Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Scott Franz):

January 29, 2026

This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.

Governors in the Colorado River basin and their negotiators are meeting with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in Washington on Friday to try and break a yearslong impasse among states over how to share the dwindling waterway.

On the eve of the high-stakes summit, negotiators from both the upper and lower river basins are not sounding confident they can reach an agreement before a fast-approaching Feb. 14 deadline.

“It depends on the day that you ask me,” Colorado’s negotiator, Becky Mitchell, said Tuesday when asked by KUNC News if she thinks the states are heading toward a court battle. “But I will tell you the level of commitment that we have, both within Colorado and the upper basin, is strong to try to find some way to make a deal. There’s some things that we can’t give on.”

Negotiators are currently working against the backdrop of record low-snowpack across much of the West and worsening forecasts for the Colorado River’s water supply. 

Mitchell said negotiators are continuing to talk at least twice each week.

But leaders from the upper and lower basin states say they still have sticking points.

They continue to differ on how water cuts should be handled and how releases from Lake Powell should be managed during dry years.

“Some in the lower basin wanted some sort of guaranteed supply, irrespective of hydrologic conditions,” Mitchell said. “And I think asking people to guarantee something that cannot be guaranteed is a recipe that cannot get to success.”

The lower basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada are proposing to cut 1.5 million acre feet of their water use. They’re also asking for water restrictions to be mandatory and shared among all seven states. 

Negotiators from the different basins spoke at public events on Wednesday to set the stage for the summit in Washington.

“It’s tough to say I’m looking forward to it, because that would be a lie,” Mitchell told a large crowd Wednesday at a water conference in Aurora.

Her speech was fiery at times.

“Operations must be supply based, not demand based, not entitlement justified, and not built on a hope that the next big year will save us,” she said. “That harm will be irreversible, because the Colorado River is not too big to fail.”

As Mitchell was addressing the water conference in a hotel ballroom, California’s water negotiator, J.B. Hamby, was talking to roughly 600 people on a webinar about his take on the state of negotiations.

He largely focused on his desire to still find a compromise among the seven states in the river basin.

“It’s better to be able to work something out across the negotiating table, to do something that makes sense and protects our users and people and agriculture in our state, and as a result of that, getting a seven-state agreement that protects those interests,” he said.

Hamby said the federal government is “leaning in” and becoming more involved in the negotiations by offering potential options.

Hamby called the feds’ ideas helpful.

“Continued back and forth between the basins haven’t really been moving the ball forward,” he said. “The administrations…have this important role in sometimes knocking heads together, sometimes encouraging consensus, and having diplomatic discussions between the states to be able to move conversations forward.”

He pointed to Herbert Hoover’s role in 1922 as then Commerce Secretary to broker a deal among states in the river basin over how to share water. 

“It’s going to take everyone chipping in and making the necessary (water) reductions to balance the supply with the demand we have moving forward,” Hamby said.

Click the link to read the report on the Center for Colorado River Studies website (Kathryn Sorensen¹, Sarah Porter², Anne Castle³, John Fleck⁴, Eric Kuhn⁵, Jack Schmidt⁶, Katherine Tara⁷). Here’s the executive summary and recommendations:

January 2026

As Colorado River supplies and demands reach razor-thin margins, new tools to provide adaptive capacity will play a critical role in sustaining communities across the West. We must reduce our consumption of water, while finding ways to cushion the impact. One of the most innovative tools for doing this, developed over the last two decades, is “Assigned Water” – giving users the ability to store conserved water earmarked for their own future use.

Originally developed as “Intentionally Created Surplus” in the 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines, Assigned Water has been revised and expanded through U.S.-Mexico Treaty Minutes and as part of the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan. While conceptually simple and demonstrably valuable – a savings bank for conserved water – it is crucial to get the policy tools right as Colorado River management rules evolve.

For agencies granted access to the tool, Assigned Water provides important adaptive capacity to prepare for and manage shortfalls on a volatile river with shrinking supplies. But nearly two decades of operational experience also have exposed unintended consequences. With Assigned Water likely to play a critical role in basin management going forward – including its potential expansion to the Upper Colorado River Basin – it is important to review the strengths of the existing program, and essential lessons learned, to guide the development of river management policies after the current operating rules expire at the end of 2026.

HOW ASSIGNED WATER WORKS

Assigned Water allows some users to either conserve water that would have been used, import some categories of tributary water to the mainstem, or to fund system improvements to conserve water that would otherwise have been lost to inefficiencies. This water is then earmarked for the creating agencies’ use, sitting outside of the priority system through which the rest of the Colorado River’s water is allocated. Agencies can pay users to take out their lawns, or fallow farm fields, banking the saved water for future use. By planning ahead, water agencies secure a reliability hedge against shortages as the river shrinks.

But at a time when overall water supplies are declining, Assigned Water creates a category of “private water,” available only to specific users, while remaining water allocated to all users under the existing priority system continues to shrink.

Assigned Water created a tool to overcome the “use it or lose it” problem that left little incentive for water agencies to conserve. Its usefulness and subsequent expansion have led to the existence of 3.5 million acre feet now are stored in Lake Mead, representing the bulk of the available water currently in the reservoir.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Delaying Shortage Actions

By keeping Lake Mead levels higher than they otherwise would have been, Assigned Water delayed formal shortage declarations in the Lower Colorado River Basin. While this was an intended benefit, it has had the practical effect of putting off water use reductions to the detriment of reservoir storage.

Subsidizing Evaporation

Although current rules apply some reductions to Assigned Water accounts, they often fail to fully account for actual evaporation. This results in a subsidy for Assigned Water holders at the expense of water available to everyone else.

Crowding Out

Assigned Water creates incentives for agencies to focus their conservation efforts primarily on programs that benefit their own users, potentially at the expense of the kind of broader efforts that will ultimately be needed to bring Colorado River Basin use into balance with physical supply. We must remember that Assigned Water does not permanently reduce the use of a quantity of water; instead it stores it for later, simply deferring that use to the future.

Inequitable Access

Assigned Water is currently available only to a select group of major Colorado River water agencies, depriving other users of the program’s benefits.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Operational Neutrality

Assigned Water should not be included in the reservoir levels used to make shortage declaration and determine reservoir operations.

System Assessment

Agencies granted access to Assigned Water should pay a “system assessment” for the privilege. This mechanism would credit their earmarked storage account for a portion of the conserved water while converting the remainder to “System Water,” helping to rebuild storage and meet broad Basin needs.

Evaporation Assessment

Accounting for evaporation should use the best available science, to avoid subsidizing Assigned Water accounts at the expense of the rest of the Basin’s water users.

Expand Access

A wider range of users should be given the opportunity to participate in and benefit from Assigned Water tools.

ADDRESSING THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN’S TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

For more than a century of development, Colorado River governance has lived under a tension between individual communities’ desires to use more water and the collective need to balance basin-scale supply and use for the benefit of the region as a whole. Incentives favoring individual communities at the expense of the collective good have brought us to the edge of the current crisis.

Going forward, Assigned Water can provide a crucial management tool, but the policies we use to implement it must find the balance between individual benefit and collective good.

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

• Priority Water: Water diverted within the U.S. generally under the prior appropriation system of water allocation.
• Mexican Water: Water that flows past the international border into Mexico pursuant to the 1944 U.S.-Mexico treaty
• Assigned Water: Water resulting from water use reduction programs that is stored in Colorado River Basin reservoirs earmarked for the specific use of the users who created it, outside the normal priority system. Assigned water functions as a sort of private water savings account for those agencies granted the privilege of using the tools.
• System Water: System Water: The collective term for all water in the reservoirs, including Priority, Mexican, and Assigned Water.
• Intentionally Created Surplus: The term used for the Assigned Water initially created under the 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines, which became the prototype for similar programs that followed.
• System Conservation: Programs that fund reductions of water use to benefit the
• Colorado River Basin as a whole by creating System Water for rebuilding reservoir storage or general use under the priority system rather than being allocated to the accounts of specific users.

APPENDIX OF ALL RECOMMENDATIONS

NEUTRALITY

• In any newly developed operational guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, volumes of Assigned Water created after 2026 should be invisible for purposes of determining shortage conditions.
• Other than for flood control releases, volumes of Assigned Water created after 2026 should be invisible for purposes of determining surplus in Lake Mead.
• Volumes of Assigned Water in Lake Mead and Lake Powell created after 2026 should spill before all other water, a condition that also functions as a de-facto limit on total accumulation of Assigned Water.
• In any newly developed operational guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, volumes of Assigned Water created after 2026 and held in Lake Mead or Lake Powell should be invisible for purposes of calculating annual releases from Lake Powell.

EVAPORATION

• Reclamation should establish evaporation coefficients applicable to calculation of evaporation caused by storage of Assigned Water. These evaporation coefficients should be based on on-going monitoring and best available science and appropriately funded. Evaporation coefficients should be reassessed every five years, especially in light of a changing climate.
• Future volumes of Assigned Water in any reservoir should be assessed a realistic and conservatively high annual evaporative loss based on these coefficients and on the amount of Assigned Water in storage.
• Future deliveries of Assigned Water should be assessed transit losses where appropriate. Transit losses should also be estimated based on best available science, updated by monitoring and scientific studies, and revised every five years.
• Future volumes of Assigned Water in any reservoir should proportionately share the evaporative (and transit) losses that occur due to Mexican Water delivery obligations (other than for Mexican Assigned Water, which should bear its own losses) and should be assessed a realistic and conservatively high annual evaporative loss based on these coefficients and due to Mexican Water delivery obligations. The evaporative assessment should reflect the proportionate share of Assigned Water and Priority Water in storage.
• Evaporative losses should be assessed under all conditions, including shortage.

SHORTAGES AND DELIVERIES

• Deliveries of Assigned Water should be restricted if necessary to protect critical dam infrastructure.
• Alternative: The federal government should compel the sale of Assigned Water for immediate conversion to System Water during years in which reservoirs are at critically low levels.

PARTICIPATION

• In years in which System Water storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead is deemed to be inadequate, any Assigned Water developed or acquired by the federal government in those years should immediately be converted to System Water. Use for other purposes should be allowed only in conditions in which System Water storage is adequate.
• Dedication of federally-controlled Assigned Water for purposes other than conversion to System Water should occur through a robust and transparent public process.
• Because they are among those most exposed to involuntary shortage, CAWCD subcontractors that rely on deliveries of Colorado River water to surface water treatment plants should be allowed to create, own and acquire Assigned Water.
• Entities without an entitlement to Colorado River water should not be allowed to own Assigned Water.
• The Secretary’s approval should be required for all agreements for creation, transfer, or sale of Assigned Water.
• Any Colorado River entitlement holder, with the concurrence of the Secretary, should be allowed to participate in transactions in any state to develop, own or use Assigned Water created from projects in the U.S. (So long as adequate protections are afforded Priority Water and there is agreement between the states regarding accounting for Assigned Water deliveries under the Compact).
• To avoid profiteering, the Assigned Water held by any given Colorado River entitlement-holder should be proportional to its Colorado River entitlement. The annual accumulation and balance of Assigned Water for a single entity in any reservoir should be limited to some (relatively small) multiple of its annual entitlement to Colorado River water.
• To ameliorate concerns about permanent water transfers between states, agreements to create Assigned Water from consumptive-use reductions in one state for delivery in another state should be structured such that there is reasonable means for entities within the state in which the reduction in consumptive-use derives to make use of that water within the state in the future. One means to do so would be to allow agreements to create Assigned Water from consumptive-use reductions in one state for delivery in another state only if the agreements expire after five years and do not include a provision for automatic renewal. Existing Assigned Water storage could continue beyond expiration.
• To ameliorate controversies associated with the transfer of agricultural water for municipal use, agreements to create Assigned Water from consumptive-use reductions in agriculture should include a requirement that the funder of the Assigned Water pay a tax assessed per acre-foot paid to the county or counties from which the consumptive-use reductions derive. The tax could derive from the value of the agricultural economy. Waivers could apply if the Assigned Water creation program creates a net increase in economic value in an agricultural area (e.g., crop switching or crop insurance).

ASSIGNED WATER CREATED THROUGH SYSTEM EFFICIENCIES

• The federal government should fund efficiency projects for creation of System Water up until the amount of water that results from such projects sufficiently ameliorates the impacts of the annual, national obligation to Mexico to Priority Water users.
  • Thereafter, the creation of Assigned Water via efficiency projects in the U.S. should only be allowed if a) System Water storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead is deemed to be adequate or b) the efficiency project benefits System Water over Assigned Water on a ratio of 90/10 over the ensuing five years.
• To the extent participation is offered, participation in efficiency projects in the U.S. in exchange for Assigned Water should be awarded based on an allocation method determined through an open and transparent process (e.g. highest bidder) and should be subject to any limitations on participation, total Assigned Water annual accumulation and balance for that entity.
• The federal government should hold the right of first refusal to purchase any Mexican Assigned Water up for sale and to fully fund any conservation projects in Mexico that can become Assigned Water during years in which System Water stores are deemed to be inadequate for the sole purpose of converting it to System Water.
• Mexican treaty obligations increase the risk of shortage in the Lower Division and increase the risk of a Compact call. Those in the Lower Division with lowest priority contracts and subcontracts and those in the Upper Division most at risk of curtailment due to a Compact call should be given the second right of refusal up to an amount that equals projected involuntary cuts to Priority Water for each entity over the next two years.
• Thereafter, purchase of Mexican Assigned Water should be awarded to domestic entity with the highest bid and should be subject to any limitations on participation, total Assigned Water annual accumulation and balance for that entity.

MEASUREMENT AND BASELINES

• An audit independent of Reclamation should be conducted on the existing Assigned Water program in the Lower Division and Mexico. The goals of the audit should be:
  • to examine claimed savings for accuracy,
  • to assemble a list of lessons learned on measurement and accounting from twenty years of program administration and
  • to assemble a list of qualifying activities for reduction of consumptive use, alongside recommended terms and conditions, that can form the foundation of future agreements.
• The audit should be made available to the public with and opportunity to review and comment.
• Assigned Water in any reservoir should only be allowed under a program that accurately measures Assigned Water creation, shepherding, storage and deliveries.
• Owners of Assigned Water should be assessed an annual fee to fund robust measurement and enforcement programs.
• Assigned Water created through water savings should derive from a baseline of historic consumptive use, not entitlement or filed water right claims.

FORBEARANCE/SHEPHERDING

• Forbearance/shepherding should be based on qualifying activities, not participants. In other words, withholding of forbearance/shepherding should not be a veto used to exclude participants that would otherwise qualify for development of Assigned Water.
• The means of creating Assigned Water that meet the threshold for agreements to forbear/shepherd should be decided ahead of time. Allowing additional qualifying activities down the road increases flexibility but also potentially undermines trust in Assigned Water programs between participants and more importantly among non-participants who rely solely on the prior appropriation system.

TRANSPARENCY

• Reclamation should compile a centralized, searchable, easily accessible library of all agreements and documents associated with Assigned Water programs.
• Reclamation should develop a new Assigned Water annual report that clearly shows ownership of the several different types of Assigned Water, the status of funding agreements and the flow of dollars, transactions involving Assigned Water, Assigned Water creation by creation category, method and partner, relevant shepherding arrangements, assessments, evaporative losses, deliveries and ending balances and other relevant details.
• Graphs and charts of reservoir elevations should clearly delineate Assigned Water by ownership and method of creation.

PROGRAM LENGTH

• The ability to create or purchase Assigned Water under a given Assigned Water program should expire 20 years after program initiation, a duration long enough for bond financing of capital projects. The ability to store Assigned Water should expire no more than 5 years after expiration of the program under which it was created.

LOANS AND CONVERSIONS

• Loans against Assigned Water balances should not be allowed where default diminishes the amount of System Water in storage.
• Conversion of existing Assigned Water into another form of Assigned Water governed by different rules should only be allowed after a robust and transparent public process.
• Loans between Assigned Water owners for Assigned Water should be allowed in future programs.
• With proper guardrails, loans from Assigned Water owners to Priority Water users should be allowed, including across state lines.
• With proper guardrails, loans and/or conversions from Assigned Water to the Priority Water pool should be mandatory when Priority Water stores are deemed to be seriously inadequate.

ADDRESSING THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

• Future creation of Assigned Water should be assessed a percentage deduction that becomes System Water at the time of creation to help rebuild System Water in reservoirs.
  • The assessment should be determined based on a sliding scale; a 30% assessment should apply in water years in which System Water stores are deemed to be inadequate. The assessment should then decrease incrementally to 10% as total storage increases.
• Alternative: Colorado River entitlement holders must agree to take shortages above and beyond shortage levels described in the 2007 Guidelines before being allowed to create Assigned Water.
  • The amount of shortage should equal 30% of the proposed deposit in years in which System Water stores are deemed to be inadequate. The shortage should then decrease incrementally to 10% as total storage increases.
• During years in which System Water stores are deemed to be inadequate the federal government should hold the right of first refusal to purchase any Assigned Water offered up by willing sellers for the sole purpose of converting it to System Water.

ASSIGNED WATER OPPORTUNITIES IN THE UPPER DIVISION

• Where possible while still maintaining neutrality to Priority Water, and assuming agreement between the states on how to account for Assigned Water deliveries between the Divisions under the Compact, the amount of Assigned Water stored in different reservoirs should be adjusted to optimize for hydropower, environmental and recreational benefits.
• Assigned Water created in the Upper Division must be properly shepherded into the relevant downstream reservoir and assessed appropriate transit losses.

¹ Director of Research, Kyl Center for Water Policy, former Director, Phoenix Water Services

² Director, Kyl Center for Water Policy

³ 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

⁴ Writer in Residence, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico

⁵ Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District

⁶ Director, Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, former Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

⁷ Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico

Click the link to read the article on the Central Arizona Project website (DeEtte Person):

January 26, 2026

Reclamation has released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), a required step in the process to develop new operating guidelines for Colorado River operations by the end of the year when the current operating guidelines expire. It comes amid two-plus years of ongoing meetings and negotiations led by Reclamation working with the seven Colorado River Basin states, the Colorado River Basin tribes and other stakeholders.

The DEIS lays out five alternatives for how the Colorado River might be managed after 2026. These include one “no action” alternative required by law, three alternatives that would require agreements among the basin states, and one “no deal” alternative which may be imposed if there is no agreement among the states.

The DEIS places all the risk of a dwindling Colorado River on the Lower Basin, and all the alternatives proposed are harmful to Arizona.

The “no deal” alternative in particular piles virtually all the mandated cuts on the State of Arizona and Central Arizona Project. The DEIS ignores the obligations of the Upper Basin states to deliver water under the Colorado River Compact and the federal government to release water from the Colorado River Storage Project dams.

The “no deal” alternative would result in a crushing blow to Central Arizona’s water supply, including tribal water supplies. Millions of Arizona residents would be negatively affected – including those in the fifth largest city in the United States, as would several of the nation’s key industries, including manufacturing, microchips and national defense.

Our economy is integrated regionally and nationally, which means if Arizona is suffering, neighboring businesses and our national defense are too.

In contrast, the “no deal” alternative imposes no federal cuts to the Upper Basin and allows the Upper Basin to increase water use in the future.

Implementation of any of the DEIS alternatives would likely force Arizona to seek legal options. [ed. emphasis mine]

The basin states and the Bureau of Reclamation can do better than any of these alternatives with a negotiated agreement. As history has shown, the Colorado River has worked best when all basin states agree on how it is managed.

We remain committed to working with the basin states and Reclamation so long as the path is toward recognizing the shared risks and responsibilities for the river and fairly sharing reductions to protect vital infrastructure that benefits the entire Colorado River Basin.

Here’s what CAWCD’s Board members have to say about the DEIS:

“Each alternative put forward places the risk of a dwindling Colorado River on the Lower Basin – none of them are good for Arizona and certainly not for Central Arizona Project. In the Lower Basin, we’ve demonstrated that we can accept that the River has less water now and likely in the future. But we cannot bear the shortage alone. The Upper Basin shows no willingness to conserve and in fact demands more water, yet these alternatives do nothing to deny their greed. That’s not acceptable to CAP whose millions of water users and billions in industrial investments will bear the brunt of these devastating alternatives.”  – Terry Goddard, CAWCD Board President

“The alternatives laid out for post-2026 Colorado River operations are potentially disastrous for millions of Arizonans – including the residents of the fifth largest city in the United States. Further, these alternatives all negatively impact several of the nation’s key industries, including manufacturing, microchips and national defense. This means harm not just to Arizona, but to the entire country.”  – Alexandra Arboleda, CAWCD Board Vice President

“Arizonans have been smart water stewards, conserving water for decades in our desert environment. What’s more, we’ve worked with our Lower Basin partners to protect Lake Mead, by voluntarily conserving water beyond the mandatory reductions Arizona has taken for the past several years. We’ve done our part and it’s so disappointing to see alternatives that make Arizona bear the burden for all Colorado River users.”   – Karen Cesare, CAWCD Board Secretary

“Pinal County has already shouldered the brunt of the Colorado River reductions Arizona has been taking for the past several years. And this has had a monumental negative impact on our agricultural community. We’ve already felt a great deal of pain and these alternatives would be rubbing salt in the wound and would continue to devastate Arizona.”  – Stephen Miller, CAWCD Board Member, Pinal County

“CAP delivers more tribal water than any other entity in the United States. The alternatives proposed for post-2026 Colorado River operations would have a damaging effect on those deliveries, which are part of settlement agreements with the federal government. The negative effects of these alternatives impact all of CAP’s water users – cities, industries and tribes.”  – Justin Manuel, CAWCD Board Member, Pima County and member of Tohono O’Odham Nation

Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Scott Franz):

January 25, 2026

This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.

It’s crunch time for negotiators from seven western states trying to strike a deal before Feb. 14 on how to share the dwindling Colorado River.

But four days of talks in a Salt Lake City conference room earlier this month did not appear to have sparked a breakthrough.

“We got tired of each other,” Utah’s negotiator, Gene Shawcroft, said Tuesday at a public board meeting, days after the meeting ended. “And two of the days, we made some progress, but one day we went backwards almost as much progress as we made in two and a half days.”

The states in the lower and upper basins remain at an impasse over how cuts to water use should be handled during times of drought.

In another sign that talks remain stalled, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum reportedly invited governors from the seven states in the river basin to attend a meeting in Washington on Jan. 30. 

A spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis confirmed the meeting invitation to KUNC and said in a statement that Polis “hopes to attend this meeting if it works for the other Governors.”

Meanwhile, the Interior Department recently released a playbook of options for how to manage the river in the future.

John Berggren, a water policy expert at Western Resource Advocates, said many of the scenarios on the table can only be taken if all the states in the basin agree to them.

“The fact that the states don’t have a seven state agreement right now means that we can’t consider some of these really good, new, innovative tools that are in some of the alternatives,” he said Tuesday. And so that’s pretty frustrating.”

What could management of the vital waterway look like after the current rules expire in August?

Berggren, who got his Ph.D. at the University of Colorado focusing on sustainable water management in the Colorado River Basin, helped KUNC’s water desk summarize the five options on the table from the feds.

He said an eventual deal might incorporate pieces from several of the alternatives.

Basic coordination

This is the only path the feds say they currently have the legal power to take if the seven states fail to reach an agreement.

Berggren said this option would likely ‘normalize’ 1.48 million acre feet of water shortages each year in the lower basin states.

“And this would just basically say every year, that’s a given,” Berggren said.

Upper basin states, including Colorado, would not be forced to contribute more water in dry years.

Berggren said this option “does not do enough.”

“There’s many years where the system crashes,” he said.

A crash means Lake Powell and Lake Mead reach deadpool, a scenario where they’re so critically low that hydroelectricity stops and water stops flowing through their dams.

Millions of water users in the west could see impacts.

Enhanced coordination

Berggren calls this plan ‘a little more innovative.’

Highlights include the power to use conservation pools that encourage and incentivize states and water users to find ways to save water.

That could mean the feds paying states to conserve water. Lower basin states could also put water they save in Lake Mead to stay there until they need it.

“It’s water security, because if we can save water today, we’ll put it into storage and we can withdraw it later when we need it,” Berggren said.

This option also includes contributions from the upper basin states each year that would gradually increase over time.

The Interior Department writes this option “seeks to protect critical infrastructure while benefitting key resources (such as environmental, hydropower, and recreation) through an approach to distributing storage between Lake Powell and Lake Mead that enhances the reservoirs’ abilities to support the Basin.”

No action

This plan might sound like the path with the least impact, but that’s far from the case.

This path would revert the operating procedures at Powell and Mead to what they were almost 20 years ago.

“It basically says Reclamation will shoot to release 8.23 million acre feet of water from Powell, and that’s kind of it,” Berggren said. “Not a lot of authority for lower basin shortages, not a lot of authority to modify your reservoir operations to try and prevent the worst from happening. No action very clearly crashes the system quickly, and no one wants it.”

According to the Interior Department, “there would be no new mechanisms to proactively conserve and store water in Lake Powell or Lake Mead.”

This option was legally required to be included in the feds report on operating scenarios.

Maximum flexibility 

This proposal was developed by a group of seven conservation groups.

Interior said this alternative is “designed to help stabilize system storage, incentive proactive water conservation, and extend the benefits of conservation and operational flexibility to a wide range of resources.”

It’s also designed to give dam operators more flexibility to respond to the impacts of climate change.

Berggren said this option allows water users to conserve water and store it in reservoirs.

It would also change the way water releases are handled.

A “climate response indicator” would be introduced to help decide how much water should be released from Lake Powell.

“If the last three years have been really dry or exceptionally dry, then you adjust your Lake Powell releases,” he said.

Berggren and his environmental group, Western Resource Advocates, had a hand in developing this alternative along with the six other organizations.

All seven of the organizations that crafted the river management proposal have received funding from the Walton Family Foundation, which also supports KUNC’s Colorado River coverage.

Supply driven alternative

“All this does is say that what you release from Lake Powell down to Lake Mead is based on some percentage of the preceding three years,” Berggren said. “You look at the past three years, and you take some percentage of that, and that’s what you release from Glen Canyon Dam, and that’s basically it.”

He said the plan, which incorporates ideas from the states themselves, was nicknamed “the amicable divorce of the basins.”

“Because it was basically the upper basin will do its thing with Lake Powell and its upper basin reservoirs,” he said. “And then whatever gets released, lower basin deals with that, deals with Lake Mead, deals with lower basin shortages.”

Shortages in the lower basin could be up to 2.1 million acre feet a year in this scenario, according to the Interior Department.

Public comment is being accepted on all five alternatives through early March.

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

January 20, 2026

After last week’s somewhat wonky dispatch on the Colorado River, a couple of readers asked about some of the terminology used. That, along with the fact that the deadline for an agreement on how to operate the river’s plumbing is fast approaching, prompted me to put together a bit of a glossary/primer on the Colorado River to give a little more context to related news, which is likely to come fast and furious over the next several weeks. 

If I miss anything, or if you have other questions, please let me know and I’ll try to answer them soon. Also, I’ll be doing a host of data-driven, Colorado River-related dispatches in coming weeks to go over some of last year’s statistics on water consumption, water pricing, alfalfa production and exports, and so forth.

Colorado River Basin: A 250,000 square-mile watershed that includes southwestern Wyoming, western Colorado, southern and eastern Utah, southern Nevada, western New Mexico, Arizona, and eastern California. For administrative purposes, it has been split into the Lower Basin (CA, AZ, NV) and the Upper Basin (CO, WY, UT, NM), with the dividing line at Lees Ferry.

Law of the River: This isn’t an actual law, but rather a collection of agreements, compacts, treaties, laws, and Supreme Court decisions that serve as a framework for governing the Colorado River.

Doctrine of Prior Appropriation, aka First In Time, First in Right: This is the basis for most Western water law, which says that the first entity to put a set amount of water on a stream to beneficial use at a specific place has the highest or most senior priority of water rights. If a senior rights holder is not receiving their full appropriation due to drought or overuse, they can make a “call” on the river, forcing upstream, junior rights holders to stop diverting water from the stream or its tributaries.

Acre-foot (AF): Amount of water that would cover one acre one foot deep. 1 acre-foot = 325,851 gallons. MAF = million acre-feet.

Consumptive Use: The amount of water diverted from a stream minus the amount returned to it. For example, last year Nevada pulled about 443,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River, mostly via pumping plants in Lake Mead. But it returned about 244,000 acre-feet of treated wastewater to the reservoir via Las Vegas Wash, leaving it with a total consumptive use of about 198,000 acre-feet for the year. Evaporation and transpiration (or uptake by and evaporation from plants) are considered consumptive uses. Agriculture is the largest consumptive user in both the Upper and Lower basins.

Colorado River Compact: In 1922, representatives from the seven Colorado River states entered into a compact aimed at ending interstate conflict and litigation to clear the way for developing dams and diversions on the river. The compact gives each basin exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year, but also mandates that the Upper Basin “not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feet” for any 10-year period. A 1944 treaty reserved an additional 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico, which would be covered by surplus or borne equally by the two basins.

• The Upper Basin divided its 7.5 MAF by percentage: 51.75% to Colorado; 11.25%to New Mexico; 23% to Utah; 14% to Wyoming (plus an additional 50,000 acre-feet for the portion of Arizona in the Upper Basin).
• The Lower Basin allotted 4.4 MAF to California; 2.8 MAF to Arizona; .3 MAF to Nevada.
• 20 million acre-feet: Presumed total annual natural flow of the river upon which the compact was based and which was considered “more than sufficient to water all lands now being irrigated and all lands which can be economically developed for forty years to come.”
• 17.3 million acre-feet: The actual annual flow recorded by the he U.S. Geological Survey during the nine years leading up to the compact’s ratification, with yearly flows ranging from 9.9 million acre-feet to 26.1 million acre-feet. That was during an unusually wet period.
• 14.3 million acre-feet: Median annual natural flows at Lees Ferry from 1907 to 2025.
• 8.5 million acre-feet: Estimated natural flow at Lees Ferry in 2025.
• 2 million to 4 million acre-feet: Estimated amount of consumptive use that must be reduced to bring the Colorado River supply and demand into balance.

Natural Flow at Lees Ferry: This is a calculated estimate of the amount of water that would flow past Lees Ferry if there were no upstream dams, diversions, or human consumptive use. This estimate would guide the supply driven option for dividing up the river. The USBR describes the method for determining it as such:

• Provisional Natural Flow at Lees Ferry = observed annual flow at Lees Ferry + average Upper Basin consumptive use for the last 5 published years +/- net change in mainstream storage +/- net change in off-mainstem storage +/- net change bank storage + mainstem reservoir evaporation.

Winters v. the United States: 1908 Supreme Court ruling establishing that when the federal government “reserved” land for a tribal nation, it also reserved rights to water. And the appropriation date for those water rights would be the date the reservation was established, whether or not the tribe put the water to “beneficial use” at that time. Winters did not quantify the amount of water tribes were entitled to, except that it should be “sufficient … for irrigation purposes.”

• By rights, this would give the 30 tribal nations within the watershed the most senior rights to most if not all of the water in the Colorado River. Five lower Colorado River tribes currently have quantified and settled rights to about 900,000 acre-feet, while Upper Basin tribes have settled and quantified about 1.1 million acre-feet. But other tribes have yet to settle or quantify their rights, so they remain in a sort of limbo.
• In many cases, the tribal nations lack the infrastructure for putting their water rights to use, meaning they end up relying on federal infrastructure — and on the respective appropriation dates for the infrastructure. An example: The Ute Mountain Ute tribe has 1868 water rights on the Dolores River in southwestern Colorado. But they actually receive their water via the Dolores Project, which only has 1968 rights — which are junior to most of the white farmers on the river. That means during very low water years, the tribe can lose most of its water.

Eugene C. LaRue: One of the early 20th century’s foremost authorities on the Colorado River, who warned the Colorado Compact signatories that their negotiations were based on overestimates of the river’s supply. In 1916, he wrote: “Evidently, the flow of the Colorado River and its tributaries is not sufficient to irrigate all the irrigable lands lying within the basin.” LaRue also warned against building Hoover Dam because evaporation would further deplete water supplies and suggested banning trans-basin diversions, or exporting water from the Colorado River watershed to other parts of the seven basin states. The signatories heard LaRue but clearly didn’t heed his warning, even though he repeated it many times prior to the compact’s signing. (He eventually resigned in protest.)

Minimum Power Pool: Surface elevation of Lake Powell or Lake Mead below which hydroelectric production is no longer possible because it is lower than the dam’s penstocks. This is especially critical at Lake Powell because if water can’t be released through the penstocks and turbines, it must go through lower river outlets, which are not equipped for long-term releases and could be damaged by constant use. Also, the electricity from the dam is critical to Southwestern power grids, and sales of it raise revenue for endangered native fish recovery programs.

Deadpool: Surface elevation of Lake Powell or Lake Mead below which no water can be released from the dam. So in Lake Powell, this means the water would drop below the river outlets, which could happen if the reservoir is drawn down to the river outlet level, and then reservoir seepage and evaporation exceeds inflows (which could happen late in a hot, dry summer).

Run of the River: This is the term for when releases from a dam are equal to reservoir inflows minus evaporation and seepage at any given time. In other words, if inflows were 20,000 cfs, releases would be slightly lower, and the dam wouldn’t hold any water back (or release any storage). Glen Canyon dam operators could use this method to keep Lake Powell from dropping below minimum power pool.

Transbasin Diversion: Moving water from one watershed to another, within the same state, e.g. from the Colorado River’s headwaters to the state’s populous Front Range, or from the Navajo River (a tributary of the San Juan, which is a tributary of the Colorado) to the Chama River (a tributary of the Rio Grande).

Central Arizona Project: The 366-mile canal and pumping system that delivers Colorado River water to the Phoenix and Tucson areas. The project’s water rights have a 1968 appropriation date, making them junior to California users such as the Imperial Irrigation District. That has meant that Arizona must reduce consumption prior to California. 

Imperial Irrigation District: A major agricultural area in southern California and the Colorado River’s largest single water user.

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

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

Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily News website (Ali Longwell). Here’s an excerpt:

January 17, 2026

While the four Upper Basin states in the compact — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming — rely predominantly on snowpack for water supply, the Lower Basin states — Arizona, California, and Nevada — rely on releases from Lake Powell and Lake Mead..It’s not the compact, but the 2007 operational guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead that are being renegotiated as they are set to expire this year. A decision must be made prior to Oct. 1, 2026, according to the Bureau…The federal government, seven states and 30 tribal nations all agree the best path forward is for a consensus between the upper and lower basins. However, with the looming deadline and unresolved disagreements about the future of the river, the Department of the Interior and its subagency, the Bureau of Reclamation, are forging ahead.  

​​”The Department of the Interior is moving forward with this process to ensure environmental compliance is in place so operations can continue without interruption when the current guidelines expire,” said Andrea Travnicek, the assistant secretary of water and science for the Bureau of Reclamation, in a news release announcing the agency’s latest draft options. “In the face of an ongoing severe drought, inaction is not an option.” 

One of the main disagreements throughout negotiations has been who should be making cuts to water use. The Lower Basin states have advocated for basin-wide water use reductions. The Upper Basin states, however, have pushed back on the idea, claiming they already face natural water shortages driven primarily by the ups and downs of snowpack…The draft Environmental Impact Statement released by the Bureau of Reclamation last week offers five options — including a required “no action” alternative and four others — that represent a broad range of operating strategies. The draft’s publication initiates a 45-day public comment period ending on March 2, 2026.  In a statement, Scott Cameron, acting lead of the Bureau of Reclamation, said that the federal agency has purposefully not identified a preferred alternative, “given the importance of a consensus-based approach to operations for the stability of the system.”  The expectation is that whatever agreement is reached incorporates elements of all five options offered by the Bureau of Reclamation, Cameron added. 

The five options identified are: 

• No Action 
• Basic Coordination
• Enhanced Coordination 
• Maximum Operational Flexibility 
• Supply Driven 

Each option offers differing methods for how the Bureau of Reclamation will operate Lake Powell and Lake Mead, particularly under low reservoir conditions; allocate, reduce or increase annual allocations for consumptive use of water from Lake Mead to the lower basin states; store and deliver water that has been saved through conservation efforts; manage and deliver surplus water; manage activities above Lake Powell; and more. 

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

January 9, 2026

The Bureau of Reclamation today released a draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluating a range of operational alternatives for managing of Colorado River reservoirs after 2026, when the current operating agreements expire. The draft EIS evaluates a broad range of potential operating strategies. It does not designate a preferred alternative, ensuring flexibility for a potential collective agreement. 

 Prolonged drought conditions over the past 25 years, combined with forecasts for continued dry conditions, have made development of future operating guidelines for the Colorado River particularly challenging. 

 “The Department of the Interior is moving forward with this process to ensure environmental compliance is in place so operations can continue without interruption when the current guidelines expire,” Assistant Secretary – Water and Science Andrea Travnicek said.  “The river and the 40 million people who depend on it cannot wait. In the face of an ongoing severe drought, inaction is not an option.” 

 The draft EIS evaluates a broad range of operational alternatives for post-2026 reservoir management informed through input and extensive collaborative engagement with stakeholders, including the seven basin states, tribes, conservation organizations, other federal agencies, other Basin water users, and the public. It includes the following alternatives that capture operational elements and potential environmental impacts:

• No Action 
• Basic Coordination 
• Enhanced Coordination 
• Maximum Operational Flexibility 
• Supply Driven 

The document will be published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2026, initiating a 45-day comment period that will end on March 2, 2026. The draft EIS and additional information on the alternatives are available on Reclamation’s website.  

 “Given the importance of a consensus-based approach to operations for the stability of the system, Reclamation has not yet identified a preferred alternative,” said Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron. “However, Reclamation anticipates that when an agreement is reached, it will incorporate elements or variations of these five alternatives and will be fully analyzed in the Final EIS enabling the sustainable and effective management of the Colorado River.” 

 The Colorado River provides water for more than 40 million people and fuels hydropower resources in seven states. It serves as a vital resource for 30 Tribal Nations and two Mexican states, sustaining 5.5 million acres of farmland and agricultural communities throughout the West, while also supporting critical ecosystems and protecting endangered species.  

 The Draft EIS addresses only domestic river operations. A separate binational process addressing water deliveries to Mexico is underway and the Department is committed to continued collaboration with the Republic of Mexico. The Department will conduct all necessary and appropriate discussions regarding post-2026 operations and implementation of the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico through the International Boundary and Water Commission in consultation with the Department of State. 

 To provide certainty for communities, tribes, and water users, a decision regarding operations after 2026 will be made prior to October 1, 2026 – the start of the 2027 water year. 

Click the link to read the article on the InkStain.net website (Michael Cohen — Pacific Institute):

December 15, 2025

Key Takeaways

• The consensus-based effort to develop new rules to manage the Colorado River system hasn’t worked – it’s time for a new approach
• Federal leadership and the credible threat of managing reservoirs to protect the system is that new approach

Missing Deadlines

Way back at the end of the last century, at the annual Colorado River conference in Vegas, Marc Reisner repeated the Margaret Thatcher quote that consensus is the absence of leadership. On Veterans Day, the seven Colorado River basin states missed yet another deadline to reach consensus on a conceptual plan for managing the shrinking Colorado River after the current rules expire in 2026. Valentine’s Day marks the next holiday deadline, this time for a detailed plan, but multiple missed deadlines give no indication that the states will reach consensus then, either.

The basin states can’t agree on the substance of a new agreement. They also disagree on the process to get there. While Arizona has called for the federal government to break the negotiation logjam, Colorado opposes federal intervention and continues to call for consensus. Each basin-state negotiator acts to protect their state’s interests, often at the expense of the short and long-term resilience of the Colorado River system as a whole and the 35 million people who rely on it. The continued failure to negotiate a plan challenges the efforts of irrigators, cities, businesses, and river runners throughout the basin to plan for 2027 and beyond.

Meanwhile, river runoff and reservoir storage get lower and lower and snowpack lags well below average. This is not a zero-sum game, with winners and losers. The more appropriate metaphor here is a shrinking pie, with smaller and smaller pieces.

Leadership

The basin state negotiators have met for years behind closed doors, without success. It’s time for a new approach. Aggressive federal intervention and the credible threat of a federally-imposed Colorado River management plan would offer political cover – or a political imperative – for the negotiators. The credible threat of a federal plan would give the negotiators the space to compromise without having to do so unilaterally and then being accused of not protecting their state’s interests.

But federal leadership alone is not enough – it must be coupled with a plausible federal plan that compels the states to act and can meet the magnitude of the ongoing crisis. As the Department of the Interior announced in its 6/15/2023 press release, the purpose of and need for the post-2026 guidelines is “to develop future operating guidelines and strategies to protect the stability and sustainability of the Colorado River.” To date, the development of the post-2026 guidelines has prioritized routine operations of Glen Canyon and Hoover dams over the system as a whole, a focus inconsistent with the magnitude and urgency of the problem. Prioritizing routine dam operations and hydropower generation over water delivery and environmental protection elevates the tool over the task. Seeking to preserve routine operations of the dams while imposing draconian cuts on water users is not a path to resilience and precludes alternatives that would help stabilize the system.

The Plan

Instead, by early next year, the Secretary should announce that Interior will implement a federal plan incorporating the following elements:

1. Grant Tribal Nations the legal certainty and the ability to access, develop, or lease their water.
2. Make accessible (“recover”) the roughly 5.6 million acre-feet (MAF) of water stored in Lake Powell below the minimum power pool elevation and avoid the additional ~0.25 MAF of annual evaporative losses from Powell by storing such water in Lake Mead and using Powell as auxiliary storage.
3. As a condition precedent, the Lower Basin states agree not to place a “compact call” for the duration of the agreement.
4. Implement annual Lower Basin water use reductions for the following calendar year based on total system contents on August 1:
   • 75% – 60%: cuts to Lower Basin water uses increasing from 0 to 1.5 MAF<60% – 38%: static cut to Lower Basin water uses of 1.5 MAF<38% – 23%: increasing cuts to Lower Basin water uses of up to 3.0 MAF total
   • below 23% of total system contents – cut Lower Basin water uses to the minimum required to protect human health and safety and satisfy present perfected rights
5. If the Lower Basin states do not satisfy the condition precedent in #3 above, Reclamation limits Lower Basin deliveries to the minimum required to satisfy present perfected rights when total system contents are <75%.
6. Recover water stored in federal Upper Basin reservoirs unless the Upper Basin states reduce annual water use based on total system contents:
   • <34% – 23%: Assuming the first 0.25 MAF “reduction” would be contributed by the elimination of Powell’s evaporative losses and gains from Glen Canyon bank storage, reduce Upper Basin water uses up to 0.65 MAF
   • below 23% of total system contents – limit total Upper Basin water uses to 3.56 MAF (the minimum volume reported this century)
7. Expand the pool of parties eligible to create Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) beyond existing Colorado River contractors, to include water agencies and other entities with agreements to use Colorado River water.
8. Eliminate the existing limits on the total quantity of Extraordinary Conservation ICS and DCP ICS that may be accumulated in ICS and DCP ICS accounts, while maintaining existing limits on delivery of such water.
9. Fully mitigate the on-stream and off-stream community and environmental impacts of the water use reductions identified above.
10. After a three-year phase-in period, condition Colorado River diversions on a clear “reasonable and beneficial use” standard predicated on existing best practices for water efficiency, including but not limited to the examples listed below (state(s) that already have such standards):

• Require removal of non-functional turf grass (California, Nevada)
• Incentivize landscape conversion and turf removal statewide (California, Colorado, Utah)
• Adopt stronger efficiency standards for plumbing and equipment (Colorado, California, and Nevada)
• Require urban utilities to report distribution system leakage, and to meet standards for reducing water losses (California)
• Require all new urban landscapes to be water-efficient (California)
• Require metering of landscape irrigation turnouts (Utah)
• Ensure that existing buildings are water-efficient when they are sold or leased (Los Angeles, San Diego)
• Require agricultural water deliveries to be metered and priced at least in part by volume (California)

Many of the elements listed above raise important questions about federal authorities, accounting and data challenges, the roles and obligations of state water officials to implement coordinated actions in-state, water access for disadvantaged communities, environmental compliance, and potential economic and social costs, among others. For each item listed, many details will need to be refined. Similarly, the plan’s duration will need to be determined. But as temperatures again climb into the high 40s in the Rockies near the Colorado River’s headwaters (in mid-December!), drying soils and reducing next year’s runoff, and the National Weather Service issues red flag fire warnings for Colorado’s Front Range, the need for bold action is clear.

The Dominy Bypass

Recovering water stored in Lake Powell will require the construction of new bypass tunnels around Glen Canyon Dam. Former Reclamation Commissioner Floyd Dominy sketched the design of such tunnels almost thirty years ago (see image). Such tunnels would enable the recovery of about 5.6 MAF of water stored below the minimum power pool elevation – more water than the Upper Basin states consume each year. Current operating rules and the scope of the current planning process effectively treat this massive volume of water as “dead storage” – a luxury the system can no longer afford. After Reclamation constructs the bypass tunnels, water recovery should be timed to maximize environmental and recreational benefits in the Grand Canyon.

Avoiding a Worse Outcome

Last year’s Colorado River conference featured a panel on the risks of litigation. Unfortunately, the continued failure to reach a deal, growing litigation funds, and the preference for repeating the same action that’s led to the continuing impasse suggest that some believe litigation could generate a better outcome (for them). Both sides have attorneys who assure their clients of victory. Yet, as Arizona learned in 1968, winning in the Supreme Court doesn’t ensure a better outcome and certainly won’t increase Colorado River flows. Placing faith in Congress could entangle this basin with challenges in other basins and other political considerations.

Running the River

Almost 160 years ago, John Wesley Powell – the reservoir’s namesake – demonstrated bold leadership, going where no (white) man had gone before. With leadership and a clear goal, he charted a route through the Colorado River’s iconic canyons. Now is the time for more bold leadership, a clear goal, and a plan to get there.

About the author

Since 1998, Michael Cohen’s work with the Pacific Institute has focused on water use in the Colorado River basin and delta region and the management and revitalization of the Salton Sea ecosystem. Michael received a B.A. in Government from Cornell University and has a Master’s degree in Geography, with a concentration in Resources and Environmental Quality, from San Diego State University.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.