focus is on the mechanics of operating the Colorado River water system and the impacts of operations on their particular constituencies.

We can, however, highlight the available mechanisms for reduction of consumptive use that should be explored for their immediate utility in diminishing the looming jeopardy to the overall system. Such mechanisms include:

    • Releases from federal reservoirs upstream of Lake Powell to stabilize storage in Lake Powell.
      • Such releases would be made pursuant to the Drought Response Operations Agreement or similar successor agreement or pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior’s inherent authority to operate federal water projects. Obviously, such releases do nothing to solve the imbalance between supply and demand and will create additional depletions in the system when these reservoirs are refilled. Such releases can, however, provide a temporary bulwark against exceptionally low levels in Lake Powell.
    • Additional reductions in deliveries from Lake Mead under the Secretary’s Section 5 delivery contracts in the Lower Basin, as authorized by Section II.B.3 of the decree in Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964).
      • By reducing deliveries from Lake Mead, releases from Lake Powell could also be reduced without the risk of causing exceptionally low storage in Lake Mead.
    • Extension of system conservation programs in the Lower Basin, and facilitation of an Upper Basin water conservation program, both funded through compensation from federal or state governments or other water users in the Basin, and requiring specific quantities of saved water.
      • Relying on compensated annual forbearance alone is unsustainable, however, because it is not feasible to pay water users in the long term to forgo the use of water that nature no longer supplies. Permanent reductions in consumptive use are both necessary and also the most productive use of limited funding. In addition, to be effective, changes to state law in some Upper Basin states may be necessary, including recognition of water conservation as a beneficial use for the purpose of avoiding litigation concerning the Colorado River Compact. Finally, authorization for shepherding of saved water to the intended place of storage is essential, including across state borders.
    • Reductions in deliveries to Mexico through negotiation of a new minute.
    • Reductions in consumptive use by federal water projects in the Upper Basin, if allowable pursuant to the Secretary’s authority.
      • It should be noted, however, that in order to benefit the Colorado River system, any such reductions must be recognized at the point of diversion and shepherded to the intended place of storage.

    It is obvious that any long-term agreement for future Colorado River operations among the Basin States should be evaluated based on its immediate ability to reverse the storage declines experienced in recent years and anticipated in the future under similar hydrology. An agreement that does not reliably balance supply with uses and losses is not sustainable. Similarly, any operational alternative proffered by the Department of the Interior must achieve the same objectives. When our reservoir storage is as low as it is now, we have very little buffer to rely on–we simply cannot use more water than nature provides.

    The focus within the Basin and among its principal water users and state negotiators has been on the formulation of the Post-2026 guidelines for operation of the river. But action is necessary now to avoid creating conditions that will doom the next set of operating principles by initiating their implementation when the Basin is in full crisis mode. No governmental administration, state or federal, wants to see the Colorado River system fail on its watch. Negotiators have worked tirelessly to reach agreement, yet have come up short. The hour is late. The Secretary must take decisive action.

    Photo Credit: John Weishei via the Colorado River Research Group

    Footnotes

    1 Director, Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, former Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.

    2 Senior Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School, former US Commissioner, Upper Colorado River Commission, former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, US Dept. of the Interior.

    3 Writer in Residence, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.

    4 Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District.

    5 Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University, former Director, Phoenix Water Services.

    6 Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.

    7 Between 9 October and 8 November, five reservoirs in the San Juan River basin gained 204,000 af in total storage, especially in Navajo and Vallecito Reservoirs. Between 9 October and 20 October, Lake Powell gained 105,000 af in active storage, and the total contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead increased by 108,000 af between September 25 and October 27.

    8 Schmidt, J.C., Yackulic, C.B., and Kuhn, E. 2023. The Colorado River water crisis: its origin and the future. WIREs Water 2023;e1672.

    9 Total active storage in the Basin’s 46 reservoirs was at its maximum on 24 August 1999.

    10 Total Basin consumptive uses and losses, including deliveries to Mexico, averaged 14.2 maf/yr between 1990 and 1999.

    11 Average natural flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, estimated by Reclamation, was 9.5 (Water Year, WY) and 9.6 (Calendar Year, CY) maf/ yr between 2000 and 2004. Average natural flow for the preceding ten years (1990-1999) was 15.0 maf/yr (WY, CY). Average natural flow for the entire 21st century between 2000 and 2025 was 12.3 maf/yr (WY, CY).

    12 Total active storage of the Basin’s reservoirs was 32.0 maf on 19 October 2004.

    13 Total active storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead was 23.0 maf on 1 January 2005 and was 24.2 maf on 28 July 2019, a 5% increase.

    14 Average natural flow at Lees Ferry averaged 9.0 (WY) and 9.2 (CY) maf/yr between 2020 and 2022.

    15 Total active storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead was 12.7 maf on 14 March 2023, 48% less than it had been on 28 July 2019.

    16 Total active storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead was 47.7 maf on 19 September 1999.

    17 Reclamation estimates that natural flow at Lees Ferry was 8.5 (WY, CY) maf in 2025.

    18 Bureau of Reclamation, Establishment of Interim Operating Guidance for Glen Canyon Dam during Low Reservoir Levels at Lake Powell (2024).18

    19 Bureau of Reclamation, Supplement to 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, Record of Decision (2024) (SEIS ROD).

    20 Id.

    21 U.S. Department of the Interior, Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, December 2016.

    22 Salter, G. and 7 co-authors, 2025, Reservoir operational strategies for sustainable sand management in the Colorado River. Water Resources Research 61, e2024WR038315.

    23 Ploussard, Q., Pavičević, M., and Yu, A. 2025. Financial analysis of the smallmouth bass flows implemented at the Glen Canyon Dam during Water Year 2024. Argonne National Laboratory report ANL 25/44, 17 pp.

    24 C. Ellsworth, Western Area Power Administration, pers. commun.

    25 Eppenhimer, D. E., Yackulic, C. B., Bruckerhoff, L. A., Wang, J., Young, K. L., Bestgen, K. R., Mihalevich, B. A., and Schmidt, J. C. 2025. Declining reservoir elevations following a two-decade drought increase water temperatures and non-native fish passage facilitating a downstream invasion. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 82:1-19.

    26 During the 21st century, natural flow at Lees Ferry was lower than this amount in 2002, 2012, 2018, and 2021, meaning that this is not a worst case scenario.

    27 In 2024, consumptive uses and losses in the Upper and Lower Basins totaled 11.4 maf.

    28 October 2025 24-Month Study Minimum Probable Forecast. For a discussion of why the Minimum Probable forecast has become a more reliable indicator of the future than the Most Probable 24-Month Study, see Awaiting the Colorado River 24-Month Study, Aug. 14, 2025.

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

    Happy Birth Anniversary Mrs. Gulch! Your hand in mine, we walk the miles.

    John and Mrs. Gulch in Coyote Gulch May 2000. Note the socks drying on the backpack, that old Jansport.

    Mrs. Gulch (Early 1973): Since we’re taking the summer off for a honeymoon let’s go backpacking.

    Me: No thanks, I backpacked during my time in the Boy Scouts before being asked to find another outlet for my Junior High attitude.

    Mrs. Gulch: What didn’t you like about backpacking.

    Me: At the top of the list — I don’t like cooking over a campfire.

    Mrs. Gulch: We can get a backpacking stove.

    Me: A what?

    Mrs. Gulch: A backpacking stove, they use white gas that you carry in a Sigg bottle. Let’s go to the backpacking store, things have changed since you were a Boy Scout.

    Joe Ruffert helping Coyote Gulch out of the mud along the Escalante River sometime in the early 1980s. We were on our way to meet Mrs. Gulch at Coyote Gulch. Photo credit: Mike Orr

    That was my introduction to Mrs. Gulch’s knowledge of backpacking. Of course she was way more experienced than I was but didn’t gloat. She wanted to be on the trail and she wanted to take me along. That opened up a world for me and I became obsessed with backpacking — mountains and desert — it didn’t matter, and much of my time during winter, from then on, was spent looking over USGS topo maps, trying to find a cool route to follow. Subsequent years you could find us on the trail in Colorado, Utah, Montana, Washington, and New Mexico most often with my good friend Joe. We took many folks on their first backcountry trek over the years and alternated mountains then desert, year after year.

    There is a standout trek for me. Four of us started in Harris Wash, a trib of the Escalante River and walked to Coyote Gulch, another trib of the river. Mrs. Gulch and another friend met us there with a food drop so that she and I could go back upriver to our VW bus parked at the Harris Wash trailhead.

    During the hike to Coyote Gulch we met up with hoards of biting flies until below 20 Mile Wash. It was miserable at times but we learned to get in the shade, kill a few, slather up with DEET, cool off and hydrate.

    When Mrs. Gulch and I left the group in Coyote Gulch my friend Don asked, “You’re going back through the flies?”

    When she and I hit the fly space upstream we ended up hiking from early morning until nighttime to get done as quickly as possible. The last day I was pretty agitated and tired from the trek and I missed the exit to Harris Wash. I was worried and anxious also and a little (maybe a lot) of panic set in. I’ve mentioned before how much I depended on Mrs. Gulch’s wise counsel during our 50 years of marriage and that day it showed up again.

    Mrs. Gulch (calmly): Let’s get in the shade, kill a few flies. You can get your compass and the topo sheet out of your pack and figure out where we are.

    Me: These flies! We missed Harris Wash? We need to get back to the bus and back to Denver! Blah, blah, blah!

    Mrs. Gulch (repeating herself calmly): Look there’s a shady alcove over there, let’s go there, kill a few flies, and you can get your compass and the topo sheet out of your pack and figure out where we are.

    My Christmas present — messing with maps, see if you can find Harris Wash and Silver Falls Creek. Map: Escalante, Utah. USGS Historical Topographic Map Collection

    After orienting the map and taking a good look at the terrain I saw a side canyon (Silver Falls Creek) coming into the Escalante River canyon just upstream and found it on the map. As it turns out we just needed to go back downstream a bit (just around the bend) and we would be at the confluence with Harris Wash. We didn’t miss it by much.

    Wise counsel indeed.

    Happy 71st birth anniversary Mrs. Gulch and thank you for your humor and wise counsel over the years.

    Feds issue ‘sobering’ #ColoradoRiver outlook — #Aspen Daily News #COriver #aridification #CRWUA2025

    Anne Castle, Jeff Kightlinger, Jim Lochhead at the 2025 CRWUA Conference. Photo credit: Water Mark (@OtayMark)

    Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Daily News website (Austin Corona). Here’s an excerpt:

    December 17, 2025

    Federal officials have released a “sobering” forecast of 2026 water levels in the Colorado River, with expected flows plummeting from previous predictions. Precipitation later in the winter could turn those dire forecasts around, officials say, but the current outlook is grim for a river already flirting with crisis.  Officials published the new forecast on Monday, only a day before negotiators and stakeholders from the river’s basin states gathered in Las Vegas for a three-day conference. The federal government has given states until February to agree on a longer-term strategy for managing low river flows. The Colorado River’s flow in 2026 (specifically, the unregulated inflow to Lake Powell) could be 27% lower than normal, according to the most probable scenario in the December forecast, with worst-case scenarios predicting even lower flows. The projection has worsened estimates released in November (16% lower than normal in most probable scenarios).

    “We all know Mother Nature is a trickster and can often confound our expectations. We certainly hope she intends to do that this year,” said Wayne Pullan, the Bureau of Reclamation’s regional director for the Upper Colorado River Basin, on Tuesday. “But December’s outlook is troubling.”

    The bureau, which manages federal dams, will delay water releases at Lake Powell to conserve supplies in the reservoir during the dry winter months in 2026, Pullan said. Even with those efforts, however, the lake’s water levels could fall to critical levels in 2027 as another disappointing year hits the basin. A bad water year in 2026 would compound already poor conditions from 2025, when river flows have been less than half of normal. The new forecast increases the possibility that water levels in Lake Powell could drop below the intakes for hydropower turbines and that releases from the lake could fall below the annual average required to meet the requirements of the 1922 Colorado River Compact, which governs water allocation between the seven states that use the river. Without above-average flows in future years to bring averages back up, or an interstate deal on how to manage drought, those low releases could set the stage for a legal battle on the river.

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

    Federal Water Tap: #ColoradoRiver states have been given less than two months to agree on how to share water cuts from the shrinking river — Brett Walton (circleofblue.org) #COriver #aridification #CRWUA2025

    Click the link to read the article on the Circle of Blue website (Brett Walton):

    December 22, 2025

    The Rundown

    • Colorado River states have been given less than two months to agree on how to share water cuts from the shrinking river.
    • Homeland Security waives environmental laws to speed the construction of a border wall in parts of New Mexico.
    • A federal judge proclaims federal authority over the contentious Line 5 oil pipeline that crosses the Great Lakes.
    • U.S., Mexican governments sign Tijuana River sewage cleanup agreement.
    • The House passes a bill to change environmental reviews for infrastructure permitting.
    • USGS study finds lower water levels in Colorado’s Blue Mesa reservoir the cause of increased toxic algal blooms.

    And lastly, a draft EIS for post-2026 Colorado River reservoir operations, when current rules expire, will be published in the coming weeks.

    “Let me be clear, cooperation is better than litigation. Litigation consumes time, resources, and relationships. It also increases uncertainty and delays progress. The only certainty around litigation in the Colorado River basin is a bunch of water lawyers are going to be able to put their children and grandchildren through graduate school. There are much better ways to spend several hundred million dollars.” – Scott Cameron, acting commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, speaking at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference on December 17, 2025. Cameron encouraged the states to reach an agreement on water cuts and reservoir operating rules instead of suing each other.

    By the Numbers

    February 14: New Interior Department deadline for the seven Colorado River states to reach an agreement on water cuts and reservoir operations. If the states fail at that, Interior could assert its own authority. There could also be lawsuits. A short-term agreement might be necessary.

    The deadline, according to Interior’s Andrea Travnicek, is for several reasons. It gives states time to pass legislation, if necessary. It provides time for consultation with Mexico and the basin’s tribes. And it allows for reservoir operating decisions in 2027 to be set this fall.

    “Time is of the essence, and it is time to be able to adjust those stakes, to arrange so compromises can be made,” Travnicek said.

    News Briefs

    Line 5 Oil Pipeline Court Case
    A U.S. district judge ruled that the federal government, not the state of Michigan, has authority over the contentious Line 5 oil pipeline that crosses the Great Lakes at the Straits of Mackinac.

    Michigan’s top officials have attempted to shut down Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 since 2020 when Gov. Gretchen Witmer revoked the company’s easement.

    In his ruling, Judge Robert Jonker determined that the federal Pipeline Safety Act gives the U.S. government the sole authority over Line 5’s continued operation, the Associated Press reports.

    In context: Momentous Court Decisions Near for Line 5 Oil Pipeline

    Tijuana River Sewage Pollution Cleanup
    U.S. and Mexican representatives signed an agreement that will facilitate the cleanup of chronic sewage pollution in the Tijuana River, a shared waterway.

    Line 5 Oil Pipeline Court Case
    A U.S. district judge ruled that the federal government, not the state of Michigan, has authority over the contentious Line 5 oil pipeline that crosses the Great Lakes at the Straits of Mackinac.

    Michigan’s top officials have attempted to shut down Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 since 2020 when Gov. Gretchen Witmer revoked the company’s easement.

    In his ruling, Judge Robert Jonker determined that the federal Pipeline Safety Act gives the U.S. government the sole authority over Line 5’s continued operation, the Associated Press reports.

    In context: Momentous Court Decisions Near for Line 5 Oil Pipeline

    Tijuana River Sewage Pollution Cleanup
    U.S. and Mexican representatives signed an agreement that will facilitate the cleanup of chronic sewage pollution in the Tijuana River, a shared waterway.

    Called Minute 333, the agreement outlines actions and sets timelines. A joint work group will assess project engineering and feasibility studies. Mexico will build a wastewater treatment plant by December 2028 and a sediment control basin by winter 2026-27. The agreement also addresses monitoring, planning, and data sharing.

    Permitting and Land Use Bills
    House Republicans used the week before the holiday break to pass a bill that changes infrastructure permitting processes.

    The SPEED Act, which passed with support from 11 Democrats, changes the National Environmental Policy Act and the environmental reviews it requires for major federal projects. It restricts reviews to immediate project impacts, sets timelines, and limits lawsuits.

    “On net, these reforms are likely to make it easier to build energy infrastructure in the United States,” asserts the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    Border Wall
    Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is waiving environmental laws in order to speed the construction of a border wall in parts of New Mexico near El Paso, Texas.

    The affected laws include the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and others.

    Studies and Reports

    Mississippi River Recap
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a December state of the Mississippi River report, noting how drought conditions this year have influenced operations on the country’s largest river system.

    The Corps authorized construction of an underwater dam that was completed in October in order to impede the upstream movement of salty water from the Gulf of Mexico.

    Harmful Algal Blooms in Colorado Reservoir
    Blue Mesa is the largest reservoir in Colorado and is part of the Colorado River basin water storage system.

    The U.S. Geological Survey investigated why Blue Mesa has been experiencing toxic algal blooms in recent years. Its report concluded that warmer water temperatures enabled by lower water levels are the likely cause.

    The affected laws include the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and others.

    Studies and Reports

    Mississippi River Recap
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a December state of the Mississippi River report, noting how drought conditions this year have influenced operations on the country’s largest river system.

    The Corps authorized construction of an underwater dam that was completed in October in order to impede the upstream movement of salty water from the Gulf of Mexico.

    Harmful Algal Blooms in Colorado Reservoir
    Blue Mesa is the largest reservoir in Colorado and is part of the Colorado River basin water storage system.

    The U.S. Geological Survey investigated why Blue Mesa has been experiencing toxic algal blooms in recent years. Its report concluded that warmer water temperatures enabled by lower water levels are the likely cause.

    Reducing nutrient inflows is unlikely to help, the researchers said. There are naturally occurring phosphorus inputs and the algae can fix nitrogen from the air.

    The best solution might be keeping the reservoir high enough, the report says. That will not be easy in a drying and warming region with competing water demands.

    On the Radar

    Colorado River Draft EIS Coming Soon
    In the coming weeks – in early January if not by the end of the year – the Bureau of Reclamation will publish a draft environmental impact statement for changes to how the big Colorado River reservoirs will be managed.

    Reclamation began its environmental review about two and a half years ago. The agency had hoped to slot a seven-state consensus agreement into the document. But since there is no agreement, the document will instead describe a “broad range” of options, said Carly Jerla of Reclamation, who spoke at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference.

    The draft will not select a preferred option, Jerla said. Instead that will come in the final version.

    “We’ve set up a draft EIS that reflects a range of carefully crafted alternatives to enable the further innovation and the ability of the basin to come to a consensus agreement to be able to adopt in time for the 2027 operations,” Jerla said.

    Federal Water Tap is a weekly digest spotting trends in U.S. government water policy. To get more water news, follow Circle of Blue on Twitter and sign up for our newsletter.

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

    #ColoradoRiver water negotiators appear no closer to long-term agreement — The Associated Press #COriver #aridification #CRWUA2025

    The Colorado River flows through Gore Canyon in Colorado. Photo: Mitch Tobin/The Water Desk

    Click the link to read the article on the Associated Press website (Jessica Hill). Here’s an excerpt:

    December 18, 2025

    The seven states that rely on the Colorado River to supply farms and cities across the U.S. West appear no closer to reaching a consensus on a long-term plan for sharing the dwindling resource. The river’s future was the center of discussions this week at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas, where water leaders from California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming gathered alongside federal and tribal officials. It comes after the states blew past a November deadline for a new plan to deal with drought and water shortages after 2026, when current guidelines expire. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has set a new deadline of Feb. 14.  Nevada’s lead negotiator said it is unlikely the states will reach agreement that quickly. 

    “As we sit here mid-December with a looming February deadline, I don’t see any clear path to a long-term deal, but I do see a path to the possibility of a shorter-term deal to keep us out of court,” John Entsminger of the Southern Nevada Water Authority told The Associated Press.

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

    The federal government continues to refrain from coming up with its own solution — preferring the seven basin states reach consensus themselves. If they don’t, a federally imposed plan could leave parties unhappy and result in costly, lengthy litigation. Not only is this water fight between the upper and lower basins, individual municipalities, tribal nations and water agencies have their own stakes in this battle. California, which has the largest share of Colorado River water, has over 200 water agencies alone, each with their own customers.

    “It’s a rabbit hole you can dive down in, and it is incredibly complex,” said Noah Garrison, a water researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.

    Lower Basin states pitched a reduction of 1.5 million acre-feet per year to cover a structural deficit that occurs when water evaporates or is absorbed into the ground as it flows downstream. An acre-foot is enough water to supply two to three households a year. But they want to see a similar contribution from the Upper Basin. The Upper Basin states, however, don’t think they should have to make additional cuts because they already don’t use their full share of the water and are legally obligated to send a certain amount of water downstream.

    “Our water users feel that pain,” said Estevan López, New Mexico’s representative for the Upper Colorado River Commission.

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

    December water forecast a sobering backdrop to #ColoradoRiver conference: Feds lay out tools for dealing with falling reservoir levels — Heather Sackett (AspenJournlism.org) #COriver #aridification #CRWUA2025

    Lake Powell is seen from the air in October 2022. The December 24-month study from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation projects Powell could drop below the threshold needed to make hydropower in 2026. CREDIT: ALEXANDER HEILNER/THE WATER DESK

    Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):

    December 18, 2025

    Federal water officials addressed the increasingly grim river conditions and laid out their options for dealing with plummeting reservoir levels over the first two days of the largest annual gathering of water managers in the Colorado River Basin.

    On Monday, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released its monthly report, which projects a two-year hydrology outlook for the operation of the nation’s two largest reservoirs: Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The report provided a sobering backdrop to the Colorado River Water Users Association conference at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas.

    Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map December 18, 2025. via the NRCS.

    With the slow start to winter in the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming), the report showed a drop in Lake Powell’s projected 2026 inflow of 1 million acre-feet since the November forecast. Under the “minimum” possible inflow, Lake Powell would fall below the surface-elevation level of 3,490 feet needed to generate hydropower by October 2026 and stay there until spring runoff briefly bumps up reservoir levels in summer 2027; but the water level would again dip below 3,490 in the fall of 2027. 

    Under the “most probable” forecast, the reservoir’s level stays above minimum power pool, but falls below the target elevation of 3,525 until the 2027 runoff. (Reservoir levels below the target elevation trigger more drastic emergency actions.)  The reservoir is currently about 28% full, down from 37% at this time last year.

    Wayne Pullan, regional director for the bureau’s Upper Basin, called the December projections troubling.

    “That outlook is sobering for all of us,” Pullan said at Tuesday’s meeting of the Upper Colorado River Commission. 

    Snowpack, which is lagging across the Upper Basin, hovered at around 61% of median Wednesday. Snowpack in the headwaters of the Colorado River was 53% of median.

    The Colorado River basin has been locked in the grip of a megadrought since the turn of the century. Climate change and relentless demand have fueled shortages, pushed reservoirs to all-time lows and sent water managers scrambling. 

    Pullan laid out four tools that the Bureau of Reclamation can use to respond to the projected low water levels to prevent the surface of Lake Powell at the Glen Canyon Dam from falling below 3,500 feet in elevation. 

    This 2023 diagram shows the tubes through which Lake Powell’s fish can pass through to the section of the Colorado River that flows through the Grand Canyon. Credit: USGS and Reclamation 2023

    The first tool is shifting some winter releases to the summer months when runoff into the reservoir will compensate for those releases. The second is releasing water from upstream reservoirs to boost Lake Powell. The third is reducing releases when water levels hit a certain trigger elevation. 

    Representatives from the Upper Basin and Lower Basin (Arizona, California and Nevada), which share the river, have been in talks for two years — with long periods of being deadlocked in disagreement — about how to manage the river after the current guidelines expire at the end of 2026. The 2007 guidelines set annual Lake Powell and Lake Mead releases based on reservoir levels and did not go far enough to prevent them from being drawn down during consecutive dry years.

    “We have learned that if we failed at all in these last 25 years, it might have been that our vision wasn’t sufficiently pessimistic,” Pullan said.

    States’ representatives have said they are still committed to finding a consensus after they blew past a Nov. 11 deadline to come up with an outline of a plan. Federal officials have set a second deadline of Feb. 14 for the states to submit a detailed plan. 

    While water managers across the basin wait for an agreement from the states, federal officials are moving ahead with the National Environmental Protection Act review process and crafting an environmental impact statement for future reservoir operations. Reclamation officials said that they plan to release a draft EIS around the end of the year and that the alternatives analyzed in the EIS will be broad enough that they would capture any seven-state agreement. The draft EIS will not choose a preferred alternative.

    “Probably all of you have heard us say, ad nauseum, this emphasis on creating a broad range of alternatives,” Carly Jerla, a senior water resource program manager at the Bureau of Reclamation, said Wednesday. “We really went about this by taking input over the last almost two years from you all … to craft a broad range that really reflects the ideas on how to operate the system.”

    Wayne Pullan, Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Basin Regional Director, speaks at the meeting of the Upper Colorado River Commission at the Colorado River Water Users Association Conference on Tuesday in Las Vegas. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

    Not a routine water source

    This isn’t the first time the basin has experienced dire straits. In 2021, as Lake Powell flirted with falling below minimum power pool, the Bureau of Reclamation made 181,000 acre-feet in emergency releases from three Upper Basin reservoirs — Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Blue Mesa — to protect critical Lake Powell elevations. 

    These reservoirs are part of the Colorado River Storage Project, and their primary purpose is to control the flows of the Colorado River. But the unilateral action by the feds rubbed Upper Basin water managers the wrong way. The 36,000 acre-feet released from Blue Mesa cut short the boating season on Colorado’s largest reservoir, which is on the Gunnison River.

    On Tuesday, Colorado’s representative, Becky Mitchell, said Upper Basin reservoirs are not a routine water source for the Lower Basin.

    “I appreciate as we’re in critical and dire situations how we use our resources to protect our infrastructure, but we have to shift,” Mitchell said. “Our biggest resource is post-2026 and figuring out how do we do this in a way that doesn’t create those to be routine water sources.”

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

    So far, the basin has avoided the worst outcomes by getting last-minute reprieves in the form of wet years in 2019 and 2023. But overall, Jerla said, the Colorado River can expect to see persistent dry years and challenging conditions in the future, and water managers will need more adaptive, flexible solutions. 

    “(This is) really our last year together operating under the existing agreements, kind of stretching the flexibilities and the bounds and stability which those agreements provide,” she said.

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

    A River That Millions Rely on for Water Is on the Brink. A Deal to Save It Isn’t — Wyatt Myskow, Blanca Begert, Jake Bolster (InsideClimateNews.org) #CRWUA2025 #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

    The Colorado River fills Glen Canyon, forming Lake Powell, the nation’s second-largest reservoir. The reservoir could drop to a new record low in 2026 if conditions remain dry in the Southwestern watershed. (Alexander Heilner/The Water Desk with aerial support from LightHawk)

    Click the link to read the article on the Inside Climate News website (Wyatt Myskow, Blanca Begert, Jake Bolster):

    December 19, 2025

    At the Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference in Las Vegas, Colorado River Basin states remain at an impasse over how to cut their water use as Lake Mead and Lake Powell verge on record lows.

    The Colorado River Basin is, quite literally, 50 feet away from collapse, and an agreement to save it is nowhere in sight. 

    Water titans clashed at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas this week, where negotiators from each of the seven Colorado River Basin states outlined what they have done to protect the river—and pointed fingers at each other, demanding more. 

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

    Talks over how to manage the river after 2026, when current drought mitigation guidelines expire, began two years ago. Federal deadlines have come and gone, and the stakes are higher than ever as climate change and overuse continue to push the river that 40 million people rely on to the edge. Still, the states are refusing to budge. 

    “It’s now 2025, we’re here in a different hotel a couple years later and the same problems are on the table. In the last two years, we’ve been spinning our wheels,” said JB Hamby, California’s lead negotiator, at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference.“Time has been wasted, and like water, that’s a very precious resource.”

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

    The Colorado River flows from Wyoming to Mexico, supplying water to seven U.S. states, two Mexican states and 30 tribes. But the bedrock law guiding its management, the 1922 Colorado River Compact, overestimated how much water the river could provide, leading to state allocations that promised more than was ultimately available. The nation’s two largest reservoirs, lakes Mead and Powell, which for decades have met the excess demand driven by overly optimistic allocations, are at the brink. Lake Mead is 33 percent full; Powell is just 28 percent full. If the latter’s water levels drop by an additional 50 feet, the water behind Glen Canyon Dam would be trapped, limiting deliveries to California, Arizona and Nevada, and preventing the dam from generating hydropower. 

    The federal government’s data indicate that Lake Powell could drop to that level, known as “deadpool,” by the summer of 2027 if significant cuts aren’t made.

    Yet, the states remain stuck on the same points that, for years, have prevented any of them from agreeing to reduce their long-term use enough to prevent the collapse of the Colorado River system.

    The structural deficit refers to the consumption by Lower Basin states of more water than enters Lake Mead each year. The deficit, which includes losses from evaporation, is estimated at 1.2 million acre-feet a year. (Image: Central Arizona Project circa 2019)

    In a proposal to the federal government from March 2024, Arizona, California and Nevada, the three states that make up the Lower Basin, which uses the greatest amount of the river’s water and has historically over-consumed its allotments, put annual cuts of 1.5 million acre feet of water on the table for a post-2026 agreement. [ed. This includes 1.2 MAF for the “Structural Deficit”. The Lower Basin has never been charged for shrink in Lake Mead and in the Colorado River mainstream. USBR said earlier in the Post-2026 guideline negotiations that the LB would have to be charged for shrink going forward.] They want to see any necessary reductions after that, which experts estimate could range from another 2 to 4 million acre-feet per year, divided among all seven states. One acre-foot of water is enough to supply somewhere between two and four households for a year.

    The Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have proposed taking voluntary reductions. They argue they should not face mandatory cuts because the Upper Basin has never used the full amount of water it was allocated under the 1922 compact, which apportions 7.5 million acre-feet to each basin. Due to climate change and a lack of storage infrastructure, they say they’re already living with cuts while delivering the required water to the Lower Basin. 

    In closing comments on Thursday, which provided a rare opportunity for the public to hear what have otherwise been behind-closed-doors conversations, negotiators expressed frustration, rehashing the same talking points they have used for years.

    “As long as we keep polishing those arguments and repeating them to each other, we are going nowhere,” said John Entsminger, Southern Nevada Water Authority’s general manager, and that state’s negotiator. He added that at this point, the best he could envision was an interim five-year operating plan agreement, not the multi-decadal deal that would be necessary to bring certainty to the region. Even a short-term deal still requires resolving debates about what each state can commit to. 

    The impasse heightens the risk that the federal government will have to step in to implement a plan to protect its infrastructure. Many fear that a failure to reach state consensus could lead to exorbitantly expensive litigation, delay needed action for years and cause uncertainty throughout the region.

    The federal Bureau of Reclamation has told the basins to develop a plan by Feb. 14, 2026, after the states blew past a previous Nov. 11 deadline, so it can include their agreement in the federal government’s environmental analysis of a post-2026 plan to operate Lakes Mead and Powell and oversee their dam releases.

    Lorelei Cloud, Vice-chair of the Southern Ute Tribal Council, and Southwest Colorado’s representative of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which addresses most water issues in Colorado. Photo via Sibley’s Rivers

    Lorelei Cloud, chair of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and co-founder of the Indigenous Women’s Leadership Network, cautioned against federal intervention. The federal government has fallen short of its trust responsibility to the tribes by failing to provide water, she said. 

    ”All the people on the ground really need to step up and provide a solution,” she said.

    Bill Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River Resources for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said that federal intervention would mean reverting to pre-2007 operating guidelines under which water allocations are determined annually. That would make it harder for Metropolitan, which serves 19 million people across Southern California, to plan for the future.

    “We might invest in sources that we don’t need, but also we may have to restrict water deliveries from time to time, as we’ve done in the past,” said Hasencamp. “For us, that’s a fail.”

    But Tom Buschatzke, the director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the state’s lead negotiator, told Inside Climate News that federal leadership could break the deadlock between the states, a move that Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has called for recently. 

    Buschatzke feels that nothing the Upper Basin has proposed would withstand scrutiny from Arizona legislators, who would have to approve it. Visibly upset, he said the Upper Basin’s claim that they can’t take more cuts is “absurd” and is based on them not getting their “paper” water—a term used to refer to water that exists legally but has never been put to use or proven to currently be available. 

    “They need mandatory conservation that results in more water being in Lake Powell that can be moved to Lake Mead,” he said.

    From left, J.B. Hamby, chair of the Colorado River Board of California, Tom Buschatzke, Arizona Department of Water Resources; Becky Mitchell, Colorado representative to the Upper Colorado River Commission at #CRWUA2023. Hamby and Buschatzke acknowledged during this panel at the Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference that the lower basin must own the structural deficit, something the upper basin has been pushing for for years. CREDIT: TOM YULSMAN/WATER DESK, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER

    Upper Basin negotiators counter that it is not their responsibility to cut their use to accommodate Lower Basin users who have long overdrawn the system. “We cannot subsidize overuse,” said Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s negotiator.

    Lower Basin water use since 1964. 2025 data provisional, based on USBR projections Oct. 29, 2015.

    At one point, the Lower Basin used several million acre-feet more water per year than it was allocated, but it has since reduced its consumption and now uses less than it is legally entitled to. California, the river’s biggest user, touted drastic conservation measures that have reduced water use to its lowest levels since the 1940s, despite booming growth in the state. Lower Basin leaders argue, too, that the region’s biggest cities, farms and economic outputs from the river are within the three states.

    Upper Basin officials argue they have the right to grow as the Lower Basin has, and it’s unfair for those four states to sacrifice their future.

    Earlier this week, leaders in both basins saw a preview of the federal government’s draft environmental review, which included a range of options for managing Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Some in the Lower Basin expressed concern that the options relied too heavily on them making future cuts. Hamby, California’s negotiator, emphasized that if the basin states eventually reach an agreement, it will determine how the federal government manages the river.

    “Ultimately, none of it should matter if we get to a seven-state consensus,” said Hamby, who is also a board member of Southern California’s Imperial Irrigation District, the river’s single-largest water user. “But as part of the [environmental review] process, what we look forward to seeing from California is an equally balanced risk across the basin that motivates people to develop a seven-state consensus.”

    Brandon Gebhart, Wyoming’s state engineer and Colorado River negotiator, called the analysis “broad enough to accommodate any seven-state consensus agreement” in an email.

    Andrea Travnicek, assistant secretary for water and science at the Interior Department, said the government expects to publish the environmental impact statement in the last week of December or first week of January. 

    Despite the urgency, conference attendees weren’t surprised that negotiations remain stalled and no deal appeared imminent.

    Cynthia Campbell, the director of policy innovation for the Arizona Water Innovation Institute at Arizona State University, said she expects one of two outcomes in the next 18 months, and perhaps both: the system will collapse or there will be litigation.

    The public, she said, will then ask what happened, and leaders will have no good answers.

    “I came with very low expectations, and they were met,” she said.

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

    Coyote Gulch’s excellent EV adventure: #CRWUA2025 #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

    Glen Canyon Dam from the visitor center December 19, 2025.

    I’m on the road back to Denver. I decided to take a southerly route east from St. George through southern Utah and Northern Arizona to travel through country I had not seen before. A short drive from Kanab on Friday put me at Glen Canyon Dam. Although I am not religious I wanted to stop there and recite Seldom Seen’s Prayer from Edward Abbey’s “Monkey Wrench Gang” which I first read while walking down the Escalante River. My sisters and brothers that walk the tribs off Glen Canyon understand.

    A bend in Glen Canyon of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, c. 1898. By George Wharton James, 1858—1923 – http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll65/id/17037, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30894893

    “Dear old God, you know and I know what it was like here, before them bastards from Washington moved in and ruined it all. You remember the river, how fat and golden it was in June, when the big runoff come down from the Rockies?… Listen, are you listenin’ to me? There’s somethin’ you can do for me, God. How about a little old pre-cision-type earthquake right under this dam? Okay? Any time. Right now for instance would suit me fine.” -Seldom Seen Smith (H/T Fisher Brewing Company)

    My rented Model Y at Glen Canyon Dam December 19, 2025.

    What a joy it is to drive the Model Y with self-driving. Self-driving was particularly useful in Las Vegas with all the traffic and unfamiliar (to me) roads. The integration of the Navigation system and the Tesla Charging Network takes quite a load off cross-country road trips. For the leg between St. George and Pagosa Springs I charged at St. George, Page, Kayenta, and Durango.

    Glen Canyon downstream of the dam December 19, 2025.

    Feds close to releasing draft environmental review of #ColoradoRiver management options — Jennifer Solis (NevadaCurrent.com) #CRWUA2025 #COriver #aridification

    Bureau of Reclamation’s Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron speaks at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association’s conference. (Photo: Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)

    Click the link to read the article on the Nevada Current website (Jennifer Solis):

    December 18, 2025

    In the next few weeks, the public will get their first look at a critical document two and a half years in the making that will define how the Colorado River is managed for the next decade.

    The Bureau of Reclamation – which manages water in the West under the Interior Department – is on track to release a draft environmental review by early January with a range of options to replace the river’s operating rules, which are set to expire at the end of 2026.

    Several elements of the draft were shared during the annual Colorado River Water Users Association’s conference in Las Vegas at Caesars Palace Wednesday.

    Negotiations between federal officials and the seven western states that rely on the Colorado River have largely remained behind closed doors since 2023, but any new operating rules will be required to go through a public environmental review process before a final decision can be made.

    Interior Department Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Andrea Travnicek, said the agency is committed to meeting the self-imposed January deadline in order to finalize new rules before the current ones expire.

    “The Department of the Interior recognizes a shrinking timeline is in front of us in order to operate under a new potential agreement,” Travnicek said.

    In an unusual move, federal water officials said the draft will not identify which set of operating guidelines the federal government would prefer, which is typically included in environmental reviews. 

    “We will not be identifying a preferred alternative, but we anticipate the identification of that between the draft and the final,” said Bureau of Reclamation’s senior water resource program manager, Carly Jerla.

    Instead, the draft environmental review will list a broad range of possible alternatives designed to enable states to continue working towards a seven-state consensus agreement on how to share the river’s shrinking water supply. 

    “We want to continue to facilitate, but not dictate these operations. The goal here is to inform decision makers and encourage parties to adopt agreements that put consultation and negotiation first,” Jerla continued.

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

    Lower Basin states — California, Arizona, and Nevada — and Upper Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico — have been at an impasse for months over how to manage the Colorado River’s shrinking water supplies.

    Last month, the states missed a federally-imposed deadline to submit a preliminary seven-state consensus plan that could replace the river’s operating guidelines after days of intense closed-door negotiations.

    States’ last chance to share a final consensus-based plan will be mid-February 2026 in order to reach a final agreement in the summer  with implementation of the new guidelines beginning in October 2026.

    The Bureau of Reclamation’s Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron said he and other federal officials have intensified efforts to bring states to a consensus, flying out West every other week since early April to meet with the seven states’ river negotiators.

    “There are a number of issues from decades past that some people are having some difficulty getting past,” Cameron said, adding that states must “be willing to set aside previous perceived inequities and unfairness.”

    One of the biggest disagreements between the Upper and Lower Basin states is over which faction should have to cut back on their water use, and by how much.

    Lower Basin states want all seven Colorado River states to share mandatory water cuts during dry years under the new guidelines. The Upper Basin, which is not subject to mandatory cuts under current guidelines, say they already use much less water than downstream states and should not face additional cuts. [ed. Also, the UB states face cuts every year from Mother Nature with the variability, but generally lower, snowpack each season.]

    Despite states missing past deadlines, Cameron said he was “cautiously optimistic” states will reach a consensus deal by the February deadline.

    “It’s not unusual in the negotiating process that tougher decisions get made the closer you get to the deadline. And frankly, there are tough decisions that have to be made,” Cameron said.

    On Tuesday, California’s biggest water districts said they were willing to “set aside many of their legal positions” in order to reach a seven-state agreement.

    The Bureau of Reclamation provided a broad overview of the components that will be included in draft’s range of options, including guidelines to reduce water deliveries from Lake Mead during shortages, coordinated reservoir operations for Lake Mead and Lake Powell, and storage and delivery mechanisms for conserved water.

    Jerla, Reclamation’s senior water resource program manager, said the draft alternatives will include some components previously proposed by states.

    She said the agency has adopted a number of temporary operational agreements since 2008 to address changing conditions on the river. Those agreements have served as test runs for a long term agreement and emphasized the need for more flexibility when managing the river from year-to-year.

    “We want to preserve ourselves the flexibility to come back to the table, to do reviews, to make consensus adjustments if needed,” Jerla said.

    That flexibility to operations will likely be needed again this year due to a less-than-average upcoming snow season, that combined with a dry spring or early summer in 2026, could create conditions for another low runoff year.

    “We’re monitoring the forecast, and we’re seeing not a great start to water year 2026. It’s still early in the year, but the way things are setting up it isn’t looking good,” Jerla said.

    Figure 1. Graph showing active storage in Colorado River basin reservoirs between January 1, 2021, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies

    The two biggest reservoirs in the country, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, are currently at a fraction of their full capacity. Lake Mead is at 32% capacity, while Lake Powell is at 28%. 

    Additionally, water inflow into the reservoirs in 2026 are projected to most likely be 75% of the average, according to the federal agency. The minimum probable inflow forecast for 2026 is 44% of average, indicating a potentially very dry year.

    John Entsminger — Southern #Nevada Water Authority #CRWUA2025

    #CRWUA2025 Day 3 #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

    Sunset December 18, 2025 near Colorado City, Arizona.

    Click the link to view the conference posts on Twitter(X) (Click the “Latest” tab).

    I apologize, I missed the first Session Friday, “Near-term analysis of Colorado River Basin Storage” with Eric Kuhn, Sarah Porter, and Jack Schmidt. Here’s the link to “Colorado River Insights 2025: Dancing with Deadpool“. Their contribution is in Chapter 1, “Colorado River Reservoir Storage – Where We Stand”.

    #CRWUA2025 Day 2 #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

    Click the link to view my posts on Twitter(X).

    #ColoradoRiver gathering kicks off with rhetoric, concerns over river’s future — Shannon Mullane (Fresh Water News) #CRWUA2025 #COriver #aridification

    Las Vegas Strip, Dec. 14, 2021. Credit: Allen Best

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

    December 17, 2025

    LAS VEGAS — About [1,700] people from every corner of the Colorado River Basin flocked to the palm tree-lined Caesars Palace casino in Las Vegas this week thirsty for insights into the stalled negotiations over the future management of the river.

    New insights, however, were sparse as of Tuesday morning.

    The highly anticipated Colorado River Water Users Association conference is the largest river gathering of the year. It’s a meet up where federal and state officials like to make big announcements about the water supply for 40 million people, and when farmers, tribal nations, city water managers, industrial representatives and environmental groups can swap strategies in hallway chats.

    The meetings started Tuesday morning before the conference officially kicked off. Officials from basin states, including Colorado, set the tone by digging into their oft-repeated rhetoric about the worrisome conditions in the basin, impacts in their own states and conservation efforts. Conference-goers pushed state leaders for more transparency and progress in the discussions over the river’s future.

    The basin’s main reservoirs, lakes Mead and Powell, have fallen to historic lows despite pouring state and federal dollars into broad conservation efforts, said Commissioner Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s governor-appointed negotiator on Colorado River issues.

    “We’re in a precarious time because none of that is enough,” Mitchell told hundreds of audience members during an Upper Colorado River Commission meeting Tuesday. “It has not been enough.”

    Natural flows — which is a calculation of how much water would pass Lees Ferry without upstream human intervention — has trended downward since the mid-1980s. Even before that, however, the river rarely carried as much water as the drafters of the 1922 Colorado River Compact presumed it did. They based the Compact on a median flow of 20 million acre-feet. The 1906-2025 median flow has actually been just 14.3 MAF, while the most recent six-year average has been just over 10 MAF. Data source: Bureau of Reclamation via The Land Desk.

    As the river’s water supply is strained by a 26-year drought and human demands, officials are trying to replace an expiring agreement from 2007, which manages how Mead and Powell capture water from upstream states and release it downstream for water users in Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico.

    The Department of the Interior is managing the effort, dubbed the post-2026 process, but deciding new rules is simpler said than done: Basin officials will have to address a changing climate and decide on painful water cuts going forward.

    The Interior Department has given the seven basin states until Feb. 14 to reach a consensus. If they can agree, the feds will use the states’ proposal to manage the basin’s reservoirs. If not, the federal officials will decide what to do.

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

    Officials from the Upper Basin states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — did not share examples of progress in the post-2026 negotiations. They said the basin’s water cycle, not its legal issues, are the main problem.

    “It’s not political positions. It’s not legal interpretations,” Brandon Gebhart, Wyoming’s top negotiator, said. “It’s the hydrology of the entire basin.”

    Native America in the Colorado River Basin. Credit: USBR

    Others, including some of the 30 tribes in the basin, saw it differently. Some tribal representatives called for more transparency. Others said they couldn’t support a plan that is geared toward sending water to downstream states.

    “Despite those that think hydrology is the problem, it’s not, and it can’t always be the scapegoat,” said Kirin Vicenti, water commissioner for the Jicarilla Apache Nation, located within New Mexico just south of the Colorado state line. “Our planning and policies must allow flexibility, and innovative and dynamic solutions.”

    Portion of a Roman aqueduct Barcelona, Spain, May 2025.

    A basin divided by a Rome-inspired wall

    Relationships between upstream states and Lower Basin states — Arizona, California and Nevada — have been strained since the post-2026 effort kicked into gear in 2022 and 2023.

    On the other side of the casino wall from the Upper Basin meeting, the Colorado River Board of California met Tuesday morning. Each audience could hear muffled clapping from the other room as the officials spoke to their constituents.

    “We know one thing for sure, which is that we have a smaller river and that requires less use,” JB Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River board and California’s top negotiator, told the gathering.

    He lauded California’s “massive” and expensive efforts to address the river’s shrinking supply while still growing the state’s economy and agriculture industry.

    Lower Basin water use since 1964. 2025 data provisional, based on USBR projections Oct. 29, 2015.

    California has cut its water use to 3.76 million acre-feet, the lowest it has been since 1949, state officials said. It has a proposed plan to conserve 440,000 acre-feet of river water per year.

    One acre-foot roughly equals the annual water use of two to three households.

    “We hear lots of applause lines from our friends next door, and we encourage them to take some examples from what California has been able to put together,” Hamby said. “We must all live with the resources we have, not the ones that we wish for.”

    Crossing basin lines

    While the states might be divided in water politics, conference attendees like Ken Curtis of Colorado moved between the rooms to hear each group’s discussion.

    “We appear to be talking past each other,” said Curtis, the general manager of the Dolores Water Conservancy District in southwestern Colorado.

    Some water managers from central Utah said they were already looking beyond the current negotiations to the next few decades. The basin’s challenges don’t end next fall — this is just a speed bump in a long future ahead, they said.

    Others were waiting for updates from federal officials, scheduled for Wednesday. The Department of the Interior is set to release a highly anticipated look at different options for how to manage the basin around the end of the year.

    Curtis said he is at the conference mainly to learn how other states were grappling with the tough water conditions and to get more insight into the negotiations beyond what’s in the media, he said.

    “Squeezing it (water) out of the Upper Basin isn’t going to make enough water for the Lower Basin demands,” Curtis said. “And that may be a biased view, obviously, so I’m trying to get a little bit beyond my own biases.”

    More by Shannon Mullane

    September 21, 1923, 9:00 a.m. — Colorado River at Lees Ferry. From right bank on line with Klohr’s house and gage house. Old “Dugway” or inclined gage shows to left of gage house. Gage height 11.05′, discharge 27,000 cfs. Lens 16, time =1/25, camera supported. Photo by G.C. Stevens of the USGS. Source: 1921-1937 Surface Water Records File, Colorado R. @ Lees Ferry, Laguna Niguel Federal Records Center, Accession No. 57-78-0006, Box 2 of 2 , Location No. MB053635.
    The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)

    #CRWUA2025 Day 1 #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

    Click here to peruse my Tweets from day 1 of the Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference. (Click on the “Latest” tab.)

    Principles for guiding #ColoradoRiver water negotiations — Brian McNeece (BigPivots.com) #COriver #aridification #CRWUA2025

    Palm trees in the Imperial Valley 2017. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

    Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Brian McNeece):

    December 15, 2025

    Where Colorado and other Upper-Basin states need to retreat from trying to develop full compact allocation. But Lower Basin states need to acknowledge Mother Nature.

    This was published on Dec. 13, 2025, in the Calexico Chronicle, a publication in California’s Imperial Valley. It is reposted here with permission, and we asked for that permission because we thought it was an interesting explanation from a close observer who was reared in an area that uses by far the most amount of water in the Colorado River Basin.

    This week is the annual gathering of “water buffaloes” in Las Vegas. It’s the Colorado River Water Users Association convention. About 1,700 people will attend, but probably around 100 of them are the key people — the government regulators, tribal leaders, and the directors and managers of the contracting agencies that receive Colorado River water.

    Anyone who is paying attention knows that we are in critical times on the river. Temporary agreements on how to distribute water during times of shortage are expiring. Negotiators have been talking for several years but haven’t been able to agree on anything concrete.

    I’m just an observer, but I’ve been observing fairly closely. Within the limits on how much information I can get as an outsider, I’d like to propose some principles or guidelines that I think are important for the negotiation process.

    A. When Hoover Dam was proposed, the main debate was over whether the federal government or private concerns would operate it. Because the federal option prevailed, water is delivered free to contractors. Colorado River water contractors do not pay the actual cost of water being delivered to them. It is subsidized by the U.S. government. As a public resource, Colorado River water should not be seen as a commodity.

    B. The Lower Basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada should accept that the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are at the mercy of Mother Nature for much of their annual water supply. While the 1922 Colorado River Compact allocates them 7.5 million acre-feet annually, in wet years, they have been able to use a maximum of 4.7 maf. During the long, ongoing drought, their annual use has been 3.5 maf. They shouldn’t have to make more cuts.

    C. However, neither should the Upper Basin states be able to develop their full allocation. It should be capped at a feasible number, perhaps 4.2 maf. As compensation, Upper Basin agencies and farmers can invest available federal funds in projects to use water more efficiently and to reuse it so that they can develop more water.

    D. Despite the drought, we know there will be some wet years. To compensate the Lower Basin states for taking all the cuts in dry years, the Upper Basin should release more water beyond the Compact commitments during wet years. This means that Lake Mead and Lower Basin reservoirs would benefit from wet years and Lake Powell would not. In short, the Lower Basin takes cuts in dry years; the Upper Basin takes cuts in wet years.

    E. Evaporation losses (water for the angels) can be better managed by keeping more of the Lower Basin’s water in Upper Basin reservoirs instead of in Lake Mead, where the warmer weather means higher evaporation losses. New agreements should include provisions to move that water in the Lower Basin account down to Lake Mead quickly. Timing is of the essence.

    H. In the Lower Basin states, shortages should be shared along the same lines as specified in the 2007 Interim Guidelines, with California being last to take cuts as Lake Mead water level drops.

    I. On the home front, Imperial Irrigation District policy makers should make a long-term plan to re-set water rates in accord with original water district policy. Because the district is a public, non-profit utility, water rates were set so that farmers paid only the cost to deliver water. Farmers currently pay $20 per acre foot, but the actual cost of delivering water is $60 per acre foot. That subsidy of $60 million comes from the water transfer revenues.

    J. The San Diego County Water Authority transfer revenues now pay farmers $430 per acre-foot of conserved water, mostly for drip or sprinkler systems. Akin to a grant program, this very successful program generated almost 200,000 acre-feet of conserved water last year. Like any grant program, it should be regularly audited for effectiveness.

    K. Some of those transfer revenues should be invested in innovative cropping patterns, advanced technologies, and marketing to help the farming community adapt to a changing world. The Imperial Irrigation District should use its resources to help all farmers be more successful, not just a select group.

    L. Currently, federal subsidies pay farmers not to use water via the Deficit Irrigation Program. We can lobby for those subsidies to continue, but we should plan for when they dry up. Any arrangement that rewards farmers but penalizes farm services such as seed, fertilizer, pesticide, land leveling, equipment, and other work should be avoided.

    M. Though the Imperial Irrigation District has considerable funding from the district’s QSA water transfers, it may need to consider issuing general obligation bonds as it did in its foundational days for larger water efficiency projects such as more local storage or a water treatment plant to re-use ag drain water.

    Much progress has been made in using water more efficiently, especially in the Lower Basin states, but there’s a lot more water to be saved, and I believe collectively that we can do it.

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

    #California Commits to #Conservation, Collaboration in New #ColoradoRiver Framework — Colorado River Board of California #COriver #aridification #CRWUA2025

    All American Canal Construction circa. 1938 via the Imperial Irrigation District

    Click the link to read the release on the Colorado River Board of California website:

    State leaders seek durable post-2026 plan and make significant contributions

    December 16, 2025

    Las Vegas – California’s water, tribal, and agricultural leaders today presented a comprehensive framework for a durable, basin-wide operating agreement for the Colorado River and highlighted the state’s proposal for conserving 440,000 acre-feet of river water per year.

    At the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference, California underscored the state’s leadership in conservation, collaboration, and long-term stewardship of shared water resources that inform its approach to post-2026 negotiations.

    California takes a balanced approach, relying on contributions from the upper and lower basins to maintain a shared resource. California supports hydrology-based flexibility for river users, with all states contributing real water savings. Any viable framework would need to include transparent and verifiable accounting for conserved water, along with several other elements outlined in the California framework.

    State leaders also noted that they are willing to set aside many of their legal positions to reach a deal, including releases from Lake Powell under the Colorado River Compact, distribution of Lower Basin shortages, and other provisions of the Law of the River, provided that there are equitable and sufficient water contributions from every state in the Basin and the country of Mexico.

    Constructive California

    “California is leading with constructive action,” said JB Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River Board of California. “We have reduced our water use to the lowest levels since the 1940s, invested billions to modernize our water systems and develop new supplies, partnered with tribes and agricultural communities, and committed to real water-use reductions that will stabilize the river. We are doing our part – and we invite every state to join us in this shared responsibility.”

    Despite being home to 20 million Colorado River-reliant residents and a farming region that produces the majority of America’s winter vegetables, California’s use of Colorado River water is projected at 3.76 million acre-feet in 2025 – the lowest since 1949.

    That achievement comes on top of historic reductions in water use over the past 20 years, led by collaborative conservation efforts. Urban Southern California cut imported water demand in half while adding almost 4 million residents. And farms reduced water use by more than 20% while sustaining more than $3 billion in annual output. Tribes also have made critical contributions, including nearly 40,000 acre-feet of conserved water by the Quechan Indian Tribe to directly support river system stability.

    Going forward, California is prepared to reduce water use by 440,000 acre-feet per year – in addition to existing long-standing conservation efforts – as part of the Lower Basin’s proposal to conserve up to 1.5 million acre-feet per year, which would include participation by Mexico.  When conditions warrant, California is also committed to making additional reductions to address future shortages as part of a comprehensive basin-state plan.

    The state’s history of conservation illustrates what can be accomplished through collaboration, and all Colorado River water users in California are preparing to contribute to these reductions – agricultural agencies, urban agencies, and tribes.

    Framework for a Post-2026 Agreement

    In addition to conservation contributions, California provided a framework of principles for the post-2026 river operating guidelines to advance a shared solution for the seven Basin States, the tribes and Mexico. More specifically, California outlined the following key components for a new framework:

    • Lake Powell releases – California supports a policy of hydrology-based, flexible water releases that protects both Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Flexibility must be paired with appropriate risk-sharing across basins, avoiding disproportionate impacts to any one region.
    • Upper Initial Units (Colorado River Storage Project Act) – Releases should be made when needed to reduce water supply and power risks to both basins.
    • Shared contributions – The Lower Basin’s proposed 1.5 million acre-feet per year contribution to address the structural deficit, including an equitable share from Mexico (subject to binational negotiations), is the first enforceable offer on the table. When hydrology demands more, participation by all seven Basin States is essential.
    • Interstate exchanges – Interstate exchanges need to be part of any long-term solution to encourage interstate investments in new water supply projects that may not be economically viable for just one state or agency.
    • Operational flexibility – Continued ability to store water in Lake Mead is vital to maintain operational flexibility. California supports continuation and expansion of water storage in Lake Mead as a long-term feature of river management and to encourage conservation. We also support Upper Basin pools for conservation, allowing similar benefits.
    • Phasing of a long-term agreement – California supports a long-term operating agreement with adaptive phases. Tools like water storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell need to extend beyond any initial period due to significant investments required to store conserved water in the reservoirs.
    • Protections and federal support: Any agreement should be supported with federal funding and any necessary federal authorities, allow agriculture and urban areas to continue to thrive, protect tribal rights, and address the environment, including the environmentally sensitive Salton Sea.

    “There are no easy choices left, but California has always done what is required to protect the river,” said Jessica Neuwerth, executive director of the Colorado River Board of California. “We have proven that conservation and growth can coexist. We have shown that reductions can be real, measurable, and durable. And we have demonstrated how states, tribes, cities, and farms can work together to build a sustainable future for the Colorado River.”

    What California agencies are saying:

    “The future of the Colorado River is vital to California – and our nation. As the fourth largest economy in the world, we rely on the Colorado River to support the water needs of millions of Californians and our agricultural community which feeds the rest of the nation. California is doing more with less, maintaining our economic growth while using less water in our urban and agricultural communities. We have cut our water use to its lowest levels in decades and are investing in diverse water supply infrastructure throughout California, doing our part to protect the Colorado River for generations to come. We look forward to continued discussions with our partners across the West to find the best path forward to keep the Colorado River healthy for all those who rely on it.” – Wade Crowfoot, Secretary, California Natural Resources

    “Metropolitan’s story is one of collaboration, of finding common ground. We have forged partnerships across California and the Basin – with agriculture, urban agencies and tribes. And through that experience, we know that we can build a comprehensive Colorado River Agreement that includes all seven states and the country of Mexico. We must reach a consensus. That is the only option.” – Adán Ortega, Jr., Chair, Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors

    “California’s leadership is grounded in results, and the Imperial Valley is proud to contribute to that record. Our growers have created one of the most efficient agricultural regions in the Basin—cutting use by over 20% while supporting a $3 billion farm economy that feeds America. Since 2003, IID has conserved more than nine million acre-feet, and with the Colorado River as our sole water supply, we remain firmly committed to constructive, collaborative solutions that protect America’s hardest-working river.” – Gina Dockstader, Chairwoman, Imperial Irrigation District

    “The path to resiliency requires innovation, cooperation, and every Basin state’s commitment to conservation. The San Diego County Water Authority supports an approach that provides flexibility to adapt to changing climate conditions. That means developing a new framework that allows for interstate water transfers to move water where it’s most needed and incentivizes the development of new supplies for augmentation.” – CRB Vice Chair Jim Madaffer, San Diego County Water Authority

    “Palo Verde Irrigation District is committed to maintaining a healthy, viable river system into the future. We at PVID have always gone above and beyond in supporting the river in times of need. Since 2023 our 95,000-acre valley, in collaboration with Metropolitan and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have committed over 351,000 acre-feet of verifiable wet water to support the river system and Lake Mead. It is important to our stakeholders in the Palo Verde Valley and all of California that Colorado River water continues to meet the needs of both rural and urban areas. We must find workable solutions that keep food on people’s plates and water running thru the faucets of homes.” – Brad Robinson, Board President, Palo Verde Irrigation District 

    “California continues to lead in conservation and collaboration, setting the standard for innovation and sustainability. Together, we strive to ensure reliability for millions of people, tribes, and acres of farmland. For decades, CVWD has invested in conservation efficiency, alongside investments from growers. Additionally, we have saved more than 118,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water since 2022 — underscoring our shared commitment to long-term sustainability. CVWD remains dedicated to finding collaborative solutions to protect the river’s health and stability.” – Peter Nelson, Board Director, Coachella Valley Water District

    “As stewards of the Colorado River since time immemorial, our Tribe is committed to protecting the river for the benefit of our people and all of the communities and ecosystems that rely on it. We believe partnerships and collaboration, such as our agreement with Metropolitan Water District and the Bureau of Reclamation to conserve over 50,000 acre-feet of our water in Lake Mead between 2023 and 2026, are essential to ensure that we have a truly living river.” – President Jonathan Koteen, Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe

    “Bard Water District remains committed to continued system conservation and responsible water management. While small in size, the District continues to make meaningful contributions to regional sustainability efforts on the Colorado River.” – Ray Face, Board President, Bard Water District

    “LADWP is dedicated to delivering and managing a water supply that prioritizes resilience, high quality, and cost-effectiveness. These investments illustrate that achieving urban water resiliency is indeed feasible.” – Dave Pettijohn, Water Resources Director, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

    Map credit: AGU

    “Dancing with Deadpool” on the #ColoradoRiver: Plus: Wolves run wild — at least until they get caught — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org) #COriver #aridification

    Water shooting out of Glen Canyon Dam’s river outlets — as opposed to the penstocks and hydroelectric turbines — in autumn 2025. The releases were part of the Cool Flow project that is intended to lower the temperature of the river downstream of the dam to protect native fish by disrupting non-native smallmouth bass spawning. The releases diminished hydroelectric output, forcing the Western Area Power Administration to spend over $25 million over two years to purchase replacement electricity on the open market. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

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

    December 16, 2025

    🥵 Aridification Watch 🐫

    A new report from the Colorado River Research Group, aptly named “Dancing with Deadpool,” paints a grim picture of the critical artery of the Southwest. Reservoir and groundwater levels are perilously low, the 25-year megadrought is likely to persist — perhaps for decades, and the collective users of the river have yet to develop a workable plan for cutting consumption and balancing demand with the river’s dwindling supply.

    Amid all the darkness however, the report also delivers a few glimmers of hope, noting that mechanisms do exist to avert a full-blown crisis, and that humans do have the power to slow or halt human-cased global heating, which is one of the main drivers of reduced flows in the river.

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

    Those reduced flows seem like a good place to start, since the Colorado River Basin is experiencing the very phenomenon that Jonathan Overpeck and Brad Udall write about in the second chapter, “Think Natural Flows Will Rebound in the Colorado River Basin? Think Again.”

    Natural flows — which is a calculation of how much water would pass Lees Ferry without upstream human intervention — has trended downward since the mid-1980s. Even before that, however, the river rarely carried as much water as the drafters of the 1922 Colorado River Compact presumed it did. They based the Compact on a median flow of 20 million acre-feet. The 1906-2025 median flow has actually been just 14.3 MAF, while the most recent six-year average has been just over 10 MAF. Data source: Bureau of Reclamation.

    The authors call the Southwest “megadrought country,” since tree rings and other sources show that severe, multi-decadal dry spells — like the one gripping the region currently — have occurred somewhat regularly over the last 2,000 years. The current drought, then, is likely a part of this natural climate variability.

    But there’s a catch: The previous megadroughts most likely resulted from, primarily, a lack of precipitation. The current dry-spell is also due to lack of precipitation, but it is intensified by warming temperatures, which are the clear and direct result of climate change. They also find evidence that climate change may also be exacerbating the current climate deficit.

    The takeaway is that even when we move through the current dry part of the cycle, the increasingly higher temperatures will offset some of the added precipitation and continue to diminish Colorado River flows. And, when the natural cycle comes back around to the drought side, it’s going to be even worse thanks to climate change.

    Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map December 16, 2025.

    Water year 2026 is so far looking like an example of the former, with normal to above-normal precipitation accumulating, but as rain, not as snow, leaving much of the West with far below normal snowpack levels.

    If the trend continues, it will not bode well for the Colorado River, according to the chapter written by Jack Schmidt, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Kathryn Sorensen, and Katherine Tara. In an updated version of a paper they put out in September, they find that if water year 2026 (which we’re about 2.5 months into) is anything like water year 2025, Lake Powell is in trouble, and “low reservoir levels in summer 2026 will challenge water supply management, hydropower production, and environmental river management.”

    The top water users on the Lower Colorado River Basin. Imperial Irrigation District in southern California once again tops the list. But it’s notable how much consumption they’ve cut since 2003; the IID is expected to use even less water in 2025. Nevada is broken out as a state here because of the way the accounting works. Nearly all of Nevada’s Colorado River allocation goes to Southern Nevada and the Las Vegas metro area. Data source: Bureau of Reclamation.

    In order to avoid a full-blown crisis in the near-term, Colorado River users must significantly and quickly cut water consumption — independent of whatever agreement the states come up with for dividing the river’s dwindling waters after 2026.

    While there is a long-running debate over whether the Upper Basin or the Lower Basin will have to bear the brunt of those cuts, the math makes it indisputable that the agricultural sector in both basins will have to pare down its collective consumption. That’s because irrigated agriculture accounts for about 74% of all direct human consumptive use on the River, or about three times more than municipal, commercial, and industrial uses.

    Chart showing how water from the Colorado River is used. Source: “New accounting reveals why the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea,” by Brian Richter et al.

    That’s why, in recent years, the feds and states have paid farmers to stop irrigating some crops and fallow their fields. While this method has achieved meaningful cuts in overall water use in those areas, it is in most cases not sustainable because the deals are temporary, and because they rely on iffy federal funding. So, in another of the report’s chapters, Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter offer a different proposal: The federal government should simply purchase land from willing sellers and stop irrigating it (or at least compensate landowners for agreeing to stop or curtail irrigation permanently).

    They emphasize that this is not a “buy-and-dry” proposition, where a city buys out the water rights of farms to serve more development. That doesn’t actually save any water, since the city is still using it, and it wrecks farms and communities. Instead, this proposal would actually convert the farmland into public land, and put the water back into the river. This proposed program would target high-water-use, low economic-water-productivity land in situations where the water savings would benefit the environment and the land transfer would help local communities.

    Even then, this would be disruptive, in that it would take land out of agriculture and potentially remove farms — and the farmers — from the community. There would also be the question of how to manage the freshly fallowed fields so that they don’t become weed-infested wastelands or sources of airborne, snow-melting dust.


    Lamenting the McElmo effect and loss of irrigation-landscapes in an era of aridification — Jonathan P. Thompson


    In the following chapter, a quartet of authors suggests a slightly softer approach, in which farmers adapt to dwindling water amounts by shifting crops or to reduce cattle herd sizes or approaches.

    The report concludes with a call for a basin-wide approach to managing the Colorado River, and the creation of an entity that would address Colorado River issues in a more comprehensive, transparent, and inclusive way. The current approach, which arbitrarily cuts the watershed in half along an imaginary line, pitting one set of states against another while excluding sovereign tribal nations, and trying to operate within an outdated framework known as the Law of the River, is an opaque mess that has thus far resulted only in gridlock.

    The authors propose, instead:

    And, finally, a little smidgeon of hope from the report’s second chapter, although it’s hard to be hopeful about reversing climate change in times like these and with a presidential administration intent on burning more and more fossil fuels …


    Western water: Where values, math, and the “Law of the River” collide, Part I — Jonathan P. Thompson


    Remote camera image of a wolf pup taken during the summer of 2025. Source: Colorado Parks & Wildlife.

    🦫 Wildlife Watch 🦅

    The News: Colorado Parks and Wildlife last week thanked New Mexico wildlife officials for successfully capturing gray wolf 2403, a member of Colorado’s Copper Creek pack that had roamed over the state line. The wolf was re-released in Grand County, Colorado, where officials hope it will find a mate.

    The Context: WTF!? Are these folks trying to bring an extirpated species back to a state similar to the one that existed before it was systematically slaughtered — i.e. the “natural” state — or are they running a zoo? 

    The CPW said that the wolf’s capture was in compliance with an agreement with bordering states that is purportedly intended to “protect the genetic integrity of the Mexican wolf recovery program, while also establishing a gray wolf population in Colorado.”

    I’m no wildlife biologist, but it sure does seem to me that if a gray wolf from Colorado heads to New Mexico in search of a mate, as is their instinctual tendency, then that’s a good thing. And trying to confine the wolves to artificial and arbitrary political boundaries is counterproductive.

    “Historically, gray wolf populations in western North America were contiguously distributed from northern arctic regions well into Mesoamerica as far south as present day Mexico City” explained David Parsons, former Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in a written statement. “The exchange of genes kept gray wolf populations both genetically and physically healthy, enhancing their ability to adapt and evolve to environmental changes.” He added that 2403’s walkabout, along with that of “Taylor,” the Mexican gray wolf that has defied attempts to constrain him to southern New Mexico by traveling into the Mt. Taylor region, were “simply retracing ancient pathways of wolf movements. Rather than being viewed as a problem, these movements should be encouraged and celebrated as successful milestones toward west-wide gray wolf recovery efforts.”

    Amen to that. 

    It’s clearly very tough to run a predator reintroduction program in the rural West, fraught as it is with political and cultural complications. And I respect and admire the folks that are running the project, and understand they are working within serious constraints. Still, there has to be a better way to let nature run its course.


    Longread: On wolves, wildness, and hope in trying times — Jonathan P. Thompson


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

    #CRWUA2025

    Screenshot from Kestrel Kunz’s presentation at the CRWUA 2023 Annual Conference.

    I’m in Las Vegas for the 2025 Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference! Follow along on the CRWUA Twitter (X) feed: https://x.com/CRWUA_water. Take a look back at our LinkedIn, blog, and Instagram posts from this year.

    #Breckenridge and #Gypsum Join Effort to Secure Shoshone Water Rights — Lindsay DeFrates (#ColoradoRiver District) #COriver #aridification

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

    December 15, 2025

    The effort to permanently protect the historic Shoshone water rights gained additional momentum as two more west slope communities committed funding in their 2026 budgets toward the Colorado River District’s $99 million purchase agreement with Xcel Energy. The Town of Breckenridge has pledged $100,000, and the Town of Gypsum has committed $15,000, underscoring the importance of reliable Colorado River flows for communities from the headwaters to the state line and beyond.

    By committing financial support for the Shoshone Water Rights Preservation Project, Breckenridge and Gypsum join a large and growing coalition of Western Slope partners working to safeguard flows that support local economies, healthy rivers, and long-term water security for Colorado.

    Breckenridge circa 1913 via Breckenridge Resort

    “The Shoshone water rights are a cornerstone of the Colorado River system and a critical part of protecting our quality of life in the high country,” said Breckenridge Mayor Kelly Owens. “Breckenridge is proud to stand with partners across the West Slope and headwaters region to keep water in the river, support our outdoor recreation economy, and protect this vital resource for generations to come.”

    Town of Gypsum via Vail.net

    “Look, in Gypsum we see it every single day, our local ranches, our jobs, our families all depend on the Eagle and the Colorado running strong and flowing,” said Gypsum Mayor Steve Carver.  “Backing Shoshone just makes sense. It gives us some certainty when water gets tight. We’re happy to jump in with everybody else and keep that water right here on the Western Slope.”

    The Shoshone Water Rights Preservation Coalition, led by the Colorado River District, now includes 35 local governments, water entities, and regional partners across the Western Slope, as well as support from across the state. Together, these partners have committed over $37.3 million toward the $99 million purchase price, in addition to state and federal investments to protect a critical piece of Colorado’s water security.

    “Communities across the West Slope continue to step up together in a powerful way,” said Andy Mueller, general manager of the Colorado River District. “Support from Breckenridge and Gypsum reflects a shared understanding that Shoshone is about more than one community or region. It’s about working together to keep the Colorado River and its tributaries flowing for the environment, agriculture, recreation and local communities across Colorado that rely on this water.”

    Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant back in the days before I-70 via Aspen Journalism

    The Shoshone hydroelectric plant, located in Glenwood Canyon, holds nonconsumptive senior water rights that date back to 1902. These rights are essential for supporting flows in the Colorado River, benefiting agriculture, recreation, rural economies, and water users across the West Slope and beyond.

    In December 2023, the Colorado River District entered a purchase and sale agreement with Xcel Energy to acquire and permanently protect the water rights, with plans to negotiate an instream flow agreement with the Colorado Water Conservation Board. This agreement would safeguard future flows, regardless of the Shoshone plant’s operational status.

    In January 2025, the Bureau of Reclamation awarded $40 million in federal funding through a program authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act. The River District continues to work with the Bureau and remains optimistic that the project’s broad support and clear public benefit will secure the necessary federal funds to complete this once-in-a-generation investment.

    Learn more about the Shoshone Water Rights Preservation Project & Coalition at KeepShoshoneFlowing.org.

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

    As states draw #ColoradoRiver water, what’s left for the river? — AZCentral.com #COriver #aridification

    Aldo Leopold, Colorado River delta, Baja California, Mexico Credit: Courtesy Aldo Leopold Foundation and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Archives

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

    December 15, 2025

    Key Points

    • Seven states and 30 tribes that depend on the Colorado River are looking for ways to share a shrinking resource, but environmental groups fear little will be left for the river itself.
    • A wetlands at the end of the river and a fishery at its midpoint show what can happen when water is managed to preserve nature’s needs.
    • Growing demand on the river and competing interests, including electric power providers, could force negotiators for the states to confront difficult decisions.

    CIÉNEGA DE SANTA CLARA, Mexico — The rusty observation tower at the edge of this wastewater-fed marsh offers an osprey-eye view of two possible futures for the parched and overworked Colorado River. To one side, the marsh spreads across more than 20 square miles of pools and islands choked with cattails and phragmites, convoys of pelicans descending and splashing down for a rest on their journey south from the Great Salt Lake or other western waters. Dragonflies hover below, while a fish hawk circles above, scanning the open water between the reeds. This is a vision of a future in which partners across the Western United States and Mexico save enough water that they can spare some for nature, even if it means irrigating it with the salty dregs. On the tower’s other side, boundless flats of sand and cracked mud spread to the horizon across what was, prior to the river’s damming a century ago, one of Earth’s great green estuaries.

    Colorado River Dry Delta, terminus of the Colorado River in the Sonoran Desert of Baja California and Sonora, Mexico, ending about 5 miles north of the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California). Date: 12 January 2009. Source http://gallery.usgs.gov/photos/10_15_2010_rvm8Pdc55J_10_15_2010_0#.Ur0mcvfTnrd. Photographer: Pete McBride, U.S. Geological Survey

    Jennifer Pitt leaned against a rail atop the tower and scanned that dusty horizon. A century ago, she said, the river had meandered so widely and soaked so much verdant ground there that the naturalist Aldo Leopold had written in “A Sand County Almanac” that “the river was nowhere and everywhere,” unable to “decide which of a hundred green lagoons offered the most pleasant and least speedy path to the Gulf (of California).”

    Now the Grand River’s delta supports just a handful of green lagoons, all fed either by wastewater or by targeted environmental irrigation. Pitt leads the Audubon Society’s Colorado River program. She has toiled for decades alongside American and Mexican conservationists to rebuild slivers of living delta from what’s left of the water after dams, farm ditches and growing cities divert most of the great river along its 1,450-mile route from the Rocky Mountains toward its dry mouth on the Sea of Cortez near here. A century ago, the river would have wandered a soaked delta teeming with birds, jaguars and legendary biodiversity. Now, a wastewater marsh must do the ecological heavy lifting.

    Jennifer Pitt and Brad Udall at the Getches-Wilkinson Center/Water and Tribes Initiative conference June 5, 2025. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

    “If we can’t prioritize taking care of a place like this, I fear for our ability to take care of ourselves,” Pitt said.

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

    The next few months will be a turning point in efforts to preserve a measure of nature here and across the river’s length, as the seven U.S. states that split the bulk of the water struggle to reach a new deal among themselves that could also determine how much water is available to nurse a remnant of the river’s own environment. Federal officials have said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is prepared to impose his own cuts if the states can’t reach their own deal, and have said they need a negotiated plan by late winter to avoid that outcome. More than two decades of “megadrought,” unprecedented in U.S. history, have left little wiggle room for year-to-year operations. Reservoirs that were near their 58.48 million-acre-foot capacity in 2000 began the 2026 water year on Oct. 1, with just 21.8 million acre-feet behind the dams. Each acre-foot contains about 326,000 gallons and is roughly enough to support three households for a year, though the bulk of the water flows to the region’s farms.

    Jennifer Pitt, the National Audubon Society’s Colorado River program director, paddles a kayak through a restoration site. (Source: Jesus Salazar, Raise the River)

    Coyote Gulch’s excellent EV adventure: #CRWUA2025

    Coyote Gulch at Hoover Dam

    I’m heading to Las Vegas this morning for the 2025 Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference. Follow along on the CRWUA Twitter Feed.

    I am using Turo for my EV rental this trip. I was able to snag a Tesla Model Y. The combination of the Model Y, the Tesla charging network, and the integration with the Tesla navigation system can’t be beat for these EV road trips.

    Dancing With Deadpool on the #ColoradoRiver: Edging closer to the Colorado River cliff — Allen Best (BigPivots.com) #COriver #aridification

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

    December 12, 2025

    New ‘book’ explores the evolving thoughts about an increasingly dire situation

    To put that into perspective, the Colorado River Compact assumed an average 16.5 million acre-feet at that site, Lees Ferry. The river this century has produced far less. Since 2020, the river flows have declined even more, to an average of 10.8.

    September 21, 1923, 9:00 a.m. — Colorado River at Lees Ferry. From right bank on line with Klohr’s house and gage house. Old “Dugway” or inclined gage shows to left of gage house. Gage height 11.05′, discharge 27,000 cfs. Lens 16, time =1/25, camera supported. Photo by G.C. Stevens of the USGS. Source: 1921-1937 Surface Water Records File, Colorado R. @ Lees Ferry, Laguna Niguel Federal Records Center, Accession No. 57-78-0006, Box 2 of 2 , Location No. MB053635.

    Might it get worse?

    “Dancing With Deadpool,” a new product from the Colorado River Research Group, delivers the short answer.

    “Another year or two of low inflows and we will completely blow through the cushions provided by reservoir storage,” says the document’s executive summary. The word “crisis” litters the 64-page production. It has eight chapters written by 22 authors from Colorado and three other Colorado River Basin states.

    The Colorado River has fascinated journalists since at least the 1980s. Then, the river was still delivering water to Mexico’s Sea of Cortez but troubles were evident on the horizon. The river now, except for specially engineered releases from upstream dams, disappears entirely after crossing into Mexico.

    Since 2022, the Colorado River had become a national story. Empty seats at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas have disappeared, press credentials harder to secure.

    The tension even in the last year has grown. The river runoff this year was only 55% of long-term average. The seven basin states remain at an impasse about solutions proportionate to the problem.

    “We have now entered a new era: Dancing with Deadpool,” says the report.

    Deadpool is the point at which reservoirs can release no water. In 2022, that moment seemed imminent as sandstone walls of Glen Canyon were exposed directly to sunlight after being submerged since shortly after Lake Powell began filling. Then a miracle winter arrived, water levels in the two big reservoirs, Powell and Mead, rose once again, the emergency receded.

    Now the crisis is back — and looming larger.

    You can scare yourself to death with what-ifs, but we may need something akin to a miracle to avoid full-blown crisis. We cannot have another winter and then runoff like 2002-2003. Or, as several authors point out, runoff like we had in 2025.

    As it is, we need another miracle winter, something akin to what diehard Denver Broncos fans remember as “the drive” in a 1987 playoff game. John Elway led his football team 98 yards down the field in Cleveland to tie the game with 37 seconds left. They won in OT.

    Brad Udall and Jonathan Overpeck warn against too much optimism. Mother Nature can be stingy. She has been in the past, with one drought period as long as 80 years during the last 2,000 years. Now, the evidence grows that our monkeying with Mother Nature has produced this drought.

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

    In 2017, Udall and Overpeck issued the results of their study that showed that warming alone was responsible for roughly half of the reduced natural flows of the Colorado River, at that point 17%. They delivered a new phrase: “hot drought” as distinguished from “dry drought.” The warmer temperatures were robbing the Colorado River Basin of water.

    Precipitation in the basin has also declined 7% in the 21st century, as compared to the 20th century. In their chapter, Udall from Colorado State and Overpeck now at the University of Michigan (but with a summer cabin in San Miguel County), cite two new studies that together provide evidence “suggesting” complicity of humans. Greenhouse gases explain the declined precipitation, too.

    As science is never 100%, Udall and Overpeck use cautious language. The studies, they say, “strongly suggest we are in for extended dry periods in the Colorado headwaters in the decades ahead.”

    If there is less water, then isn’t the solution simple? Use less!

    Easy to say. And for the last 20 years, efforts have been made to nibble away at uses. Cities have been working to make less water-intensive urban landscapes popular. But the far larger story lies in agriculture.

    In Colorado and the three upper basin states, for example, about 70% of all the Colorado River water (after trans-basin diversions for irrigation are accounted for) goes to agriculture. How can ag use less water?

    Two of the chapters work on this. A trio of academics from Wyoming and one from Colorado take aim specifically at the upper basin states. “The relevant questions are not whether or when cuts will happen, but how deep will they go, how will they be distributed, and how well can the consequences be mitigated?” they ask.

    The four upper-basin researchers argue that evidence already exists for success. With creativity and collaboration, they say, farmers and ranchers can sustain crop and livestock production even as water becomes scarce. They get into the details, talking about adjustments of cow-calf operation, for example, to reduce water-dependent needs.  They call for more research into limited irrigation, crop switching and other practices.

    Two other academics, both from Arizona State, take a somewhat broader view, acknowledging the challenge.

    “In a landscape of poor choices, in a failing river system in which all solutions are deeply unpopular to some or other powerful constituency, potentially harmful to one community or another or inordinately expensive and founded on unreliable funding, it is at least worth considering another option,” write Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter.

    They see cuts of up to 4 million acre-feet in the basin annually being necessary. Again, that’s about 25% of what those who created the Colorado River Compact expected would be annual flows for the seven basin states.

    How to get there? They introduce a new concept, “economic water productivity,” a measure of the value of water. Instead of buy and dry programs, they see need for a federally financed effort to pivot uses through incentives to reduce water use on those agricultural lands.

    Similar buy-down of high-volume irrigated agriculture is underway in two groundwater depletion areas in Colorado, the San Luis Valley and the Republican River Basin. Some federal money is providing help in the latter basin. They contend federal money will be needed, and lots of it, to pay for this big pivot in the Colorado River Basin. That, they say, would be fitting, because it was federal money that financed the infrastructure for this hydraulic empire.

    GRACE TWS trend map. (a) The time series of nonseasonal GRACE/FO TWS (km3/year) over UCRB and LCRB for the period (4/2002–10/2024). (b) Spatial variation in TWS trends for the Colorado River Basin for the investigated period (mm/year) (c) Time series comparison of the change in storage ΔS/Δt derived from the water balance equation (Equation 1) and GRACE/FO. ΔS/Δt calculated from GRACE/FO TWS anomalies in km3. The light shading represents uncertainties.

    As for groundwater, that part of the Colorado River story has been generally overlooked. A study released several months ago found that nearly two-thirds of storage — both surface and groundwater — lost from 2002 to 2024 in the Colorado River actually came from groundwater depletion, mostly in Arizona.

    Whoa!

    “Simply shifting unsustainable surface water uses to unsustainable groundwater uses does nothing to address the core mismatch of supplies and demands,” observes Doug Kenney, who directs the Western Water Policy Program at University of Colorado Law School.

    Other contributors dissect the complexities of what would seem to be simple, common sense solutions. For example, Eric Kuhn, the former general manager of the Colorado River District, works through the concept of water sharing among the states based on a percentage basis. The Colorado River Compact divides water between the upper and lower basins, a mistake in retrospect although even in 1922, when it was adopted, there had been an argument for using a percentage.

    Later, when the upper-basin sates adopted a compact among themselves, they did use a percentage basis.

    Kuhn goes deep into the history, as he has done with book-writing (“Science be Dammed,” 2019, with John Fleck) to sort through the thinking of this idea over the last century. It came up again earlier this year as the seven basin states tried to figure out how to share the river given the changed realities. The states, however, could not agree on what percentages should be used for sharing. It may have been just too much of a transformational change for some states to accept, he says.

    However, the idea may come back if the stalemate between the upper and lower basins of the Colorado River ends up in the federal courts. Or failing that, what exactly would federal intervention look like? That’s an impolite question, but one of those what-ifs that must be wondered about. (For the record, the water people I know seem to have high regard for people in the Department of Interior in charge of looking after the Colorado River).

    The large story here is that the states, with enormous aid from the federal treasury, created the infrastructure and expectations of water that no longer exists and, as per the studies of scientists, will almost certainly not return within the lifetimes of any of us. What, then, should be the federal role in defining the future balance? Once again, might the dismantling of Glen Canyon Dam be such a wild idea after all?

    Thoughts in this book will likely be part of the conversations next week in Las Vegas when representatives of the seven basin states gather, as they always do, at the Colorado River Water Uses Association conference. Might a hallway conversation lead to a breakthrough?

    Like huge snowstorms in the Rockies and then cool temperatures during runoff, there might be miracles, but I wouldn’t count on it. This deadpool dance might end sooner than anybody actually likes.

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

    The Erosion of the Colorado River “Safety Nets” is Alarming — Doug Kenney (#ColoradoRiver Research Group) #COriver #aridification

    Graphic credit: Colorado River Research Group from the report “Dancing with Deadpool”

    Click the link to access the report Dancing with Deadpool on the Getches-Wilkinson Center website (Doug Kenney1):

    The rapid loss of storage in Lakes Mead and Powell is certainly deserving of the attention and angst it has generated and continues to generate, but it is the tip of larger trends altering the landscape of risk in the basin. The dismantling of many other “safety nets,” defined broadly, is happening at a pace far surpassing the already unprecedented declines in reservoir storage. Presumably that’s not an immediate problem if new post-2026 rules are able to recover and protect storage in Mead and Powell (and some of the other upstream facilities), but does anyone have that much faith in the power of new reservoir operating rules to combat the forces that have brought us to this point? What about when we have a 10 million acre-feet/year river?

    GRACE TWS trend map. (a) The time series of nonseasonal GRACE/FO TWS (km3/year) over UCRB and LCRB for the period (4/2002–10/2024). (b) Spatial variation in TWS trends for the Colorado River Basin for the investigated period (mm/year) (c) Time series comparison of the change in storage ΔS/Δt derived from the water balance equation (Equation 1) and GRACE/FO. ΔS/Δt calculated from GRACE/FO TWS anomalies in km3. The light shading represents uncertainties.

    From Groundwater to Governance

    Perhaps the most obvious of those other diminishing safety nets is groundwater. Data on groundwater reserves throughout the basin is spotty at best. One approximation of a truly regional assessment comes from a creative use of satellite-based tools—namely NASA’s GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) system that can detect tiny changes in gravitational forces associated with the fluctuating mass of aquifers losing (or gaining) storage. Those findings paint a truly disturbing picture. Despite the familiar (and troubling) images of bathtub rings emerging at Mead and Powell, researchers using GRACE data now estimate that, from 2002 to 2024, nearly two-thirds of storage—both surface and groundwater—lost in the Colorado River Basin actually came from groundwater depletions.2 Significant groundwater losses have occurred throughout the basin, but the problem is particularly acute in Arizona and is likely to accelerate as shortages in Central Arizona Project (CAP) deliveries are likely offset by groundwater pumping—an ironic outcome given that CAP was originally proposed as the solution to groundwater mining in the region. Simply shifting unsustainable surface water uses to unsustainable groundwater uses does nothing to address the core mismatch of supplies and demands.

    A very different and multi-faceted trend undercutting the regional safety nets is happening within the federal government, where federal agencies, programs and science programs are being systematically dismantled under the guise of “efficiency.” It’s hard to understate the significance of these actions, as it is the federal government that, presumably, has the scope, mandate and resources to oversee the entirety of the River and the full diversity of its roles and values. Interior Department agencies in 2025, like much of the overall federal bureaucracy, have been tasked to achieve significant staffing reductions, and to eliminate (or significantly scale back) spending on key water conservation programs—including programs under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and WaterSMART.3

    Additionally, agencies across the federal landscape have mobilized to coerce and shut down climate-related science and scientists, despite the nearly universal acknowledgment among water managers of the central role of climate change in the unfolding crisis.4 Collectively these efforts constitute a systematic effort to discredit and hide the primary cause of the broken water budget, while sabotaging the most effective coping mechanisms available. As members of the research community, the Colorado River Research Group (CRRG)unfortunately has a front-row seat to this culling of the people and programs essential to long-term data collection and analysis. It defies logic, and is dangerous.

    Unfortunately, hostility toward the people and programs essential to responding to the Colorado River crisis is not the full extent of federal obstruction. One largely unappreciated threat to the water budget resulting from federal policy shifts comes from efforts to “re-carbonize” (and accelerate) water-intensive energy generation, in part to meet the demands of AI, a particularly troubling trend given that the previous emphasis on renewable energy generation and enhanced energy conservation was one of the few positive trends working to repair the regional water budget.5 Attempts to weaken or dismantle bedrock environmental laws, such as NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, are an additional wildcard likely to inflict irreparable harm on already strained species and ecosystems.6

    Given the turmoil at the federal level, it’s tempting to absolve the States for stubbornly clinging to a policy making system reliant on 7-state dealmaking, but that would ignore the reality that the governance of the river has been a problem for decades. A seemingly never-ending series of crisis-inspired negotiations, held in largely secretive forums without direct tribal involvement or tools for meaningful public or scientific engagement, is an uninspired way to manage and protect the economic, cultural and environmental heart of the American Southwest. The river is too big and too important to govern in such an ad hoc and primitive manner. [ed. emphasis mine]

    That this approach mostly ”worked” to keep deliveries flowing for so long—except, of course, for the tribes and the environment—rested, in part, on the accepted norm that decisions would emerge collaboratively from the States and would not spill over to the federal courts. But even that governance safety net is eroding, as the States seem to be increasingly resigned—and almost “comfortable”—with the notion that the resolution of existing conflicts may not emerge from a negotiated 7-state agreement. For those parties and viewpoints that have historically been left out of the state-dominated processes and the resulting agreements, then maybe this prospect is welcome. But all would concede that would be a stunning outcome with ramifications that are difficult to predict.

    Ever since the Arizona v. California experience, the use of litigation to resolve interstate (and/or interbasin) conflicts in the basin has been a third rail issue, and for very good reasons. As shown by the basin’s earlier foray into Supreme Court action, the process would undoubtedly be lengthy, expensive, and likely to create as many issues and questions as it resolves. It certainly wouldn’t reduce risk, as the states, and the water management community more broadly, would lose control over the process of managing the shared resource. In fact, judicial intervention might be the impetus to trigger yet another traditionally feared decision pathway to be invoked—a Congressional rewrite of river allocation and management—either before or after the litigation concludes. In this setting, the extreme disparity in political influence—as measured by the number of Congressional representatives—between the Upper and Lower Basin is an obvious concern, as is the realization that congressional involvement means the future of the Colorado now becomes a national issue and, potentially, a bargaining chip to be used in the political logrolling necessary to enact legislation in dozens of otherwise unrelated areas.

    Screenshot from Kestrel Kunz’s presentation at the CRWUA 2023 Annual Conference.

    Rowing in the Wrong Direction

    Managing water in the arid and semi-arid West is often more about risk than water. From the seniority concept in prior appropriation to the sizing of infrastructure based on low probability events, the goal of water management is often to clearly define and then minimize the risks of running out. Given that, you’d think that the communities dependent upon Colorado River water would be more committed to protecting (and enhancing) the safety nets that are increasingly critical as storage in Lakes Mead and Powell—the basin’s primary risk management tools—increasingly flirt with deadpool. But at the basin scale, that’s typically not what I see. Sure, individual water managers serving major cities or districts have their own risk management plans focusing on everything from new infrastructure to market solutions, but that’s far from a comprehensive or integrated approach, and safety nets designed by and for the “established players” only deepen the inequities that increasingly divide the Colorado River community.

    There’s a lot of work left to do in this basin, both prior and after the 2026 deadline. Viewing the problems through the lens of risk management is not a bad place to start. But if doing so, it’s also not a bad idea to remember that poor risk management often comes at expense of diminished equity—an indispensable element of an equitable apportionment. Numerous examples around the world remind us that water scarcity can be the impetus for joint problem-solving in a spirit of camaraderie and mutual support, or it can sharpen and refine alliances that further distance the powerful from the weak. In this regard, I’m inclined to think we are rowing in the wrong direction. ●


    Footnotes

    1 Director, Western Water Policy Program, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School; and Chair, Colorado River Research Group.

    2 Abdelmohsen, K., Famiglietti, J. S., Ao, Y. Z., Mohajer, B., & Chandanpurkar, H. A. (2025). Declining freshwater availability in the Colorado River basin threatens sustainability of its critical groundwater supplies. Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2025GL115593. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL115593.

    3 Finding accurate data on federal workforce reductions is challenging; see Competing numbers emerge on federal workforce reductions. Between “incentivized retirements,” RIF (reduction in force) layoffs, recently resumed terminations of employees losing court-ordered protections, remaining planned cuts, and the ongoing hiring freeze, the total workforce of the Department of Interior could drop by over a third in 2025. The Interior Department is taking steps to implement layoffs – Government Executive. Similarly, data on efforts to reduce agency budgets is difficult to compile, particularly given the complex back and forth between the administration, Congress, and, increasingly, the courts. The President’s 2026 budget request cuts Reclamation’s budget approximately by a third (Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf (see page 28 and Table 2); Briefly: Budget proposal defunds Western water conservation grants – Water Education Colorado). Overall, proposed cuts to the Department of Interior total over $5 billion, or 30.5% of the 2025 enacted budget (Table 2). To this point, that request has not been embraced by Congress.

    4 For example, within NOAA, the administration’s 2026 budget request “terminates a variety of climate-dominated research, data, and grant programs,” and “cancels contracts for instruments designed for unnecessary climate measurements,” while also cutting National Science Foundation support of research “with dubious public value, like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios” (Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf; see pages 24-25, and 38).

    5 Data Center Energy and Water Use Trends Explained – Circle of Blue

    6 Regulatory Tracker – Environmental and Energy Law Program

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

    Historic Step Forward to Secure Environmental Flows in the #ColoradoRiver — Hannah Holm (AmericanRivers.com) #COriver #aridification

    Colorado River, Colorado | Sinjin Eberle

    Click the link to read the article on the American Rivers website (Hannah Holm):

    December 11, 2025

    On the evening of November 19, a packed conference room in the Denver West Marriott erupted in cheers when the Colorado Water Conservation Board approved one of the largest ever dedications of water for the environment in Colorado’s history. This new deal, if completed, will ensure that water currently running through the aging Shoshone Hydropower Plant on the Colorado River, deep in the heart of Glenwood Canyon, will keep flowing through the canyon when the plant eventually goes off-line. It’s not a sure thing yet – water court wrangling over the details and financial hurdles remain. But the Board’s action was a crucial step forward. 

    Currently, when the plant is running full steam, 1,400 cubic feet/ second (think 1,400 basketballs full of water passing by every second) is diverted out of the river into a tunnel and then into massive pipes visible against the canyon walls, where the power of falling water spins turbines to generate electricity. The water is then returned back to the river. Under the new deal, when the plant stops operating (it is over 100 years old and vulnerable to rockfall), the water would instead stay in the river, vastly improving conditions for fish and the bugs they eat in the 2.4-mile reach between the diversion and the powerplant’s return flows. The dedication of the plant’s water rights to that stretch of river would bring benefits that ripple hundreds of miles up and downstream because of the crucial role these water rights play in controlling the river’s flow through Western Colorado.  

    Shoshone Power Plant, Colorado | Hannah Holm

    In Colorado, as in most of the West, older water rights take priority over newer ones when there’s not enough water to satisfy everyone’s claims.  On the Colorado River, the Shoshone Hydropower rights limit the amount of water that can be taken out of the river upstream by junior rights that divert water from the river’s headwaters through tunnels under the Continental Divide to cities and farms on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains. The new deal to enable the Shoshone rights to be used for environmental flows would preserve those limitations on transmountain diversions in perpetuity.

    Upstream from the power plant, near the ranching town of Kremmling, Colorado, the river carries less than half the water it would without the existing transmountain diversions. This stresses fish populations and the iconic cottonwood groves that line the river. The Shoshone rights downstream prevent these diversions from being even larger. Because the power plant returns all the water it uses to the river without consuming it, the water continues to provide benefits downstream from the plant to rafters, farms, cities and four species of endangered fish that exist only in the Colorado River Basin. Securing these flows for the future is particularly important as climate change continues to reduce the river’s flow, which has already declined by roughly 20% over the past two decades.  

    The people cheering in the hearing room represented cities, towns, counties and irrigation districts from up and down the Colorado River. Their entities had pledged ratepayer and taxpayer dollars to help secure the rights in the complex transaction spearheaded by the Colorado River Water Conservation District. Environmental organizations, including American Rivers, Audubon, Trout Unlimited and Western Resource Advocates, were also parties to the hearing and supportive of the deal, but were vastly outnumbered.  

    The Coloradans cheering in that room were there because their constituents’ livelihoods, clean drinking water and quality of life depend on a living Colorado River. American Rivers is proud to stand with them and will continue advocating for the completion of this historic water transaction.

    Colorado River Basin, USBR May 2015

    The Year in Water, 2025 – Power Shift — Brett Walton (circleofblue.org) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

    Click the link to read the story map on the Circle of Blue website (Brett Walton). Here’s the Colorado River section:

    December 9, 2025

    The year is ending with the Colorado River at a critical juncture.

    The big reservoirs Mead and Powell remain perilously low and the seven states that share the basin have been unable to agree on cuts that would reduce their reliance on the shrinking river.

    Reservoir operating rules expire at the end of 2026. If no agreement is reached the federal government could step in, or the states could take their chances in court. It’s a risky move that no one in principle seems to want. Yet brinkmanship and entrenched positions have stymied compromise.

    The basin’s Indian tribes, which collectively have rights to more than a quarter of its recent average annual flow, are adamant that their interests – and more broadly, the river itself – be protected. “Any progress made in the negotiations to date is merely rationing a reduced supply, not actively managing and augmenting it as a shared resource with strategies and tools that can benefit the entire basin,” the leaders of the Gila River Indian Community wrote on November 12.

    The Colorado River Indian Tribes, whose riverside reservation includes lands in Arizona and California, voted in November to extend legal personhood to the river under tribal law.

    Native America in the Colorado River Basin. Credit: USBR

    Think Natural Flows Will Rebound in the #ColoradoRiver Basin? Think Again — Jonathan Overpeck and Bradley Udall #COriver #aridification

    From the report Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing With Deadpool (Jonathan Overpeck and Bradley Udall):

    • Jonathan Overpeck is a climate scientist and Dean of the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan; prior to moving to Michigan, he lived and worked in Colorado and Arizona for over 25 years.
    • Bradley Udall is a Senior Water and Climate Research Scientist/Scholar, Colorado Water Center, Colorado State University.

    Basin status update

    Back in 2017, we published a peer-reviewed research paper (Udall and Overpeck, 2017) asserting that climate warming was a principal cause of the then eighteen-year Colorado River drought, a drought that had already seen a 17% reduction in natural flows of the river. We expressed confidence that warming would continue to eat away at these flows until the warming (due to greenhouse gas emissions, high confidence) ceased and suggested that increases in precipitation would likely not be able to compensate for the long-term impact of rising temperatures. We used the term “Hot Drought” to distinguish this period from the “Dry Droughts in the 20th century. This important concept continues to be researched and confirmed (King et al, 2024, Zhuang et al, 2024). Now, eight years later, as the warming has continued unabated and may be accelerating (Hansen et al, 2025, Ripple et al., 2025), it has become clearer than ever that precipitation declines have also played an important role in causing the worst drought in at least 1200 years (Williams et al., 2022). More troubling, however, is new evidence that human caused climate change is not only driving a steady increase in temperature but is also the main culprit behind the precipitation declines as well.

    This is clearly bad news, but there is a silver-lining. But first, let’s review where we are with respect to the unprecedented 21st century Colorado River drought, and the new evidence suggesting the situation is worse than we first thought.

    Figure 1 Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall

    Each year one of us updates a figure3 that was first published in our 2017 paper showing the status of the Colorado River drought and its climate drivers. We’ve included this figure here, updated through the September 30th end of the 2024-25 water year (Figure 1). The combined volume of water stored in Lakes Mead and Powell has continued its decline to less than 15 maf (million acre-feet), the 26-year average naturalized flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry is now 12.2 maf, well below the 16.5 maf mainstem apportionments assigned to the seven Colorado River Basin states and Mexico. Critically, the 6 years since 2020 have averaged 10.8 maf/year, the same as the then-unprecedented low flows during 2000-05 at the start of this record-setting drought.

    Matching the long slow decline in naturalized flows over the last century has been a similar long slow decline in precipitation in the Upper Basin of the Colorado (Figure 1, Panel C). Superimposed on this long trend are two notable drought periods with lower-than-average precipitation: one in the 1950’s-60’s and now the on-going current drought, at 26-years and counting, a multidecadal “megadrought” and the longest drought in the Colorado River Basin instrumental record. Mirroring the century-long declines in precipitation and naturalized flows is a long-term warming trend that started to accelerate in the 1970’s and that is clearly linked to on-going global warming (Williams et al., 2020, Masson-Delmotte et al., 2021). Whereas the former drought of record, in the 1950’s and 60’s, was defined almost entirely by precipitation deficit (Figure 1, left gray shaded area), the current megadrought is being driven by a precipitation deficit compounded by relentless warming (Figure 1, right gray shaded area).

    The impact of a warming climate

    As we highlighted in earlier peer-reviewed papers (e.g., Vano et al., 2014, Udall and Overpeck, 2017), warming exacerbates drought in multiple ways. A warming atmosphere can hold progressively more water, and thus as the atmosphere warms it can evaporate more water. At the same time, a warmer atmosphere can cause soils and vegetation to lose more water to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration, especially as the warming atmosphere also causes the growing season in the Upper Basin of the Colorado to become longer (Das et al., 2011; Udall and Overpeck, 2017). Hot, dry springs in the basin bring on early melt and green-up (Hogan and Lundquist, 2024, Lin et al., 2022). Drier soils and vegetation thus mean less water that can eventually end up in the river, and incidentally also explains why the West I experiencing more wildfire (Abatzoglou and Williams, 2016). Atmospheric warming also leads to snow loss, a shorter snow-cover season, and an associated loss of solar radiation reflectivity – this drives further warming and yet more evapotranspiration (Milly and Dunne, 2020; Ban et al., 2023).

    Large changes in groundwater supplies in both the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins have been noted from soil moisture to deeper layers since 2002 (Abdelmohsen et al., 2025, Chandanpurkar et al., 2025). It is becoming increasingly clear that dry summer soils can persist into the fall and winter soaking up snowmelt the following spring thereby reducing runoff (Das et al., 2011, Lapides et al, 2022).

    Precipitation declining

    Estimates vary, but it appears that up to half of the observed roughly 20% reduction in Colorado flows are likely related to the steadily warming temperatures of the Colorado River headwaters region (Udall and Overpeck, 2017; Xiao et al., 2018; Milly and Dunne, 2020, Bass et al, 2023). Moreover, since 2017 it has become increasingly clear that the other major cause of the flow reductions is a sustained decrease in precipitation (Figure 1, Panel C). Until recently, the big question is whether the observed 7% post-1999 decrease in precipitation relative to the 20th century average was due primarily to natural multidecadal climate variability or human-caused climate change.  We now have good reasons to suspect the latter, and this translates to mostly bad news.

    Megadrought country

    It is now more clear than ever that the southwest United States, including the headwater regions of the Colorado River, is megadrought country. Tree-ring and other paleoclimatic sources reveal that multiple droughts lasting two or more decades took place over the last 2000 years (Meko et al, 2007; Gangopadhyay et al., 2022), and a good case has now been made for the current drought being among the most severe in at least 1200 years in large part because of the unprecedented amplifying effect of warming temperatures during the current sustained period of reduced precipitation (Williams et al., 2020; 2022).

    However, there is another important lesson to be gleaned from the rich paleoclimatic record of pre-20th Century droughts and megadroughts. Given that global temperatures were likely significantly cooler prior to the last 50 years then they are now (PAGES 2k Consortium, 2019), it follows that themany long Upper Colorado Basin droughts that took place over the last 2000 years preceding the current drought were likely due much more to precipitation deficits alone. This means that we have good evidence that precipitation deficits exceeding those of the current on-going drought in both magnitude and duration are not rare, and that the current drought could see not just warmer temperatures in the future (a sure bet), but also even larger and longer precipitation deficits. It is thus critical that we consider what is presently causing the precipitation decline in the headwaters region of the Colorado River, and from that get a better sense of what’s most likely ahead. And for motivation, since we wrote our 2017 paper, new evidence has emerged that drought-dominated periods – likely driven mostly by precipitation declines for the reason noted above – as long as 80 years have occurred in the last 2000 years in the Upper Basin of the Colorado River (Gangopadhyay et al., 2022).

    The cause of precipitation decline

    Could we be in for an even longer period of reduced precipitation than the last quarter. century in the years to decades ahead? The answer depends on knowing the cause of the on-going precipitation decline, and there are two primary possibilities. The first is natural climate variability in the climate system, which can cause periods of lower precipitation to oscillate irregularly with periods of higher precipitation. Thus, if the recent period of low precipitation is due to natural climate variability, there could be periods of greater precipitation returning to the Colorado headwaters, although these wet periods would be increasingly unlikely to offset the drying impact of the steadily increasing temperatures. The second potential cause of on-going precipitation deficit is an anthropogenically-forced trend in precipitation decline due to increasing human emissions of greenhouse gases and reductions in Asian, mostly Chinese, aerosols to the atmosphere.5 Such an anthropogenic trend would likely portend continued low precipitation into the future, in synch with continued warming.

    One well-known source of natural variability in precipitation in the Colorado River Basin is decadal and longer variation in the sea-surface temperature patterns of the North and tropical Pacific Ocean, giving rise to what is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). A peer-reviewed research paper just published (Klavans et al., 2025) reviews the scientific literature and notes that decadal and longer variability in the PDO has long been thought to have arisen from atmosphere-ocean interactions internal to the natural climate system and has in turn caused decadal and longer precipitation variability downstream over western North America. The PDO is strongly correlated with La Nina, and both are known to be associated with a dry Southwest US (Seager and Ting, 2017; Lehner et al., 2018; Hoerling et al., 2023, Seager et al., 2023). Klavans et al., 2025 also presents convincing new evidence that anthropogenic forcing in the form of human emissions of greenhouse gases and reductions in atmospheric aerosols is now the primary driver of the same elevated sea-surface temperatures and this forcing is thus the primary cause behind the precipitation decline that has been observed since the start of the on-going Colorado River megadrought. In other words, human-driven climate change has caused the PDO oscillation to lock into its negative dry phase and this situation is likely to persist into the future.

    A second new paper (Todd et al., 2025) highlights that higher Northern Hemisphere temperatures from about 11,000 to 6,000 years ago, in this case due to well-understood changes in the Earth’s orbit, caused a negative PDO-like Pacific warming that in turn forced western U.S. precipitation to lock into a multi-millennia-long dry phase. This new research thus provides yet more confidence that the odds will favor lowered precipitation in the Colorado River headwaters for as long as human-caused warming persists. Both new research papers (Todd et al., 2025; Klavans et al., 2025) also note that state-of-the-art climate models underestimate the role of human-caused climate change in driving persistent drought in the region containing the headwaters of the Colorado River. Natural decadal and longer climate variability clearly caused the many droughts and megadroughts of the last 2000 years, but looking ahead today, it appears that human-caused climate change is likely to exert a stronger influence, and this will mean a higher likelihood of continued lower precipitation in the headwaters of the Colorado River into the future.

    Photo Credit: Kathryn Sorensen

    Conclusion: bad news, good news

    To sum it up, since 2017 we now know quite a bit more about how climate change is altering the flows of the Colorado River. Whereas eight years ago we were able to confidently anticipate that human-caused atmospheric warming alone would continue to reduce flows in the river, we now have a better, though still emerging, understanding of how human emissions of greenhouse gases are likely to also cause a continued reduction in precipitation in the headwaters of the Colorado River. Whereas we have known since 2017 that additional future climate warming will cause continued and even larger flow reductions, two new carefully crafted studies strongly suggest we are in for extended dry periods in the Colorado headwaters in the decades ahead.

    As we hinted earlier, is important to recognize that the news is not all bad, and there is indeed a silver-lining to our improved understanding of why the natural flows of the Colorado are declining, and what this means for the future. We can say with confidence that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases are having an increasingly negative impact on the flows of the Colorado River, a river that serves over forty million people and region that has an annual economy in excess of $1.4 trillion (James et al., 2014). This climate change impact will continue to worsen, but because humans cause it, humans can halt it. This is good to know as we work to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere that are causing the climate change. The Colorado River will benefit. 

    Photo Credit: Kathryn Sorensen

    Literature Cited

    Abatzoglou, J. T., & Williams, A. P. (2016). Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceedings of the

    National Academy of Sciences, 113(42), 11770–11775. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607171113

    Abdelmohsen, K., Famiglietti, J. S., Ao, Y. Z., Mohajer, B., & Chandanpurkar, H. A. (2025). Declining Freshwater Availability in the Colorado River

    Basin Threatens Sustainability of Its Critical Groundwater Supplies. Geophysical Research Letters, 52(10), e2025GL115593. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL115593

    Ban, Z., Li, D., & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2023). The Increasing Role of Seasonal Rainfall in Western U.S. Summer Streamflow. Geophysical Research

    Letters, 50(9), e2023GL102892. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL102892

    Bass, B., Goldenson, N., Rahimi, S., & Hall, A. (2023). Aridification of Colorado River Basin’s Snowpack Regions Has Driven Water Losses Despite

    Ameliorating Effects of Vegetation. Water Resources Research, 59(7), e2022WR033454. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033454

    Chandanpurkar, H. A., Famiglietti, J. S., Gopalan, K., Wiese, D. N., Wada, Y., Kakinuma, K., Reager, J. T., & Zhang, F. (2025). Unprecedented

    continental drying, shrinking freshwater availability, and increasing land contributions to sea level rise. Science Advances, 11, eadx0298

    Das, T., Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Vano, J. A., & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2011). The importance of warm season warming to western U.S. streamflow

    changes: WARM SEASON WARMING STREAMFLOW CHANGES. Geophysical Research Letters, 38(23), https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049660

    Gangopadhyay, S., Woodhouse, C. A., McCabe, G. J., Routson, C. C., & Meko, D. M. (2022). Tree Rings Reveal Unmatched 2nd Century Drought in

    the Colorado River Basin. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(11), e2022GL098781. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098781

    Hansen, J. E., Kharecha, P., Sato, M., Tselioudis, G., Kelly, J., Bauer, S. E., Ruedy, R., Jeong, E., Jin, Q., Rignot, E., Velicogna, I., Schoeberl, M. R., Von

    Schuckmann, K., Amponsem, J., Cao, J., Keskinen, A., Li, J., & Pokela, A. (2025). Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the

    Public Well-Informed? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 67(1), 6–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494

    Hoerling, M., & Kumar, A. (2003). The Perfect Ocean for Drought. Science, 299(5607), 691–694. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1079053

    Hogan, D., & Lundquist, J. D. (2024). Recent Upper Colorado River Streamflow Declines Driven by Loss of Spring Precipitation. Geophysical

    Research Letters, 51(16), e2024GL109826. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL109826

    IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb,

    M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge

    University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2391 pp. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.

    James, P. T., Evans, D. A., Madly, E., & Kelly, C. (2014). THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE COLORADO RIVER TO THE BASIN REGION. L.

    William Seidman Research Institute, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University.

    King, K. E., Cook, E. R., Anchukaitis, K. J., Cook, B. I., Smerdon, J. E., Seager, R., Harley, G. L., & Spei, B. (2024). Increasing prevalence of hot drought

    across western North America since the 16th century. Science Advances, 10(4), eadj4289. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adj4289

    Klavans, J. M., DiNezio, P. N., Clement, A. C., Deser, C., Shanahan, T. M., & Cane, M. A. (2025). Human emissions drive recent trends in North

    Pacific climate variations. Nature, 644(8077), 684–692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09368-2

    Lapides, D. A., Hahm, W. J., Rempe, D. M., Whiting, J., & Dralle, D. N. (2022). Causes of Missing Snowmelt Following Drought. Geophysical

    Research Letters, 49(19), e2022GL100505. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100505

    Lehner, F., Deser, C., Simpson, I. R., & Terray, L. (2018). Attributing the U.S. Southwest’s Recent Shift Into Drier Conditions. Geophysical Research

    Letters, 45(12), 6251–6261. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078312

    Lin, Y., Takano, Y., Gu, Y., Wang, J., Zhao, B., Liou, K., & Fu, R. (2022). Investigation of Springtime Cloud Influence on Regional Climate and Its

    Implication in Runoff Decline in Upper Colorado River Basin. Earth and Space Science, 9(1), e2021EA002059. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EA002059

    Meko, D. M., Woodhouse, C. A., Baisan, C. A., Knight, T., Lukas, J. J., Hughes, M. K., & Salzer, M. W. (2007). Medieval drought in the upper Colorado

    River Basin. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL029988

    Milly, P. C. D., & Dunne, K. A. (2020). Colorado River flow dwindles as warming-driven loss of reflective snow energizes evaporation. Science,

    367(6483), 1252–1255. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay9187

    PAGES 2k Consortium, Neukom, R., Barboza, L. A., Erb, M. P., Shi, F., Emile-Geay, J., Evans, M. N., Franke, J., Kaufman, D. S., Lücke, L., Rehfeld,

    K., Schurer, A., Zhu, F., Brönnimann, S., Hakim, G. J., Henley, B. J., Ljungqvist, F. C., McKay, N., Valler, V., & Von Gunten, L. (2019). Consistent

    multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era. Nature Geoscience, 12(8), 643–649. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0400-0

    Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Gregg, J. W., Rockström, J., Mann, M. E., Oreskes, N., Lenton, T. M., Rahmstorf, S., Newsome, T. M., Xu, C., Svenning, J.-C.,

    Pereira, C. C., Law, B. E., & Crowther, T. W. (2024). The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth. BioScience, 74(12),

    812–824. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae087

    Seager, R., & Ting, M. (2017). Decadal Drought Variability Over North America: Mechanisms and Predictability. Current Climate Change Reports,

    3(2), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-017-0062-1

    Seager, R., Ting, M., Alexander, P., Liu, H., Nakamura, J., Li, C., & Newman, M. (2023). Ocean-forcing of cool season precipitation drives ongoing

    and future decadal drought in southwestern North America. Npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 6(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-023-00461-9

    Todd, V. L., Shanahan, T. M., DiNezio, P. N., Klavans, J. M., Fawcett, P. J., Anderson, R. S., Jiménez-Moreno, G., LeGrande, A. N., Pausata, F. S. R.,

    Thompson, A. J., & Zhu, J. (2025). North Pacific ocean–atmosphere responses to Holocene and future warming drive Southwest US drought.

    Nature Geoscience, 18(7), 646–652. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01726-z

    Udall, B., & Overpeck, J. (2017). The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future. Water Resources Research,

    53(3), 2404–2418. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019638

    Vano, J. A., Udall, B., Cayan, D. R., Overpeck, J. T., Brekke, L. D., Das, T., Hartmann, H. C., Hidalgo, H. G., Hoerling, M., McCabe, G. J., & others.

    (2014). Understanding Uncertainties in Future Colorado River streamflow. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(1), 59–78.

    Williams, A. P., Cook, B. I., & Smerdon, J. E. (2022). Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020–

    2021. Nature Climate Change, 12(3), 232–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01290-z

    Williams, A. P., Cook, E. R., Smerdon, J. E., Cook, B. I., Abatzoglou, J. T., Bolles, K., Baek, S. H., Badger, A. M., & Livneh, B. (2020). Large contribution

    from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought. Science, 368(6488), 314–318. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9600

    Xiao, M., Udall, B., & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2018). On the Causes of Declining Colorado River Streamflows. Water Resources Research, 54(9),

    6739–6756. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023153

    Zhuang, Y., Fu, R., Lisonbee, J., Sheffield, A. M., Parker, B. A., & Deheza, G. (2024). Anthropogenic warming has ushered in an era of temperature-

    dominated droughts in the western United States. Science Advances, 10(45), eadn9389. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn9389


    Footnotes

    3 https://coloradoriverscience.org/Current_conditions#The_Colorado_River_.274-panel_plot.27

    4 NOAA’s nClimGrid dataset indicates that over the Upper Colorado River Basin there has been a 7% annual precipitation reduction during 2000-26 compared to 1897-1999. This reduction is not evenly spread over the seasons, however; reductions in the fall (SON), winter (DJF), spring (MAM) and summer (JJA) are 3%, 0%, 11% and 12%, respectively. Fall and winter precipitation for snowpack has thus been close to normal while spring and summer has been much reduced.

    5 Sulfate aerosols are emitted in large quantities when sulfur in fossil fuels is burned. These shiny particles can end up high in the atmosphere where they reduce anthropogenic warming by reflecting sunlight. But near the surface their sulfur-based precursors cause serious human health problems and thus many countries in the last few decades have tried and succeeded in reducing these emissions. China, notably, has made great strides in reducing these emissions but the unfortunate side effect is increased warming, especially in the Pacific Ocean downwind. It is believed that this aerosol cleanup (also underway in ocean shipping) is causing at least some of the accelerated global heating now underway including the additional heating in the northern Pacific contributing to precipitation reductions in the Southwest US.

    Map credit: AGU

    Report: Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool — #ColoradoRiver Reseach Group (Getches-Wilkinson Center) #COriver #aridification

    Click the link to access the report on the Getches-Wilkinson Center website:

    In a collection of essays and research summaries, eleven members of the Colorado River Research Group (with eight guest contributors) touch on issues as diverse as plummeting reservoir storage, climate change trends, risk management, agricultural water conservation, equity, and governance, all against the backdrop of the need to fashion post-2026 reservoir operating rules. 

    Download the report here: 
    Colorado River Insights, 2025:  Dancing with Deadpool

    Contents

    Chapter 1.  Colorado River Reservoir Storage – Where We Stand
    Jack Schmidt, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Kathryn Sorensen, and Katherine Tara

    Chapter 2.  Think Natural Flows Will Rebound in the Colorado River Basin? Think Again. 
    Jonathan Overpeck and Brad Udall

    Chapter 3.  The Erosion of the Colorado River “Safety Nets” is Alarming
    Doug Kenney

    Chapter 4. Water Equity in the Colorado River Basin
    Bonnie Colby and Zoey Reed-Spitzer

    Chapter 5.  The Tale of Three Percentage-Based Apportionment Schemes
    Eric Kuhn

    Chapter 6. A Humbly Proffered Proposal to Aid the Colorado River System: Conservation Easements & Land Purchases
    Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter

    Chapter 7.  Facing the Future: Can Agriculture Thrive in the Upper Basin with Less Water? 
    Kristiana Hansen, Daniel Mooney, Mahdi Asgari, and Christopher Bastian

    Chapter 8.  Towards a Basinwide Entity: Moving from Vision to Action
    Matthew McKinney, Jason Robison, John Berggren, and Doug Kenney

    Contributors

    Colorado River Research Group (CRRG) Members

    Bonnie Colby, Professor, University of Arizona.

    John Fleck, Writer in Residence, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.

    Kristiana Hansen, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.

    Doug Kenney, Director, Western Water Policy Program, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School; and Chair, Colorado River Research Group.

    Eric Kuhn, Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District.

    Matthew McKinney, Co-director, Water & Tribes Initiative; Senior Fellow, Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy, University of Montana; Fulbright Specialist 2025-2027.

    Jonathan Overpeck, Dean, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan.

    Jason Robison, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Gina Guy Center for Land & Water Law, University of Wyoming.

    Jack Schmidt, Director, Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, and former Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.

    Kathryn Sorensen, Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University; and former Director, Phoenix Water Services.

    Brad Udall, Senior Water and Climate Research Scientist/Scholar, Colorado Water Center, Colorado State University.

    Guest Contributors

    Mahdi Asgari, Postdoctoral Scholar, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.

    Christopher Bastian, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.

    John Berggren, Regional Policy Manager, Western Resource Advocates.

    Anne Castle, Senior Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School; former US Commissioner, Upper Colorado River Commission; and former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, US Department of the Interior.

    Daniel Mooney, Associate Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University.

    Sarah Porter, Director, Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University.

    Zoey Reed-Spitzer, Research Assistant, North Carolina State University (formerly University of Arizona).

    Katherine Tara, Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.


    Here’s the preface:

    Welcome to the Colorado River Research Group’s (CRRG) inaugural Colorado River Insights report. This publication marks a new (and still evolving) direction for the CRRG, transitioning away from the group-authored policy briefs of the past to more personal “Individual Submissions” that allow members to be more focused, direct and sometimes prescriptive than in the past efforts authored jointly and requiring unanimous consent. While each of the Individual Submissions (i.e., Chapters) that follows is unique in structure and tone and detail, each member was given the same charge: to speak directly about issues on the river where they have been directing much of their current focus, and where feasible, to identify a path forward on those issues. Given this approach, each Individual Submission is truly individual—or, in several cases, the product of small groups—and thus should not be attributed to the entire body, although in practice there is usually very little internal conflict on any of the major themes featured throughout these pages. One byproduct of this approach is that it shines a light on some of the CRRG’s most glaring holes in terms of disciplines and substantive expertise, helping to steer us to new potential members (and guest contributors) and, perhaps, new approaches. Unless or until that happens, we readily acknowledge that our collective snapshot of current and emerging basin issues is far from comprehensive. But how could it be? That’s an impossible standard for a river as vast in size, importance and complexity as the Colorado.

    We are hopeful that this new approach can be helpful in better funneling the knowledge emerging from the research community into the hands of decision-makers, journalists, NGOs, water users, and other concerned parties in a more hands-on position to implement the changes needed to restore the economic and environmental sustainability of the River. Clearly, we are in an era screaming for new ideas and new approaches; the status quo isn’t working. — Doug Kenney, CRRG Chair

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

    Water across the West at risk as President Trump targets national monuments: A new study found that about 83% of water passing through public lands uses monument designation for its only protection — Wyatt Myskow (High Country News)

    RuggyBearLA Photography RuggyBearLA / via Flickr

    Click the link to read the article on the High Country News website (Wyatt Myskow):

    December 9, 2025

    This story was originally published bInside Climate News and is republished here through a partnership with Climate Desk.

    The 31 national monuments designated since the Clinton administration, which could be downsized as the Trump administration pushes to open more public lands to extractive industries, safeguard clean water for millions of Americans, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress.

    Using geospatial data to quantify the miles of rivers and watersheds within the studied national monument boundaries, as well as the number of users who depend on that water, the report found that the water supplies for more than 13 million Americans are directly provided by watersheds within or downstream of these national monuments. About 83% of the water passing through these public lands has no other protection besides the monument designations, it found.

    National monuments protect more than 21,000 miles of waterways across the U.S., nearly twice as much waterway mileage as the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the analysis also determined.

    The report comes as the Trump administration weighs downsizing or revoking the designation of  some national monuments.

    Corn Springs Chukwalla Mountains California. By Michael Dorausch from Venice, USA – Corn Springs CA, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41004589

    In March, the Trump administration announced it would eliminate California’s Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands national monuments before removing language from a White House fact sheet announcing that decision. The following month, The Washington Post reported that the administration was considering downsizing or eliminating six national monuments, and in June, the U.S. Department of Justice issued an opinion that the president has the power to rescind national monument designations, backtracking on a decades-old determination on the matter.

    Stone and evening light, Bears Ears National Monument, Utah. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

    During Trump’s last term, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, established by the Obama and Clinton administrations, respectively, were shrunk to fractions of their original sizes, but they were restored by President Joe Biden after he took office.

    If national monuments are downsized or eliminated, the areas surrounding a waterway will lose protections from extractive industries, including oil and gas drilling, mining and grazing. Contamination from those industries could seep into streams and, in turn, rivers. Those industries also use water, sometimes vast amounts in arid regions, further reducing the supply that flows to nearby communities. (In certain cases, some mining and grazing are already permitted on national monument lands, but the activities are limited in scale and more regulated than they are outside the monuments.)

    “Landscapes and waterways go hand in hand,” said Drew McConville, a senior fellow for conservation policy at the Center for American Progress and a co-author of the report. “The clean water depends on what comes into them from natural lands … Just protecting the wet stuff itself doesn’t guarantee that you’re keeping [water] clean and durable.”

    The portion of historically marginalized communities living within the watersheds of the national monuments is greater than the average for watersheds nationally, it found. Twenty-three of the monuments studied are also found in regions expected to face water shortages due to climate change in the coming decades, making the arid regions downstream even drier.

    Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, for example, protects 2,517 miles of waterways, according to the analysis, and nearly 90% of the watersheds within the monument are expected to see declines in their water levels. The monument straddles the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins, with the Paria and Escalante rivers flowing within its boundaries and Lake Powell, the nation’s second-largest reservoir, just to its south. 

    The monument is often thought of as a sparse, arid region, which it is, said Jackie Grant, the executive director of Grand Staircase Escalante Partners, a nonprofit focused on protecting the monument that has spent $11 million to protect the Escalante River watershed and all its tributaries. It remains vital to the Colorado River System, which millions of people in the Southwest rely on. Grand Staircase-Escalante helps slow water from the Paunsaugunt Plateau in Bryce Canyon National Park, much of which starts as snowpack in the park before melting and flowing downstream. 

    “People don’t think of water when they think of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument,” Grant said. “So when we can bring this view of water and how important it is to the protection of the monument, it helps us put another building block in our case for supporting the monument, because not only is it important for the animals, the native plants, the geology and the paleontology, water plays a huge role in the monument, and the monument protects the water itself.”

    The Antiquities Act of 1906 was signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt, for “… the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest” through the designation of national monuments by the President and Congress. National monuments are one of the types of specially-designated areas that make up the BLM’s National Conservation Lands. Some of the earliest national monuments included Devils Tower, the Grand Canyon, and Death Valley. They were initially protected by the War Department, then later by the National Park Service. More recently, the BLM and other Federal agencies have retained stewardship responsibilities for national monuments on public lands. In fact, the BLM manages more acres of national monuments in the continental U. S. than any other agency. This includes the largest land-based national monument, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah featured here. National monuments under the BLM’s stewardship have yielded numerous scientific discoveries, ranging from fossils of previously unknown dinosaurs to new theories about prehistoric cultures. They provide places to view some of America’s darkest night skies, most unique wildlife, and treasured archaeological resources. In total, twenty BLM-managed national monuments, covering over five million acres, are found throughout the western U. S. and offer endless opportunities for discovery. Photos and description by Bob Wick, BLM.

    Stretching across 1.87 million acres of public land, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is one of the country’s most expansive national monuments, protecting scores of wildlife as well as archeological resources in southern Utah. But a nine-billion-ton coal deposit is buried in the center of the monument along with deposits of minerals, including uranium and nickel. The Trump administration has long touted boosting the country’s coal production, and has established a pro-mining agenda this year.

    “It’d be very easy to contaminate either one of those rivers if mining were to take place in the center section of the monument,” Grant said. 

    Margaret Walls, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future who has studied national monuments but was not part of this study, said national monuments are designated to protect cultural or historical landmarks, and it can be forgotten that they can also serve purposes like safeguarding water. Though she noted that even if monument protections are loosened, the areas remain federal lands, and their changes in status do not guarantee they will be developed. 

    “We don’t protect waterways the way we do land,” Walls said, “we’re going to get those water benefits by protecting the land.”

    Created by Imgur user Fejetlenfej , a geographer and GIS analyst with a ‘lifelong passion for beautiful maps.’ It highlights the massive expanse of river basins across the country – in particular, those which feed the Mississippi River, in pink.

    The latest Intermountain West briefing is hot off the presses from Western Water Assessment

    Click the link to read the briefing on the Western Water Assessment website:

    December 8, 2025 – CO, UT, WY

    A hot and dry November left the Intermountain West with much below average snowpack conditions. November temperatures were four degrees above average region-wide and much of Utah and Wyoming baked under mean temperatures that were six to ten degrees above average. High temperatures coupled with mostly below normal precipitation caused low snow water equivalent (SWE) and worsening drought conditions.

    November precipitation was much below average for much of the region, especially in Wyoming, northern Colorado and northern Utah, which received less than half of normal precipitation. Much above average November precipitation was observed in southern Utah and eastern Colorado. Record dry Novembers were observed at thirteen locations in Wyoming, ten locations in Colorado and five locations in Utah. Despite dry November conditions, regional water year precipitation is near to above average except for eastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming.

    November was an extremely warm month, especially in western Wyoming, where monthly temperatures were more than eight degrees above average. The entire region observed November temperatures that were at least four degrees above average, with all of Utah, nearly all of Wyoming and western Colorado experiencing temperatures that exceeded six degrees above average. Record warm October conditions were observed in western Colorado, southwestern Wyoming and throughout Utah.

    Record low SWE conditions exist at many locations in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. A hot and dry November left most regional river basins with SWE conditions at less than 50% of average, with the least snow in the Six Creeks near Salt Lake City, where December 1st SWE is 22% of median. Slightly better SWE conditions exist in southern Colorado and southern Utah.

    Regional drought coverage expanded slightly during November, increasing from 51% five weeks ago to 54% on December 2. Eastern Colorado and eastern Wyoming remain drought-free, but drought emerged along the northern Front Range and adjacent plains. Coverage of drought in Utah dropped below 100% for the first time in five months. Utah and Colorado were last free from drought six years ago, while the current drought in Wyoming began five years ago.

    West Drought Monitor map December 2, 2025.

    A NOAA La Niña Advisory is still in effect as eastern Pacific Ocean temperatures are below average. Weak La Niña conditions are expected to transition (60% probability) to neutral conditions by early 2026. The NOAA December Precipitation Outlook suggests above average precipitation for most of Wyoming. For the winter months (Dec-Feb), there is an increased probability for above average temperatures in Utah and southwestern Colorado. In Wyoming, there is an increased probability for above average precipitation and below average temperatures.

    Record high temperatures drive record low snowpack. On December 1, record low SWE conditions were present at 52 regional Snotel sites in northern Colorado, northern Utah, and across Wyoming. Despite very low snowpack conditions, water year precipitation is above average for the region, except in northern Colorado. During early October, daily precipitation records were set in Utah and Colorado, including widespread flooding in southwest Colorado. Due to the tropical origin of those storms, nearly all precipitation fell as rain. Contrasting precipitation, water year temperatures are much above average with record high temperatures observed in parts of western Colorado, eastern Utah, and southwestern Wyoming. Consequently, the current snow drought is primarily the result of high temperatures rather than low precipitation. While October precipitation generally fell as rain in regional mountains, above average precipitation has increased soil moisture, which could help to bolster the efficiency of runoff in 2026.

    Romancing the River: Why am I ‘Romancing’ It? — George Sibley (SibleysRivers.com) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

    The Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas – it’s not quite this bad between the two Colorado River Basins.

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

    December 2, 2025

    Negotiations among the Magnificent Seven representing the seven states of the Colorado River region begin to resemble the ongoing negotiations between the military and diplomatic representatives for North and South Korea, where negotiations for something beyond an armistice have been going on for more than sixty years. Here, as there, the negotiations have reached a stalemate, and both sides are now engaged in an information war. Between the two Koreas, this war takes the form of everything from huge arrays of speakers blasting pop music across the demilitarized zone to smuggled USB drives with movies and TV shows. Here, it is mostly just propaganda bombs tossed over our ‘DMZ,’ the Grand Canyons, about each side’s virtue and the other side’s obstinacy, depending on their regional media’s love of conflict and tendency to support the home team. The missed November deadline has been seamlessly replaced – as we all suspected it would be – by a February deadline. But otherwise – nothing new on that front. We can just hope it doesn’t go on for another fortysome years.

    So I’m going to take advantage of the stalemate to ask the reader to think about a bigger picture that may be more interesting. It stems from a comment from my partner Maryo, from whom I learn too much to dismiss anything she says. ‘Why are you “romancing the river”?’ she asked the other day. ‘Romance is such a cheapened concept today – bodice-ripping stories of ridiculous antagonistic love. You’re undermining the value of your work, calling it a “romance.”’

    ‘Well,’ I said – figuring that if she feels that way, maybe my readers raise the same question – ‘maybe one of the things a writer ought to try to do is restore the value of words and the concepts they once represented that have become devalued through misuse.’ Spoken like a true Don Quixote, another old man who took arms, sort of, against abuse of the concept of ‘romance.’

    I do think that one of the things that ‘civilization’ does in civilizing us is to simplify things for us, including words whose complexity and depth embrace concepts, ideas and feelings that can be inconvenient to an orderly civilized society. A  ‘romance,’ from the medieval era on into the early 20th century, was a story of an adventure in pursuit of something mysterious, exciting, challenging, something beyond everyday life. That could be the pursuit of a love relationship that was life-changing (and maybe life-endangering) for its participants – Tristan and Isolde, Launcelot and Guinevere, Romeo and Juliet, Bonnie and Clyde.

    But on a much larger scale, the romantic adventure can be establishing a relationship with anything outside of ourselves that intrigues or challenges us. The relationship can emerge with a place, a house, a horse, a car, a continent, a river, an idea, as well as another person, anything that intrigues us, wakes up our imagination – arational or prerational relationships that make the civilizing forces nervous. The relationship can run the quick dynamic spectrum from arational love to its flip side arational hate, through all the intermediary love-hate variations. It can also have a mythically selective or even creative attitude toward the gray-zone relationship between ‘truth’ and fact. Which leads those trying to develop an orderly civilization to dismiss anything (ad)venturing into the mythic as a lie. It just seems simpler that way.

    The Powell survey on its second trip down the Colorado River, 1871. Photo credit: USGS

    The first comprehensive study of the Colorado River region was uncivilized enough to state upfront its romantic origins: Frederick Dellenbaugh’s Romance of the Colorado River. Dellenbaugh’s book (available online for a pittance) delved as deeply as was possible at that time into both the First People prehistory in the region and the early history of the Euro-American invasion, from the Spanish trying to work their way up the river from its contentious confluence with the Gulf of California (‘Sea of Cortez’ to them) to the trappers imposing the first major Euro-American change on the river, stripping its tributaries of their beavers which increased the size and violence of the river’s annual spring-summer runoff of snowmelt. But the heart of the book is John Wesley Powell’s explorations to link the upper river and the lower river through its canyons.

    Dellenbaugh, as a seventeen-year-old, accompanied Powell on his second Colorado River expedition, a ‘baptism under water’ (often literally) that shaped his ‘romantic’ vision. In his ‘Introduction,’ after observing that most of the great rivers that humans encountered in exploration and settlement gradually became like foster parents to those who settled along them, carrying goods for them and generally watering and growing their settlements, he says of the Colorado:

    Dellenbaugh’s Romance was published in 1903. That same year, another great southwestern writer, Mary Hunter Austin came out with her Land of Little Rain, a fascinating collection of her explorations in the deserts of the lower Colorado River region. In that book she offered what might be a cautionary note about ‘romancing the river,’ in an observation about a small Arizona tributary of the Colorado River, ‘the fabled Hassayampa… of whose waters, if any drink, they can no more see fact as naked fact, but all radiant with the color of romance.’

    I will now indulge my tendency to take a ‘tectonic’ look at history – looking for large chunks colliding or grating together or subducting under each other. I see the history of our engagement with the Colorado River dividing into three ‘tectonic romances’:  first, the Romance of Exploration, which is chronicled in a couple different ways by those two explorers, Dellenbaugh and Austin; their 1903 publications summarize that age and put a semi-colon at the end of the period, as it were.

    Second, the Romance of Reclamation: 1903 also marks the year the U.S. Reclamation Service came into being, an organization created almost specifically for settling the Colorado River deserts. Civilized people on both sides of the question would deny that there was any ‘romance’ to reclamation, but one early Bureau engineer would publicly disagree, writing in 1918 about ‘the romance of reclamation’:

    C.J. Blanchard of the U.S. Reclamation Service authored that steaming verdure. The Service at that time was under the U.S. Geological Survey, a scientific organization disciplined to the ‘look before you leap’ methods of science, discerning the reality of a situation and adapting to that; but the Reclamation Service, frustrated by the seasonal flood-to-trickle flows of the Colorado, thought that changing that reality (through storage and redistribution) was a more promising route than adapting to it, and so was on its way to becoming independent of the USGS when Blanchard wrote his ‘romance of irrigation’ for an educational journal called The Mentor(thanks, Dave Primus, for calling it to my attention).

    Members of the Colorado River Commission, in Santa Fe in 1922, after signing the Colorado River Compact. From left, W. S. Norviel (Arizona), Delph E. Carpenter (Colorado), Herbert Hoover (Secretary of Commerce and Chairman of Commission), R. E. Caldwell (Utah), Clarence C. Stetson (Executive Secretary of Commission), Stephen B. Davis, Jr. (New Mexico), Frank C. Emerson (Wyoming), W. F. McClure (California), and James G. Scrugham (Nevada)
    CREDIT: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY WATER RESOURCES ARCHIVE via Aspen Journalism

    The best-known document of the Romance of Reclamation was of course the Colorado River Compact – a document in which the romance of reclamation overrode any relationship to ‘naked fact’ about the river and its flows, a situation that is now biting our collective ass. Yet an Arizona water maven said recently that any Bureau of Reclamation solution to the seven-state impasse would have to cleave closely to the Compact…. The history of the Romance of Reclamation has been written in the gaggle of Congressional acts, court decisions, treaties, regulations and directives that make up the ‘Law of the River’ (recitations of which never seem to include the 1908 Winters Doctrine allocating assumed water to federal reservations, including to the First Peoples).

    The end of the Romance of Reclamation would be in the 1960s, pick your date: publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, passage of the Environmental Policy Act in 1969 – a decade in which the general American perception of the West underwent a sea change, from seeing it as a workplace for producing the resources to feed the American people and industries, to seeing it as a great natural playground to which America’s predominantly urban population could go to recharge, with a resulting desire to protect it from the very industrial consumption that supported the American ‘lifestyle.’.

    This was the dawn of the third romantic epoch in our relationship with the river (and the continent in general) – the Romance of Restoration and Revision, driven by a belief that we have sinned against capital-N Nature – with many naked facts as evidence – and can only expiate our sins by preserving what remains of the nonhuman environment, restoring what we can of the damage we’ve done, and revising our own systems for consuming nature (e.g., renewable energy).

    Aesthetics are at the root of our romance with capital-N Nature, aesthetics best served by the (increasingly rare) opportunity to be alone with and ‘silent on a peak in Darien,’ as Keats put it. We have a large (and growing) number of excellent writer[s] who work to elaborate on that aesthetic – Ed Abbey first, Craig Childs, Heather Hansman, Kevin Fedarko, to name a few.

    But the aesthetic yearning to ultimately ‘put it back the way it was’ does not extend to other equally naked facts, like the dependence of the outdoor recreation industries on the creation of big mountain-highway traffic jams pumping big quantities of carbon and nitrogen gases into the already overladen atmosphere, as we all load up our cars with expensive gear to go off to commune with Nature. Or the naked fact that maintaining civilization-as-we-know-it for 300 million people involves a lot of nonrewable extraction from Nature that it will be very difficult to move away from entirely – unless we figure out how to control our breeding.

    Just as significant achievements were achieved under the Romance of Reclamation, so significant achievements have been achieved under the Romance of Restoration and Revision – the setting aside of millions of acres of still-sort-of-wild land, instream flow laws, increasingly responsible forest management, et cetera. But we are clearly still in the early transition – half a century later – to a more realistic romance with restoring and revising to a kinder gentler relationship with the nonhuman systems of nature. And right now, we  are experiencing a major counter-attack from the societal forces whose aesthetics still imagine a ‘working landscape’ of derricks, mines and other industrial-scale harvests, all suffused with the ‘smell of money,’ societal forces that believe the best of times were before we woke up to the increasingly fragile finitude of our planet under the burden of us. Let’s all go back and make America great again!

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

    I cannot now imagine when and how this third epoch of our romance with the river will end. I think this aesthetic romance might peak with the ‘breaching’ of Glen Canyon Dam, an action that has taken on a somewhat mythic quality for today’s river romantics. I don’t think we will tear it down – let it stand as a monument to…something. But I suspect that even the Bureau of Reclamation is exploring some way of tunneling around it at river level, as we continue to flirt with the disaster of dead pool behind the dam. It will not be easy, due to the silt already piled up at the dam – but really, nothing is going to be easy anymore; that blessed civilization is now in the rear-view mirror.

    I’m going to take advantage of the lull in the short-term news about the river’s management for maybe the next decade, to take a look at each of these three epochs of ‘romancing the river’ and their relationship to the ‘naked facts’ of the river – mostly see if there might be something there we’ve overlooked that might help us move forward in our ever-emerging relationship of this ‘First River of the Anthropocene.’ Onward and outward.

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

    Federal money is still in President Trump’s limbo. Rural #Utah is antsy about its water projects — KUER

    Price, Utah Main Street and historic theater. By Millman5429 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=122348071

    Click the link to read the article on the KUER website (David Condos). Here’s an excerpt:

    December 3, 2025

    Price Mayor Michael Kourianos drew an imaginary line in the air between two scrubby desert hills. His hand traced the path of a planned 100-foot dam for a new reservoir just north of the city in Carbon County. The project, which Kourianos described as vital to the area’s future, would provide irrigation to farmers and shore up the city’s water supply. It’s a big deal in a drought-prone area, and it could be built within five years, he said — if the federal funding that’s supposed to pay for it doesn’t disappear.

    “I’m very much worried about that,” Kourianos said. “That could be at risk. That’s the unknown.”

    To finish the project’s environmental impact study by next spring, he said the city and county had to scrape together about $215,000. That was after they were told there were no more federal funds to help with it due to the Trump administration’s recent cuts. The next step will be designing the reservoir, which he said is supposed to be paid for by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency is set to pay 75% of construction costs, too. In all, the project will cost around $200 million. For a city of 8,216 people, that’s just not in the budget…

    Price’s reservoir isn’t the only one threatened. In January, for example, the Biden administration awarded more than $70 million to 10 proposals in Utah and another $50 million to four on the Navajo Nation and Ute tribal land within the state’s watersheds. The projects range from improving wetland habitat for endangered fish to removing invasive plants, such as Russian olive trees, from riverbanks. It was part of a $388.3 million effort to improve drought resilience across the Colorado River Basin with money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Just a few days after the money was awarded, however, President Donald Trump took office and paused it. Several months later, recipients are still waiting…One of the impacted proposals is a collaboration between the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and conservation organizations Trout Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy that would pay people to voluntarily leave water in the Price River rather than use it.

    Utah Rivers map via Geology.com

    State ramps up water measurement on Western Slope: Grant program will fund measuring devices as state anticipates compact administration, further scarcity — Heather Sackett (AspenJournalism.org)

    This Parshall flume measures the water in the Alfalfa Ditch on Surface Creek near Cedaredge. The Colorado Division of Water Resources estimates there are 2,800 diversions of more than 1 cfs without measuring devices across the Western Slope. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

    Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):

    December 5, 2025

    The state of Colorado is ramping up an effort to measure water use on the Western Slope, developing rules and standards and rolling out a grant program to help water users pay for diversion measurement devices.

    With input from water users, officials from the Colorado Division of Water Resources are creating technical guidance for each of the four major Western Slope river basins on how agricultural water users should measure the water they take from streams. The state is now doling out $7 million from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to eligible water users with faulty or missing devices to install structures such as flumes, weirs and pumps at their point of diversion. 

    Map of the Gunnison River drainage basin in Colorado, USA. Made using public domain USGS data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69257550
    Colorado River Basin in Colorado via the Colorado Geological Survey
    Yampa River Basin via Wikimedia.
    San Juan River Basin. Graphic credit Wikipedia.
    Dolores River watershed
    White River Basin. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69281367
    Green River Basin

    Twenty-five percent of the funding is earmarked for each of the four river basins: Gunnison (Division 4); Colorado River mainstem (Division 5); Yampa-White-Green (Division 6); and San Juan-Dolores (Division 7). The first round of funding will go to Divisions 6 and 7, and applications close at the end of January. The goal is to have all the projects complete by 2029.

    Measurement rules for Divisions 6 and 7 have been finalized and are in effect; rules for Division 4 are in the draft phase, and state officials are accepting comments until Dec. 19 on the draft rules in Division 5.

    With thousands of diversions from small tributaries across rural, remote and mountainous areas, figuring out precisely how much water is used in Colorado has historically been challenging. According to state officials, there are about 2,800 diversions of more than 1 cubic foot per second from Western Slope rivers and streams that are not currently being measured. Historically, the state has required measuring devices on only diversions that have been involved in calls. When a downstream senior water rights holder is not getting the full amount of water they are entitled to, they can place a “call,” which forces junior upstream water users to cut back.

    This Parshall flume measuring device is being installed on a ditch on Morrisania Mesa near Parachute. The state of Colorado has $7 million in federal funds to distribute to water users to install measuring devices on their diversions from waterways. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

    Compact compliance

    The push for more-accurate measurement comes at a time when there is increasing competition for dwindling water supplies, as well as growing pressure on the Colorado River’s Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) to conserve water. Whether through forced cuts under the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact or through a voluntary conservation program that pays water users to cut back, the state will almost certainly face future cuts to its water use.   

    According to Jason Ullmann, who is the state engineer and director of the division of water resources, accurate and consistent water measurement is a prerequisite for making basinwide cuts related to the compact.

    “While we’ve always been in compliance with the [1922 Colorado River] compact, we haven’t had to do a West Slope-wide administration,” Ullmann said. “We just don’t want to be in the position of having to do that on an emergency basis. We want to be proactive and provide people consistent and reliable standards for what we expect and work with them to get to a point where we do have that more accurate measurement network before that happens.”

    Although the Colorado River Compact splits the river’s water evenly between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin (California, Arizona and Nevada) with 7.5 million acre-feet each annually, the agreement says nothing about what happens when there’s not enough water to meet these allocations. A “compact call” is a theoretical legal concept, whose definition is hotly debated among water managers. 

    One way it could play out is that the Upper Basin states would have to cut off some water users in order to send enough water downstream to meet their obligations to the Lower Basin. If that happens, Colorado would need a plan for who gets cut off first. Under the strict application water law known as prior appropriation, the oldest water rights get first use of rivers and junior water rights are the first to be cut. 

    Michael Cohen, a senior fellow at the Pacific Institute, where he has written about the uncertainties of water use and measurement in the Upper Basin, said collecting better data will help water managers figure out where cuts should come from.

    “Moving forward, it looks more and more likely that there’s going to be some kind of compact call,” Cohen said. “Then the state of Colorado, as well as the other Upper Basin states, need to figure out how they’re going to enforce that kind of call.”

    This Parshall flume was installed in the Yampa River basin in 2020 and replaced the old rusty flume seen in the background. The state of Colorado is working toward creating measurement rules and installing measurement devices across the Western Slope. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

    Managing scarcity

    But compact compliance is not the only reason that water measurement is needed. Scientists have shown that climate change has contributed to a 20% decline in flows from the 20th century average, and that every 1 degree Celsius of warming results in a 9% reduction in flows. The combination of climate change and a historic drought means that rivers that had never before experienced shortages or calls have started experiencing them in recent years. In the past few years, the Yampa and White rivers, in the northwest corner of the state, have had first-ever calls and have been designated “over-appropriated,” meaning there’s more water demand than supply at certain times. 

    “Even if you toss the compact situation out, it’s just the practical reality that we’re seeing less snowpack and we have more calls,” Ullmann said. “We’re just in need of improving that measurement accuracy because of the need for administration.”

    John Cyran, an attorney who worked on developing the measurement rules for the South Platte River basin and is now a senior attorney with the Healthy Rivers department of Boulder-based environmental group Western Resource Advocates, uses the analogy of a pizza party with too-few pizzas where hungry partygoers are allowed only two slices each to illustrate how measurement is needed in times of scarcity. 

    “Just like sharing a shrinking pizza or Thanksgiving pie, our water supply is declining,” Cyran said. “The pie is getting smaller. So it is increasingly important to make sure that people don’t take more than their share. But we can’t manage what we don’t measure.”

    Tightening up water measurement across the Western Slope could also help Upper Basin water managers as they grapple with a future conservation program that pays water users to cut back and then stores that water in a pool in Lake Powell. A criticism of past pilot programs was that the saved water was not tracked to Lake Powell. Water users downstream of a conservation project could pick up the extra water, with no guarantee that any of it reached the reservoir. Measurement rules and devices could help ensure that this conserved water is “shepherded” to Lake Powell.

    Measurement is the first step toward management of a scarce public resource, Cyran said.

    “The first step is measuring how much water is being diverted,” Cyran said. “The next step is management – making sure that folks only divert their share and that water we conserve stays in the stream and is not diverted by another user.”

    Colorado River Basin map via the Babbit Center for Land and Water Policy/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

    A weird water year so far: Abundant rain, sparse snow: Plus: National park shenanigans in #Utah — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org) #snowpack

    The drought situation has improved markedly in the Southwest since the end of the last water year, especially in the Four Corners area. Source: National Drought Monitor.

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

    December 2, 2025

    ⛈️ Wacky Weather Watch⚡️

    We are now two months into the water year — and a couple of days into meteorological winter — and so far both are pretty weird. On the one hand, much of the West is covered by one of the scantest snowpacks for early December in decades. On the other, it’s also been one of the wettest beginnings to the water year in recent memory.

    Graph of 2026 water year snowpack levels for the Animas River watershed (which this year reflects that for most of western Colorado and the Upper Colorado River Basin), along with every year since 2000 that has started as sparsely or more so than this year. Note that the 2008 snowpack in the Animas was just as meagre in early December as it is this year. Then the snows came with a vengeance, leading to one of the biggest winters on record as well as a very healthy spring runoff that lasted well into July.
    While snow levels are paltry, the weather gods have delivered plenty of precipitation to the region. While that has helped ease drought conditions, it is no substitute for a healthy snowpack.

    Adding to the uncanniness has been the wave of generous storms that have dumped up to a foot of snow on Colorado ski areas and snarled traffic, leading to at least two multi-car pileups on I-70 and shutting down other arteries — yet still failing to bring snowpack levels to anywhere near “normal.”

    It’s a big ol’ mixed bag, in other words. The big October deluges eased the drought in much of the region, but the warm temperatures and snow drought don’t bode well for next spring’s runoff. Meagre early winter snowpacks can make and have made dramatic comebacks (e.g. water year 2008 in southwestern Colorado), and another storm is moving into the region as I write this, yet the National Weather Service’s is predicting an abnormally warm and dry winter for much of the Southwest.


    🌵 Public Lands 🌲

    The Grand County commissioners’ “Access and Capacity Enhancement Alternative” plan aimed at increasing visitation at Arches National Park was just the tip of an iceberg, it seems. Yesterday (Dec. 1), Commissioner Brian Martinez presented the plan to a group of state and federal officials at a closed State of Utah and National Park Service Workshop in Salt Lake City.


    Moab seeks bigger crowds? — Jonathan P. Thompson


    The meeting’s purpose, according to the official agenda, is:

    This may sound fairly innocuous (and maybe it is). But given some of the players, it may also be the latest volley in Utah’s long-running effort to seize control of public lands. The meeting was run by the Interior Department’s associate deputy secretary, Karen Budd-Falen, and Redge Johnson, who leads Utah’s Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office.

    Budd-Falen built her legal career on fighting federal agencies, including the Interior Department, and was part of the Sagebrush Rebellion and the Wise Use movements that endeavored to turn federal land over to states and counties and to weaken regulations on the extractive industries. Johnson, meanwhile, was a driving force behind the state’s effort to take control of 18.5 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land in the state.


    A Sagebrush Rebel returns to Interior — Jonathan P. Thompson

    An anti-BLM sticker (referring, presumably, to the federal land agency, not the Black Lives Matter movement) at another Phil Lyman rally against “federal overreach” and motorized travel closures in southeastern Utah back in 2014. Photo credit: Jonathan P. Thompson/The Land Desk

    It’s not clear what is meant when they say the meeting is aimed at achieving Trump’s agenda. As far as national parks go, the administration has been rather chaotic: Freezing hiring, laying off thousands of staff (only to rehire some of them), slashing budgets, and allowing visitors to run roughshod over the parks during the government shutdown.

    It sure looks like they are trying to cause the parks to fail, which would give them an excuse to further privatize their functions. Private for-profit corporations already run the lodges, campgrounds, and other services inside many parks. That’s why, during the shutdown, concessionaire-run campgrounds within parks continued to operate, while all of the government-run functions, such as entrance-fee-collection, were shuttered. In this way a false contrast was created between the functional privately-run operations and the dysfunctional public ones; visitors during that time would be excused for preferring the former.

    The timing of this meeting, purportedly to receive input from gateway communities, is kind of odd. I have to wonder whether the Interior Department consulted local elected officials before raising entry fees for foreign visitors to $100 at Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks in Utah, along with Grand Canyon, Acadia, Everglades, Glacier, Grand Teton, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia & Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite National Parks.

    The Southwest’s tourism industry is highly reliant on international visitors. Visitation from abroad is already down, thanks mostly to the Trump administration’s “America First” creed and its general hostility to the rest of the world. Singling out foreign travelers for these higher fees — even if only at the most popular parks — is likely to dampen visitation from abroad even more, which will ripple through Western economies.

    Grand County’s bid to cram even more visitors into Arches National Park won’t be too effective if would be visitors don’t even make it to the United States …


    🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭

    This is just another old map that caught my attention, in part because it’s a reminder of how extensive the railroad network was, even in the rugged parts of Colorado, back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This one shows the Denver & Rio Grande rail lines in 1893.

    Autumn Rains Delay Basin-wide Reservoir Depletion — Jack Schmidt (Center for #ColoradoRiver Studies) #COriver #aridification

    Click the link to read the article on the Center for Colorado River Studies website (Jack Schmidt):

    In Brief
    Unusually wet conditions in the Basin in October and November 2025, combined with reduced releases from some reservoirs, led to a basin-wide increase in storage for the two-month period. The combined contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead increased during the two months for only the second time since 2010, and storage in the San Juan River basin increased by 19%, especially in Vallecito and Navajo Reservoirs. These changes were a welcome respite from the relentless depletion of storage that has dominated the last few years. Nevertheless, the upcoming winter snow season is predicted to be below average, and total active storage in the Basin is less than a 2 year supply when compared with recent Basin-wide consumptive uses and losses.

    Total precipitation (inches) from 9-15 October 2025 with gridded data from the PRISM Climate Group and observations from the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow (CoCoRaHS) network. Credit: Russ Schumacher/Colorado Climate Center
    The Details

    The rains of October and November 2025 slowed depletion of the Colorado River’s reservoirs due to increases in stream flow and reduced reservoir releases in some places. Water levels rose in a few reservoirs, and autumn’s rains provided a small bit of flexibility for water managers at the beginning of what is likely to be a below-average winter snow season.

    As of November 30, the Basin’s 46 reservoirs held 24.63 million af (acre feet) of active storage[1], of which 90% was in 12 federal reservoirs,[2] including 15.00 million af in Lake Powell and Lake Mead (hereafter, Powell+Mead) and 4.88 million af in 8 federal reservoirs upstream from Lake Powell (Fig.1). This amount of storage is similar to conditions in early 2022, a situation that was described at that time as a crisis. If we divide the total active storage in the Basin’s 46 reservoirs by the basin-wide total annual rate of consumptive use and loss that was 12.7 million af in 2024, the basin-wide reservoir water supply would sustain Basin-wide use for less than 2 years. We continue to live at the doorstep of crisis.

    Figure 1. Graph showing active storage in Colorado River basin reservoirs between January 1, 2021, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies

    Basin-wide reservoir storage stabilized in October and November, because Powell+Mead storage stabilized and storage in the San Juan River basin increased. Total Inflow to Lake Powell exceeded releases for more than one week between October 11 and October 18, when Lake Powell increased by 105,000 af[3]  which is a 1.6% gain (Fig. 2). Approximately 40% of the total inflow came from the San Juan River, and the monthly October inflows were the largest since 2015. The gain in storage in Lake Powell during this weeklong period exceeded depletions during the rest of the month, and Lake Powell gained approximately 52,000 af during the month. Lake Powell lost 147,000 af in November.

    Figure 2. Graph showing inflow and outflow from Lake Powell and active storage between October 1 and November 30, 2025. Total monthly flow at Lees Ferry, representing the total releases from Lake Powell, were 490,000 af in October and 501,000 af in November. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies

    In contrast, the autumn rains did not significantly increase inflow to Lake Mead, because most of the inflows come from scheduled releases from Lake Powell. These reservoir releases were supplemented by 101,000 af of inflows downstream from Lees Ferry[4] and 8000 af from the Virgin River.[5] The most significant changes in Lake Mead occurred at the end of November when releases from Hoover Dam were significantly reduced (Fig. 3).

    Figure 3. Graph showing inflow and outflow from Lake Mead and active storage between October 1 and November 30, 2025. Total monthly flow inflow of the Colorado River, representing the total releases from Lake Powell and inflows within Grand Canyon, were 574,000 af in October and 550,000 af in November. Reservoir releases from Hoover Dam were 485,000 af in October and 415,000 af in November. Withdrawals and return flows of the Southern Nevada Water Authority were not included in these data. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies

    Together, total active storage in Powell+Mead increased by 63,000 af during October,[6] and decreased by only 38,000 af in November (Fig. 4).[7]  More significant than the gains, however, was that the the pace of reservoir depletion was significantly slowed. Storage in Powell+Mead increased by approximately 25,000 af in October and November, only the second time since 2010 that total storage in these two reservoirs increased during these two months.[8]

    Figure 4. Graph showing active storage in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and in Powell+Mead between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies

    Reservoir storage in the San Juan River basin increased more than in any other part of the Colorado River Basin. Five San Juan basin reservoirs increased by 197,000 af in October and November, mostly in Navajo and Vallecito Reservoirs.[9] Not much happened elsewhere, however. The 21 reservoirs of the upper Colorado River watershed lost 57,000 af during October and November, and 16 reservoirs in the Green River watershed lost 10,000 af during the same period.

    • [1] Active storage in 46 reservoirs are reported by Reclamation at https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/hydrodata/reservoir_data/site_map.html.
    • [2] Taylor Park, Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, Crystal, Fontenelle, Flaming Gorge, Vallecito, Navajo, Lake Powell, Lake Mead, Lake Mohave, and Lake Havasu.
    • [3] Inflow to Lake Powell was computed as the sum of mean daily discharge of the Colorado River at Gypsum Canyon near Hite (gage 09328960), Dirty Devil River above Poison Springs near Hanksville (09333500), Escalante River near Escalante (09337500), and San Juan River near Bluff (09379500), as reported by the U.S. Geological Survey. Outflow from Lake Powell was computed as the mean daily discharge of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry (09380000), because stream flow is measured 15 miles downstream from the dam and includes ground-water seepage around the dam.  Lake Powell storage increased between October 10 and October 20, as reported by Reclamation.
    • [4] Inflows within Grand Canyon were calculated as the difference between measurements of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry (09380000), Colorado River above Diamond Creek near Peach Springs (09420000), and Diamond Creek nr Peach Springs (09404208).
    • [5] Virgin River below confluence Muddy River near Overton (09419530)
    • [6] Between October 1 and November 1, 2025, active storage in Lake Powell increased 52,000 af and 11,000 af in Lake Mead.
    • [7] Between November 1 and November 30, active storage in Lake Powell decreased by 147,000 af and increased by 109,000 af in Lake Mead.
    • [8] During the previous 15 years between 2010 and 2024, total storage in Powell+Mead increased by 36,000 af in 2011. During the other 14 years of that period, the median depletion of Powell+Mead was 436,000 af.
    • [9] Storage in Navajo Reservoir increased 126,000 af between October 9 and November 8 and increased by 114,000 af in October and November. Active storage in Vallecito Reservoir gained 68,000 af in October and November. At the end of November, Navajo Reservoir was 60% of its 1.65 million af capacity. Vallecito Reservoir was 77% of its 125,400 af capacity.
    Map of the San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado River, in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, USA. Made using USGS National Map data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47456307

    Study: Something’s gotta give on the #RioGrande: #ClimateChange and overconsumption are drying up the Southwest’s “other” big river — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org)

    Sandhill cranes and some mallard ducks roost on a sandbar of the Rio Grande River at sunset on Jan. 22, 2025 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Copyright Credit © WWF-US/Diana Cervantes.

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

    November 21, 2025

    🥵 Aridification Watch 🐫

    The Colorado River and its woes tend to get all of the attention, but the Southwest’s “other” big river, the Rio Grande, is in even worse shape thanks to a combination of warming temperatures, drought, and overconsumption. That’s become starkly evident in recent years, as the river bed has tended to dry up earlier in the summer and in places where it previously had continued to carry at least some water. Now Brian Richter and his team of researchers have quantified the Rio Grande’s slow demise, and the conclusions they reach are both grim and urgent: Without immediate and substantial cuts in consumption, the river will continue to dry up — as will the farms and, ultimately, the cities that rely on it.

    The Rio Grande’s problems are not new. Beginning in the late 1800s, diversions for irrigation in the San Luis Valley — which the river runs through after cascading down from its headwaters in the San Juan Mountains — sometimes left the riverbed “wholly dry,” wrote ichthyologist David Starr Jordan in 1889, “all the water being turned into these ditches. … In some valleys, as in the San Luis, in the dry season there is scarcely a drop of water in the riverbed that has not from one to ten times flowed over some field, while the beds of many considerable streams (Rio la Jara, Rio Alamosa, etc.) are filled with dry clay and dust.”


    Rio Grande Streamflow Mystery: Solved? — Jonathan P. Thompson


    San Luis Valley farmers gradually began irrigating with pumped groundwater, allowing them to rely less on the ditches (but causing its own problems), and the 1938 Rio Grande Compact forced them to leave more water in the river. While that kept the water flowing through northern and central New Mexico, the Rio Grande’s lower reaches still occasionally dried up.

    Then, in the early 2000s, the megadrought — or perhaps permanent aridification — that still plagues the region settled in over the Southwest. [ed. emphasis mine] Snowpack levels in the river’s headwaters shrank, both due to diminishing precipitation and climate change-driven warmer temperatures, which led to runoff and streamflows 17% lower than the 20th century average, according to the new study. And yet, overall consumption has not decreased.

    “In recent decades,” the authors write, “river drying has expanded to previously perennial stretches in New Mexico and the Big Bend region. Today, only 15% of the estimated natural flow of the river remains at Anzalduas, Mexico near the river’s delta at the Gulf of Mexico.” Reservoirs, the river’s savings accounts, have been severely drained to the point that they won’t be able to withstand another one or two dry winters. As farmers and other users have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping, aquifers have also been depleted. The situation is clearly unsustainable.

    Something’s gotta give on the Rio Grande, and while we may be tempted to target Albuquerque’s sprawl, drying up all of the cities and power plants that rely on the river wouldn’t achieve the necessary cuts.

    Source: “Overconsumption gravely threatens water security in the binational Rio Grande-Bravo basin” by Brian Richter et al.

    It will come as little surprise to Western water watchers that agriculture is by far the largest water user on the Rio Grande — taking up 87% of direct human consumption — and that alfalfa and other hay crops gulp up the lion’s share, or 52%, of agriculture’s slice of the river pie. This isn’t necessarily because alfalfa and other hays are thirstier than other crops, but because they are so prevalent, covering about 433,000 acres over the entire basin, more than four times as much acreage as cotton.

    Source: Overconsumption gravely threatens water security in the binational Rio Grande-Bravo basin

    This kind of math means farmers are going to have to bear the brunt of the necessary consumption cuts — either voluntarily or otherwise. In fact, they already have: Between 2000 and 2019, according to the report, Colorado lost 18% of its Rio Grande Basin farmland, New Mexico lost 28%, and the Pecos River sub-basin lost 49% (resulting in a downward trend in agricultural water consumption). Some of this loss was likely incentivized through conservation programs that pay farmers to fallow their fields. But it was also due to financial struggles.

    Yet even when farmers are paid a fair price to fallow their fields there can be nasty side effects. Noxious weeds can colonize the soil and spread to neighbors’ farms, it can dry out and mobilize dust that diminishes air quality and the mountain snowpack, and it leaves holes in the cultural fabric of an agriculture-dependent community. If a field’s going to be dried up, it should at least be covered with solar panels.


    Think like a watershed: Interdisciplinary thinkers look to tackle dust-on-snow — Jonathan P. Thompson


    Another possibility is to switch to crops that use less water. This isn’t easy: Farmers grow alfalfa in the desert because it’s actually quite drought tolerant, doesn’t need to be replanted every year, is less labor-intensive than other crops, is marketable and ships relatively easy, and can grow in all sorts of climates, from the chilly San Luis Valley to the scorching deserts of southern Arizona.


    Alfalfaphobia? Jonathan P. Thompson


    Still, it can be done, as a group of farmers in the San Luis Valley are demonstrating with the Rye Resurgence Project. This effort is not only growing the grain — which uses less water than alfalfa, is good for soil health, and makes good bread and whiskey — but it is also working to create a larger market for it. While it’s only a drop in the bucket, so to speak, this is the sort of effort that, replicated many times across the region, could help balance supply and demand on the river, without putting a bunch of farmers out of business.

    Photo credit: The Rye Resurgence Project

    ***

    Oh, and about that other river? You know, the Colorado? Representatives from the seven states failed to come up with a deal on how to manage the river by the Nov. 15 deadline. The feds had mercy on them, giving them until February to sort it all out. I’m not so optimistic, but we’ll see. Personally, I think the only way this will ever work out is if the Colorado River Compact — heck, the entire Law of the River — is scrapped, and the states and the whole process is started from scratch, this time with a much better understanding of exactly how much water is in the river, and with the tribal nations having seats at the table.


    ⛏️ Mining Monitor ⛏️

    There are a bunch of wannabe uranium mining companies out there right now, locating claims and acquiring and selling claims and touting their exploratory drilling results. But there are only a small handful of firms that are actually doing anything resembling mining. One of them is the Canada-based Anfield, which just broke ground on its Velvet-Wood uranium mine in the Lisbon Valley, even without all of the necessary state permits. 

    Now Anfield says it has applied for a Colorado permit to restart its long-idle JD-8uranium mine. The mine is on one of a cluster of Department of Energy leases overlooking the Paradox Valley from its southern slopes, and was previously owned and operated by Cotter Corporation. The mine has not produced ore since at least 2006. Anfield says it will process the ore at its Shootaring Mill near Ticaboo, Utah, which has yet to get Utah’s green light.


    🏠 Random Real Estate Room 🤑

    Look! Affordable housing near Moab! Sure, it’s a cave, but it’s only $99,000. Oh, what’s that? $998,000? They’re selling a cave for a million buckaroos? But of course they are. To be fair, it’s not just a cave. It’s several of them, plus a trailer. Crazy stuff.

    📸 Parting Shot 🎞️

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