Coyote Gulch on the Yampa River Core Trail August 2022 on the bicycle ride to the Colorado Water Congress Summer Convention.
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Scott Franz). Here’s an excerpt:
January 20, 2026
Steamboat Springs author and adventurer Eugene Buchanan has lived near the banks of the Yampa River long enough to notice its rhythms and moods are often mirrored by the residents in his northwest Colorado ski town.
“The river’s pulse kind of matches your own,” he said Thursday. “You know, come springtime, you’re jazzed up, and the rivers crankin’ and flooding, and the surf waves are in and people are rafting it and (stand up paddleboarding). Then it slows down to a trickle later in the summer and people are inner-tubing it. Fly fishing it. That’s a little more of a tranquil time.”
Yampa River Basin via Wikimedia.
But as Buchanann warns in the first chapter of his new book, Yampa Yearnings, “not all is hunky dory in Yampaland.” Last summer marked the fourth time in history that there was a call on the Yampa due to drought conditions and upstream users were forced to cut back their intake. And like other rivers across the West, Buchanan said the waterway faces growing threats from climate change and increased demands from water users. Buchanan’s book is not all about hard times and drought on the river. In between his history lessons about the Yampa and the challenges it has faced, readers will also learn about the fate of Buchanan’s efforts to help a rancher get his lost cattle back across the raging waterway. There’s also a tale of his friend’s paddling adventure from Colorado to Utah to prove the waterway can facilitate ‘interstate commerce.’ KUNC water and environment reporter Scott Franz interviewed Buchanan about his book and the state of the Yampa. Answers have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Franz: What impact do you hope this book has for the Yampa River and its future?
Buchanan: It’s hard to say how much impact a book like this will have. It’s my hope that those who are familiar with the Yampa learn to appreciate it a little more. Maybe look at it with a different eye next time they see it. If people aren’t familiar with the Yampa and they live somewhere else, maybe they’ll look outside and see their backyard creek flowing through their town and just think about it a little more. Maybe they’ll donate to a local nonprofit that’s trying to help preserve it, or they’ll pick up some trash or get involved. Or they’ll vote appropriately, how they want to, perhaps preserve it.
Floating the tiger, “Tiger Wall” Yampa River, 2014. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
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.
I like to run this one again from time to time, just to remind folks how much the population of the West has grown over the last century. This is what the signers of the Colorado River Compact were dealing with as far as water users go — compared to some 40 million users now. Source: USGS.
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.
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.
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.
The estimated “natural flow” at Lee Ferry. Some of the alternatives would base Lake Powell releases on recent average natural flows at Lee Ferry. If the recent past is an indicator of what’s to come, we could expect a relatively minuscule amount of water running through the Grand Canyon to the Lower Basin states. Source: Bureau of Reclamation.
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 Clyde LaRue measuring the flow in Nankoweap Creek, 1923. Photo credit: USGS
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.
There continues to be no new information from the ongoing negotiations among the protagonists for the seven states trying to work out a new two-basin management plan for the Colorado River. The Bureau of Reclamation, however, is pressing ahead; it recently went public with its ‘Draft Environmental Impact Statement’ (DEIS) for ‘Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.’
The five alternative ‘operational guidelines and strategies’ analyzed in this DEIS were announced back in the fall of 2024; the Bureau has spent the past year-plus examining their environmental impacts. I’m not going to go into their analyses right now; I’m still working on skimming, skipping, sprinting and plowing my way through enough of the 1600 pages or so of the report to feel reasonably informed on its contents.
But I will note that the first action analyzed (skipping past the mandatory ‘No Action’ alternative) is for the Bureau to go ahead and run the river system as it sees fit, without input from the seven states/two basins – not something they want to do, but would have to do since the system will not wait while the states stare at their chessboard stalemate. That action would of course precipitate lawsuits from some of the states since the Bureau would have to go ahead with some of the things that are part of non-debate behind the stalemate.
Anyone wishing to submit themselves to the torture of an EIS can find the home page and Table of Contents for the report by clicking here.
And in the meantime, I’ll go off again on what I hope might be at least a more interesting tangent, and maybe more creative – fully believing that the only way out of our ever-unfolding river mismanagement is some centrifugal push to get beyond the tight centripetal pull of the Colorado River Compact and its two-basin expedient that has become gospel.
Two posts ago here, I acknowledged a need to explain why I titled all these posts ‘Romancing the River’ – ‘romance’ being a degraded term these days for many people, most commonly referring to formulaic fiction about chaotic and improbable couple-love relationships. This is a sad degradation of a word that, in more imaginative times, referred to a much larger quality or feeling of adventure, mystery, something beyond or larger than everyday life – ‘your mission should you choose to accept it,’ as it was expressed in Mission Impossible and The Hobbit.
‘Romance’ has been used to describe our relationship with the Colorado River for more than a century. C. J. Blanchard, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Reclamation in 1918, spoke of the ‘romance of reclamation,’ observing that ‘a vein of romance runs through every form of human endeavor.’ The first book compiling the history of the Euro-American exploration of the Colorado River was titled The Romance of the Colorado River. Written by Frederick Dellenbaugh, something of an explorer himself, he first encountered the Colorado River in the company of one of the river’s greatest romantics, John Wesley Powell, on Powell’s second adventure into the canyon region of the river.
Painting by Henry C. Pitz showing John Wesley Powell and his party descending the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, presumably during the historic 1869 expedition. (Image credit: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology)
Now wait a minute, you may say: John Wesley Powell a romantic? Everyone knows he was a scientist! Well, yes, that too. A romanticscientist. Let me try to explain.
Science is a discipline, perhaps summarized in the caution: Look before you leap. Science is the discipline of looking, studying, analyzing for causes in some studies, for effects in others, basically trying to map out what is demonstrably going on in the system or structure being studied. But most scientists will acknowledge being also moved by feelings, convictions, beliefs that lie outside of or beyond the linear relationships of cause and effect explorations. The extreme example might be scientists who believe in a god or gods that oversaw the creation they are studying. More subtly, the very desire to pursue a life in science reflects a belief beyond evidence that the work is important as well as interesting. This is the ‘romance’ underlying science and those who pursue it.
The same year Dellenbaugh published his Romance, 1903, another southwestern writer, Mary Hunter Austin, came out with her Land of Little Rain, a poetic 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 central Arizona tributary of the Colorado River, ‘the fabled Hassayampa,’ she reports an unattributed legend: ‘If any drink [of its waters], they can no more see fact as naked fact, but all radiant with the color of romance.’
That could be construed into a kind of spectrum, the ‘naked facts’ of any situation at one end, the ‘radiant colors of romance’ dressing up the naked facts at the other end. The discipline of science is to stay as close to the ‘naked facts’ as possible. But is it a bad thing to allow feelings or beliefs to dress up the naked facts with the radiant color of romance?
Hold that question for a bit, and back to Major John Wesley Powell. Powell was a scientist by nature – meaning born a curious fellow who collected information about things that made him curious. He studied science in a couple of colleges, but never completed a degree – partially, probably, because college science was a little too tame. One of his early ‘field trips’ was a solo trip the length of the Mississippi River in a rowboat. Another was a four-month walk across the ‘Old Northwest Territory’ state of Wisconsin. Both of those trips pretty unquestionably fall more into the category of ‘romantic adventures’ than ‘scientific expeditions.’
As a son of an itinerant farmer/preacher immigrant, growing up on farms in rural New York, Ohio and Illinois, he also shared, to some extent, the romantic Jeffersonian vision of ‘another America,’ a nation of small decentralized and mostly locally-sufficient communities of farm families – now just a nostalgic fantasy-vision of nation building that still haunts the imperial urban-industrial mass society that America has become. But trips to the west had convinced Powell that the mostly arid lands of the West were largely unsuitable for the spread of that agrarian vision, without the development of an appropriate system for settlement and land management specifically for the arid lands.
He had ideas about that, things to say, but he was basically just a high-school teacher who spent his summers adventuring west; how could he get a hearing for his concerns and ideas? He needed some way to gain public attention. So he turned his destiny over to his romantic adventurer side: he would do a scientific investigation into one of the remaining blank spots on the continental map, the region beginning where the rivers draining the west slopes of the Southern Rockies disappeared into a maze of canyons, and ending where a river emerged from the canyons – a river thick with silt and sand, indicating a pretty rough passage through canyons still in the creation stage.
Wallace Stegner. Ed Marston/HCN file photo
Wallace Stegner, in his great book about Powell and the development of the arid lands, Beyond the Hundredth Meridian, credited Powell’s scientific grounding with getting him through his 1869 expedition into the canyons: ‘Though some river rats will disagree with me, I have been able to conclude only that Powell’s party in 1869 survived by the exercise of observation, caution, intelligence, skill, planning – in a word, Science.’
I’m one of those who disagree with Stegner on that point. The advance planning for the trip sank in the first set of Green River rapids, with the wreckage of one of the boats containing a large portion of both their food supply and scientific instruments. They gradually acquired some skill at negotiating rapids (and knowing when to portage instead), but they started with no skill and paid the price. Observation was limited to the stretch of river before the next bend. Dellenbaugh asked Powell, on the second trip in 1871-72, what he would have done had he come to a Niagara-scale waterfall with sheer walls, no room for portage and no way back upriver. Powell answered, ‘I don’t know.’ Scientific caution was not a factor in this trip; they leapt before looking because there was no way to look first.
Stegner to the contrary, I would argue they survived the way adventurers survive (and sometimes don’t): a kind of adaptive intelligence, for sure, figuring out how to make rotten bacon and moldy flour edible, how to fabricate replacement oars, how to deal with the unexpected quickly and decisively. But mostly, just gutting it out, keeping spirits from crashing completely with morbid humor and routines – Powell getting out the remaining instruments to take their bearing rain or shine, getting back in the boats every morning and turning their lives over to the will of the river again.
And it worked out. Ninety-one days after starting, they made national headlines when they floated half-starved into a town near the confluence with the Virgin River. And Powell, a national hero after that, procured a government job doing a ‘survey’ of the Utah territory.
Then Powell the scientist took over – but the romantic side of his nature shaped his scientific work. The unstated purpose of the western surveys by the 1870s was to map out potential resources for the fast-growing industrial empire ‘back in the states’; Powell covered those bases, but the heart of his 1879 ‘Report on the Lands of the Arid Region…’ was analysis of the potential of the arid lands for fulfilling Jefferson’s romantic agrarian vision for America. All agricultural activity, he argued, would require irrigation, and there was only enough water to irrigate many three percent of the land.
John Wesley Powell’s recommendation for political boundaries in the west by watershed
He made a strong case for replacing the Homestead Act’s one-size-fits-all 160-acre homestead allotments with two alternatives for the arid lands: 1) 80-acre allotments for intensive irrigated farming, that being as much as a pre-tractor farm family could successfully tend; or 2) ‘pasturage’ allotments on unirrigable land of 2,560 acres, four full sections, for stockgrowers, with up to 20 irrigable acres for growing some winter hay and the ubiquitous kitchen garden.He went even further than that: settlement should not be done on a willy-nilly ‘first-come-first-served basis’; instead each watershed should be developed by an organized ditch company working from a plan assuring that every member got a fair allotment of water and that the water was most efficiently distributed. And the right to use that water should be bound to the land, he said. No selling your water right to some distant city!
Powell did not just recommend this in his report; he included model bills for state and federal legislation. He was of course thoroughly ignored because everything that he suggested was contrary to the romantic mythology of the Winning of the West – Jefferson’s legendary ‘yeoman’ conquering the wilderness, the rugged American individualist going forth with rifle, ax and Bible.
Acequia La Vida via Greg Hobbs.
That American mythology from the start was always ‘all radiant with the color of romance,’ with very little attention to ‘the naked facts’ – which is the main reason why two out of three homesteads failed as settlement moved into the semi-arid High Plains and the arid interior West. ‘The naked facts’ of aridity, on the other hand, had been foundational to the communal land-grant system imported from Spain to Mexico, and it was already known to many of the native peoples already in the Americas: it takes a village and a stream to raise good crops in the arid lands. Powell observed it in the Utah Territory, where the Mormons had borrowed it from the natives and Mexicans.
Powell was philosophical about being ignored – and kept on pushing. He was ‘present at the creation’ of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 1879, the same year he presented his ‘Report on the Lands of the Arid Region.’ And two years later he became director of the USGS, where he tried to keep both the Agrarian Romance and ‘the naked facts’ of aridity front and center. He tried to sell the idea of doing a complete survey of the interior West to map its water resources and the adjacent areas of possible successful settlement, and he was actually a vote or two from achieving that, and actually shutting down the homesteading process until the study was done. But once some of the senators fronting for the industrialists realized what he was doing, they shut him down with a vengeance – he quickly realized that to save the USGS, he had to resign from it, and did so in 1894. Western extractive industries depended to some extent on failed homesteaders for their labor supply.
The Powell-Ingalls Special Commission meeting with Southern Paiutes. Photo credit: USGS
Powell was not out of work, however. From his pre-canyon days he had been interested in the First Peoples of the West. While most Euro-Americans saw them, at best, as raw material for conversion to Christianity and industrial labor, and at worse, as vermin to be wiped off the land, Powell saw them as people who had survived and even thrived in the region with Stone Age technology, some still semi-nomadic, some settled in agrarian communities, and therefore people from whom something might be learned. His efforts to communicate with those he encountered in his Utah survey led to the 1877 publication of a book, Introduction to Indian Languages – which led, two years later to the creation of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology in the Smithsonian Institute with Powell as director – a position he held until his death in 1902, finally producing the first comprehensive linguistic survey of indigenous tongues, Indian Linguistic Families of America, North of Mexico(1891).
In both ethnology and the geology survey Major Powell established a high standard for government science – attention to the naked facts while still trying to carry forward what Bruce Springsteen called ‘the country we carry in our hearts’ – the ever evolving, devolving, careening, diverted, perverted, and currently severely damaged Romance of the American Dream. Next post, we’ll take a look at what happens when that standard gets out of balance.
But I want to leave you with a Colorado River image of Powell, related in Dellenbaugh’s Romance of the Colorado River: there were afternoons in that second voyage in the canyons, in the placid stretches between rapids, when the men would rope the boats together, and Major Powell would sit in his chair on the deck of the Emma Dean and read to them from the romantic adventure stories of Sir Walter Scott. Romancing the River.
A stopover during Powell’s second expedition down the Colorado River. Note Powell’s chair at top center boat. Image: USGS
The so-called “bathtub ring”, a deposit of pale minerals left behind where reservoir water levels once reached, is shown on the edge of Lake Powell near Page, Arizona on Sunday, Feb. 2, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
With just weeks to decide how to share the Colorado River’s shrinking water supply, negotiators from seven states hunkered down in a Salt Lake City conference room.
Outside was busy traffic on State Street and South Temple. Inside was gridlock that eased up for a time, only to return, Utah’s chief negotiator, Gene Shawcroft said Tuesday of last week’s meetings.
The states moved forward on a deal for two-and-a-half days, then went back by almost as far as they’d come, Shawcroft said.
“I would just tell you that four days is too long. We got tired of each other,” he said.
Shawcroft reiterated Tuesday what he and his counterparts from the other Colorado River states have said in recent months: They don’t have a deal, but they do have a commitment to keep talking and meet their upcoming February deadline.
The earlier goal was to reach a 20-year deal, but Shawcroft told Utah News Dispatch the states are now working on an agreement for a shorter time frame.
“I think it’ll be fairly simple, but I think it’ll allow us to operate for the next five years,” Shawcroft said.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
The river provides water to 40 million people across the U.S. and Mexico, contributing 27% of Utah’s water supply. It is shrinking because of drought, [ed. and aridification]overuse and hotter temperatures tied to climate change.
Time for negotiators is also drying up as a Feb. 14 deadline set by the federal government approaches. The current agreement runs through late 2026.
The four Upper Basin states — Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming — are at odds with the Lower Basin states of Nevada, Arizona and California.
The upstream states don’t want to make mandatory cuts in dry years, saying they typically use much less than they’re allocated. The downstream states say all seven need to absorb cuts in difficult years.
Conservation groups have criticized the states for not reaching a deal yet, saying “escalating risks” — including declining storage in lakes Powell and Mead — are piling up every month they fail to agree on a plan.
Lake Powell and the Wahweap Marina are pictured near Page, Arizona on Sunday, Feb. 2, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
The debate centers in part on upstream reservoirs like Flaming Gorge on the Utah-Wyoming border and whether they’ll be managed under the new plan.
“Lower Basin believes those reservoirs ought to be used at the beck and call of the lower basin to reduce their reductions,” Shawcroft said at the meeting. “Obviously, we think differently.”
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, for her part, has criticized the upstream states’ “extreme negotiating posture,” saying they refuse to participate in any sharing in managing water shortages.
West Drought Monitor map January 13, 2026.
Demand for water is outpacing the river’s supply, and extended dry periods aren’t helping. At the meeting, board members viewed a map covered in yellow, orange and red, noting the entire Colorado River watershed is experiencing some level of drought.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency that oversees water in the West,released five options for a framework on managing the river’s biggest reservoirs, Lake Mead in Nevada and Lake Powell on the Utah-Arizona line.
Amy Haas, executive director of the Colorado River Authority of Utah, said she and her colleagues were still reviewing the 1,600-page document but one thing is clear.
“None of the five can provide what for Utah is really the central consideration for the deal, and that is a waiver of compact litigation,” Haas said.
States can sacrifice more than just time and money in lawsuits over water use. In Texas, similar litigationgave the federal government more leverage in negotiations.
One of the Bureau of Reclamation’s plans would have Nevada, Arizona and California face potential water shortages. It could go into effect next year if the seven states don’t reach a deal.
“The river and the 40 million people who depend on it cannot wait,” Andrea Travnicek, assistant interior secretary for water and science, said in a Jan. 9 statement announcing the five alternatives. “In the face of an ongoing severe drought, inaction is not an option.”
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 world is now using so much fresh water amid the consequences of climate change that it has entered an era of water bankruptcy, with many regions no longer able to bounce back from frequent water shortages.
About 4 billion people – nearly half the global population – live with severe water scarcity for at least one month a year, without access to sufficient water to meet all of their needs. Many more people are seeing the consequences of water deficit: dry reservoirs, sinking cities, crop failures, water rationing and more frequent wildfires and dust storms in drying regions.
Water bankruptcy signs are everywhere, from Tehran, where droughts and unsustainable water use have depleted reservoirs the Iranian capital relies on, adding fuel to political tensions, to the U.S., where water demand has outstripped the supply in the Colorado River, a crucial source of drinking water and irrigation for seven states.
Droughts have made finding water for cattle more difficult and have led to widespread malnutrition in parts of Ethiopia in recent years. In 2022, UNICEF estimated that as many as 600,000 children would require treatment for severe malnutrition. Demissew Bizuwerk/UNICEF Ethiopia, CC BY
Water bankruptcy is not just a metaphor for water deficit. It is a chronic condition that develops when a place uses more water than nature can reliably replace, and when the damage to the natural assets that store and filter that water, such as aquifers and wetlands, becomes hard to reverse.
In financial bankruptcy, the first warning signs often feel manageable: late payments, borrowed money and selling things you hoped to keep. Then the spiral tightens.
Water bankruptcy has similar stages.
At first, we pull a little more groundwater during dry years. We use bigger pumps and deeper wells. We transfer water from one basin to another. We drain wetlands and straighten rivers to make space for farms and cities.
How the Aral Sea shrank from 2000 to 2011. It was once closer to oval, covering the light-colored areas as recently as the 1980s, but overuse for agriculture by multiple countries drew it down. NASA
That last one, subsidence, often surprises people. But it’s a signature of water bankruptcy. When groundwater is overpumped, the underground structure, which holds water almost like a sponge, can collapse. In Mexico City, land is sinking by about 10 inches (25 centimeters) per year. Once the pores become compacted, they can’t simply be refilled.
The Global Water Bankruptcy report, published on Jan. 20, 2026, documents how widespread this is becoming. Groundwater extraction has contributed to significant land subsidence over more than 2.3 million square miles (6 million square kilometers), including urban areas where close to 2 billion people live. Jakarta, Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City are among the well-known examples in Asia.
A sinkhole in Turkey’s agricultural heartland shows how the landscape can collapse when more groundwater is extracted than nature can replenish. Ekrem07, 2023, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
About 3 billion people and more than half of global food production are concentrated in areas where water storage is already declining or unstable. More than 650,000 square miles (1.7 million square kilometers) of irrigated cropland are under high or very high water stress. That threatens the stability of food supplies around the world.
In California, a severe drought and water shortage forced some farmers in 2021 to remove crops that require lots of irrigation, including almond trees. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images
Droughts are also increasing in duration, frequency and intensity as global temperatures rise. Over 1.8 billion people – nearly 1 in 4 humans – dealt with drought conditions at various times from 2022 to 2023.
Every year, nature gives each region a water income, depositing rain and snow. Think of this like a checking account. This is how much water we receive each year to spend and share with nature.
When demand rises, we might borrow from our savings account. We take out more groundwater than will be replaced. We steal the share of water needed by nature and drain wetlands in the process. That can work for a while, just as debt can finance a wasteful lifestyle for a while.
The exposed shoreline at Latyan Dam shows significantly low water levels near Tehran on Nov. 10, 2025. The reservoir, which supplies part of the capital’s drinking water, has seen a sharp decline due to prolonged drought and rising demand in the region. Bahram/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images
Those long-term water sources are now disappearing. The world has lost more than 1.5 million square miles (4.1 million square kilometers) of natural wetlands over five decades. Wetlands don’t just hold water. They also clean it, buffer floods and support plants and wildlife.
Water quality is also declining. Pollution, saltwater intrusion and soil salinization can result in water that is too dirty and too salty to use, contributing to water bankruptcy.
Climate change is exacerbating the situation by reducing precipitation in many areas of the world. Warming increases the water demand of crops and the need for electricity to pump more water. It also melts glaciers that store fresh water.
Despite these problems, nations continue to increase water withdrawals to support the expansion of cities, farmland, industries and now data centers.
Not all water basins and nations are water bankrupt, but basins are interconnected through trade, migration, climate and other key elements of nature. Water bankruptcy in one area will put more pressure on others and can increase local and international tensions.
Stop the bleeding: The first step is admitting the balance sheet is broken. That means setting water use limits that reflect how much water is actually available, rather than just drilling deeper and shifting the burden to the future.
Protect natural capital – not just the water: Protecting wetlands, restoring rivers, rebuilding soil health and managing groundwater recharge are not just nice-to-haves. They are essential to maintaining healthy water supplies, as is a stable climate.
In small island states like the Maldives, sea-level rise threatens water supplies when salt water gets into underground aquifers, ruining wells. UNDP Maldives 2021, CC BY
Use less, but do it fairly: Managing water demand has become unavoidable in many places, but water bankruptcy plans that cut supplies to the poor while protecting the powerful will fail. Serious approaches include social protections, support for farmers to transition to less water-intensive crops and systems, and investment in water efficiency.
Measure what matters: Many countries still manage water with partial information. Satellite remote sensing can monitor water supplies and trends, and provide early warnings about groundwater depletion, land subsidence, wetland loss, glacier retreat and water quality decline.
Plan for less water: The hardest part of bankruptcy is psychological. It forces us to let go of old baselines. Water bankruptcy requires redesigning cities, food systems and economies to live within new limits before those limits tighten further.
With water, as with finance, bankruptcy can be a turning point. Humanity can keep spending as if nature offers unlimited credit, or it can learn to live within its hydrological means.
Secretary Scott Turner (L) with Secretary Doug Burgham (R).
Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral.com website (Brandon Loomis). Here’s an excerpt:
January 17, 2026
Key Points
After negotiators for the seven Colorado River states failed to reach a water-sharing agreement, federal officials have invited governors to continue talks.
The feds may impose their own plan if states cannot agree, potentially leading to major cuts for Arizona, with its junior water rights.
The states face a mid-February timeline to present a “deal in principle” to replace guidelines expiring in September.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has invited all seven governors and their negotiators to meet in Washington in late January, [Tom] Buschatzke said. Perhaps getting the governors face-to-face could lead to a breakthrough, he added..The seven states have tried unsuccessfully for more than a year to reach a voluntary agreement to replace dam-operating guidelines that will expire with the end of the water year in September. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has asked states to submit an agreement by Feb. 14. That date falls on a weekend and likely isn’t a hard deadline for every detail in the plan, Buschatzke said, but a “deal in principle” probably needs to take shape by then if the states want to control their own destinies.
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
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.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
In order to avoid conflict with Colorado Water Congress the first Aspinall Coordination Meeting of 2026 is being rescheduled.
The next coordination meeting for the operation of the Aspinall Unit is rescheduled for Wednesday, February 11th 2026, at 1:30 pm.
This meeting will be held at the Western Colorado Area Office in Grand Junction, CO. There will also be an option for virtual attendance via Microsoft Teams. A link to the Teams meeting is below.
The meeting agenda will include updates on current snowpack, forecasts for spring runoff conditions and spring peak operations, and the weather outlook.
Water officials and Colorado’s congressional reps are scrambling to find an affordable path forward for communities in the Lower Arkansas Valley who had hoped the federal government would help them lower their costs for a critical clean water pipeline.
President Trump vetoed the bipartisan Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act on New Year’s Eve, and despite Colorado’s efforts, Congress failed to override the veto last week.
Construction on the $1.39 billion pipeline began in 2023. There’s enough money left from the $500 million appropriated by Congress to continue building for another three to five years, according to Bill Long, president of the board for the Pueblo-based Southeastern Water Conservancy District. The district operates the federal Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and is overseeing pipeline construction for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
That means the pipeline should eventually reach Rocky Ford, a point roughly halfway between its start east of Pueblo Reservoir and its endpoint farther east, near Lamar. “It’s when we get to the second half of the project where it will be challenging to build and repay our portion of the debt,” Long said. “Without this legislation, there will be a point where we will have to stop.”
What comes next isn’t clear yet, though members of Colorado’s congressional delegation and water officials in the Lower Arkansas Valley said they are evaluating their options for taking another run at the issue in Congress.
“Obviously things are up in the air,” Long said.
“Sooner rather than later we may be looking at a new piece of legislation, but the question is, would this administration be amenable to a new piece of legislation. If we can’t find something, we may have to wait this administration out,” he said.
Pueblo Dam. Photo courtesy of Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Waiting for clean water in the Lower Arkansas Valley is nothing new.
First envisioned as part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in 1962, the pipeline languished on paper for decades because of high costs. The 130-mile pipeline serves 39 communities.
The need for clean water in the Lower Arkansas Valley became apparent in the 1950s and earlier, by some accounts, when wells drilled near the Arkansas River were showing a range of toxic elements, including naturally occurring radium and selenium. Both can cause severe health problems, including bone cancer and lung issues if high amounts are consumed.
Without safe drinking water, towns in the region have either had to haul water or install expensive reverse osmosis plants to purify their contaminated well water.
Things changed on the stalled project in 2023, when Congress directed some $500 million toward the pipeline.
The legislation would have gone further, allowing the repayment terms on the loans from the federal government to be extended to 75 years, up from 50 years, and to cut interest rates in half, from 3.046% to 1.523%. The legislation also would have allowed the project to be classified as one of hardship, a move that may have allowed the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to forgive some loan payments if a case for economic hardship could have been made.
The conduit project is also partially funded with grants and loans from state agencies, including the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority.
“The act was an important step in making this project affordable,” said Keith McLaughlin, executive director of the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, one of the agencies helping fund the work.
“Obviously we’re disappointed,” he said.
Colorado politicos say they’re still working to push legislation through. The bipartisan act was sponsored by Colorado Republican U.S. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Jeff Hurd in the U.S. House and Democratic U.S. Sens. John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet in the U.S. Senate.
Trump’s veto of the measure is widely seen as being the result of ongoing conflicts between his administration and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, including a request to pardon former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who is serving a nine-year prison term for orchestrating a data breach of the county’s elections equipment violating state elections. Polis so far has declined to intervene in that case, although he did describe the sentence as “harsh,” leading some to speculate that he might commute it. In a statement, Polis said he was hopeful that Congress would ultimately succeed in approving some form of aid to help complete the conduit.
Neither Boebert nor Hurd responded to a request for comment. But Hickenlooper said that all the congressional reps continue to work on a new path forward.
“The people of southeastern Colorado have waited 60 years for clean, safe drinking water. We’re continuing to work with our partners in the delegation to complete the Arkansas Valley Conduit and deliver on the federal government’s promise,” Hickenlooper said via email.
Lake Powell is seen from the air in October 2022. Three of the management options released by the feds have the option for an Upper Basin conservation pool in Lake Powell. CREDIT: ALEXANDER HEILNER/THE WATER DESK
Federal officials have released detailed options for how the Colorado River could be managed in the future, pushing forward the planning process in the absence of a seven-state deal. But some Colorado River experts and water managers say cuts don’t go deep enough under some scenarios and flow estimates don’t accommodate future water scarcity driven by climate change.
On Jan. 9, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released a draft of its environmental impact statement, a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act, which lays out five alternatives for how to manage the river after the current guidelines expire at the end of the year. This move by the feds pushes the process forward even as the seven states that share the river continue negotiating how cuts would be shared and reservoirs operated in the future. If the states do make a deal, it would become the “preferred alternative” and plugged into the NEPA process.
“Given the importance of a consensus-based approach to operations for the stability of the system, Reclamation has not yet identified a preferred alternative,” Scott Cameron, the acting Reclamation commissioner, said in a press release. “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.”
For more than two years, the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and the Lower Basin (California, Arizona and Nevada) have been negotiating, with little progress, how to manage a dwindling resource in the face of an increasingly dry future. The 2007 guidelines that set annual Lake Powell and Lake Mead releases based on reservoir levels do not go far enough to prevent them from being drawn down during consecutive dry years, putting the water supply for 40 million people in the Southwest at risk.
The crisis has deepened in recent years, and in 2022, Lake Powell flirted with falling below a critical elevation to make hydropower. Recent projections from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation show that it could be headed there again this year and in 2027.
John Berggren, regional policy manager with Western Resource Advocates, helped craft elements of one of the alternatives, Maximum Operational Flexibility, formerly called Cooperative Conservation.
“My initial takeaway is there’s a lot of good stuff in there,” Berggren said of the 1,600-page document, which includes 33 supporting and technical appendices. “Their goal was to have a wide range of alternatives to make sure they had EIS coverage for whatever decision they ended up with, and I think that there are a lot of innovative tools and policies and programs in some of them.”
The infamous bathtub ring could be seen near the Hoover Dam in December 2021. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has released a draft Environmental Impact Statement for post-2026 management of the river. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Alternatives
The first alternative is “no action,” meaning river operations would revert to pre-2007 guidance; officials have said this option must be included as a requirement of NEPA, but doesn’t meet the current needs.
The second alternative, Basic Coordination, can be implemented without an agreement from the states and represents what the feds can do under their existing authority. It would include Lower Basin cuts of up to 1.48 million acre-feet based on Lake Mead elevations; Lake Powell releases would be primarily 8.23 million acre-feet and could go as low as 7 million acre-feet. It would also include releases from upstream reservoirs Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa and Navajo to feed Powell. But experts say this alternative does not go far enough to keep the system from crashing.
“It was pretty well known that the existing authorities that Reclamation has are probably not enough to protect the system,” Berggren said. “Especially given some of the hydrologies we expect to see, the Basic Coordination does not go far enough.”
The Enhanced Coordination Alternative would impose Lower Basin cuts of between 1.3 million and 3 million acre-feet that would be distributed pro-rata, based on each state’s existing water allocation. It would also include an Upper Basin conservation pool in Lake Powell that starts at up to 200,000 acre-feet a year and could increase up to 350,000 acre-feet after the first decade.
Under the Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative, Lake Powell releases range from 5 million acre-feet to 11 million acre-feet, based on total system storage and recent hydrology, with Lower Basin cuts of up to 4 million acre-feet. It would also include an Upper Basin conservation pool of an average of 200,000 acre-feet a year.
These two alternatives perform the best at keeping Lake Powell above critical elevations in dry years, according to an analysis contained in the draft EIS.
“There are really only two of these scenarios that I think meet the definition of dealing with a very dry future: Enhanced Coordination and the Max Flexibility,” said Brad Udall, a senior water and climate research scientist at Colorado State University. “Those two kind of jump out at me as being different than the other ones in that they actually seem to have the least harmful outcomes, but the price for that are these really big shortages.”
The final scenario is the Supply Driven Alternative, which calls for maximum shortages of 2.1 million acre-feet and Lake Powell releases based on 65% of three-year natural flows at Lees Ferry. It also includes an Upper Basin conservation pool of up to 200,000 acre-feet a year. This option offers two different approaches to Lower Basin cuts: one based on priority where the oldest water rights get first use of the river, putting Arizona’s junior users on the chopping block, and one where cuts are distributed proportionally according to existing water allocations, meaning California could take the biggest hit.
This alternative is based on proposals submitted by each basin and discussions among the states and federal officials last spring. Udall said the cuts are not deep enough in this option.
“You can take the supply-driven one and change the max shortages from 2.1 million acre-feet up to 3 or 4 and it’s going to perform a lot like those other two,” he said. “I think what hinders it is just the fact that the shortages are not big enough to keep the basin in balance when push comes to shove.”
Reclamation’s Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron speaks at the Colorado River Water Users conference in Las Vegas in December 2025. The agency has released a draft Environmental Impact Statement, which outlines options for managing the river after this year. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Pivotal moment
In a prepared statement, Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District officials expressed concern that the projected future river flows are too optimistic.
“We are concerned that the proposed alternatives do not accommodate the probable hydrological future identified by reliable climate science, which anticipates a river flowing at an average of 9-10 [million acre feet] a year,” the statement reads. “The Colorado River Basin has a history of ignoring likely hydrology, our policymakers should not carry this mistake forward in the next set of guidelines.”
The River District was also skeptical of the Upper Basin conservation pool in Lake Powell, which is included in three of the alternatives. Despite dabbling in experimental programs that pay farmers and ranchers to voluntarily cut back on their water use in recent years, conservation remains a contentious issue in the Upper Basin. Upper Basin water managers have said their states can’t conserve large volumes of water and that any program must be voluntary.
Over the course of 2023 and 2024, the System Conservation Pilot Program, which paid water users in the Upper Basin to cut back, saved about 101,000 acre-feet at a cost of $45 million.
The likeliest place to find water savings in Colorado is the 15-county Western Slope area represented by the River District. But if conservation programs are focused solely on this region, they could have negative impacts on rural agricultural communities, River District officials have said.
“Additionally, several alternatives include annual conservation contributions from the Upper Basin between [200,000 acre-feet] and [350,000 acre feet],” the River District’s statement reads. “We do not see how that is a realistic alternative given the natural availability of water in the Upper Basin, especially in dry years.”
In a prepared statement, Colorado officials said they were looking forward to reviewing the draft EIS.
“Colorado is committed to protecting our state’s significant rights and interests in the Colorado River and continues to work towards a consensus-based, supply-driven solution for the post-2026 operations of Lake Powell and Mead,” Colorado’s commissioner, Becky Mitchell, said in the statement.
The release of the draft EIS comes at a pivotal moment for the Colorado River Basin. The seven state representatives are under the gun to come up with a deal and have less than a month to present details of a plan by the feds’ Feb. 14 deadline. Federal officials have said they need a new plan in place by Oct. 1, the start of the next water year. This winter’s dismal snowpack and dire projections about spring runoff underscore the urgency for the states to come up with an agreement for a new management paradigm.
Over a string of recent dry years, periodic wet winters in 2019 and 2023 have bailed out the basin and offered a last-minute reprieve from the worst consequences of drought and climate change. But this year is different, Udall said.
“We’re now at the point where we’ve removed basically all resiliency from the system,” he said. “Between the EIS and this awful winter, some really tough decisions are going to be made. … Once we finally get to a consensus agreement, the river is going to look very, very different than it ever has.”
The draft EIS will be published in the Federal Register on Jan.16, initiating a 45-day comment period that will end March 2.
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
Just over a month before the deadline for the Colorado River states to agree on a plan for sharing the river’s diminishing waters, the feds released their options, one of which could be implemented if the states don’t reach a deal. The Bureau of Reclamation’s “Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead” offers five alternative scenarios for how to run the river, all of which are aimed at keeping the two reservoirs viable through different methods of divvying up the burden of inevitable shortages in supply.
The document, and the need to deal with present and future shortages, is necessary because human-caused climate change-exacerbated aridification has diminished the Colorado River’s flow, throwing the supply-demand equation out of balance. So it is somewhat surreal to peruse the voluminous report that was published by an administration whose leader has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job.”
My cursory search of the document turned up only one occurrence of the term “climate change.”1 Yet the authors do acknowledge, if obliquely, that global warming is shrinking the river. “The Basin is experiencing increased aridity due to climate variability,” they write, “and long-term drought and low runoff conditions are expected in the future.” This tidbit also evaded the censors: “Since 2000, the Basin has experienced persistent drought conditions, exacerbated by a warming climate, resulting in increased evapotranspiration, reduced soil moisture, and ultimately reduced runoff.”
All of the alternatives put most of the burden of cutting consumptive use on the Lower Basin states, while directing the Upper Basin to take unspecified conservation measures. I’ll summarize the alternatives below, but first, it seems telling to see which which proposed alternatives the Bureau considered, but ultimately eliminated from detailed analysis.
The “boating alternative,” which would prioritize maintaining Lake Powell’s surface level at or above 3,588 feet to serve recreational boating needs. This proposal was put forward in the “Path to 3,588” plan by motorized recreation lobbying group BlueRibbon Coalition. It was dismissed because, basically, it would sacrifice downstream farms and cities for the sake of boating.
The ecosystem alternative, which would prioritize the Colorado River’s ecosystem health by focusing management and reducing consumptive human use to protect wildlife, vegetation, habitats, and wetlands.
One-dam alternative, a.k.a. Fill Mead First. This proposal would entail either bypassing or decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam with the aim of filling Lake Mead. The Bureau said they rejected the plan because it would be inconsistent with the Law of the River and might be unacceptable to stakeholders (even though some Lower Basin farmers got a little Hayduke-fever a couple of years back, suggesting that ridding Glen Canyon of the dam might be the best way to manage the river).
Okay, so that’s what’s NOT going to happen. So what might happen if the feds feel the need to intervene? Here’s a very short summary of each alternative:
No Action: This is always offered in these things, and it just means that they would revert back to the pre-2007 interim guidelines era, when releases from Lake Powell were fixed at an average of 8.23 million acre-feet per year and shortages were determined based on Lake Mead levels and would be distributed based on priority.
Basic Coordination Alternative: Lake Powell releases would range from 7 to 9.5 maf annually, based on the reservoir’s surface level, and releases from upper basin reservoirs would be implemented to protect Glen Canyon Dam’s infrastructure. Lower Basin shortages (and cuts) would be based on Lake Mead elevations and would be distributed based on water right priority (meaning Arizona gets cut before California).
Enhanced Coordination Alternative: Lake Powell annual releases would range from 4.7 maf to 10.8 maf, based on: a combination of Powell and Mead elevations; the 1-year running average hydrology; and Lower Basin deliveries. The Upper Basin would implement conservation measures to bolster Lake Powell levels if needed, and the Lower Basin shortages would range from 1.3 maf (when Mead and Powell, combined, are 60% full) to 3.0 maf (when Mead and Powell are 30% full or lower) annually. The Lower Basin shortages would be distributed proportionally, meaning that California — which has the largest allocation — would take 49% of the cuts, Arizona 31%, Nevada 3.3%, and Mexico 17%.
Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative: Lake Powell annual releases would range from 5 maf to 11 maf, based on total Upper Basin system storage and recent hydrology. But when Lake Powell’s surface level drops to 3,510 feet, Glen Canyon Dam would be operated as a “run of the river” facility, meaning that it would release only as much as what it running into the reservoir minus evaporation and seepage to keep the elevation from dropping further. Lower Basin shortages would be on a sliding scale, starting when Powell and Mead drop below 80% full, reaching 1 maf when the two reservoirs are 60% full. When the reservoirs drop below 60%, then shortages would be determined by the previous 3-year flows at Lee Ferry, topping out at a maximum shortage of 4 maf. Shortages would be distributed according to priority and proportionally.
Supply Driven Alternative: This one is based on the amount of water that is actually in the river (go figure!). Lake Powell releases would range from 4.7 maf annually to 12 maf, or about 65% of the 3-year natural flows at Lees Ferry. Lower Basin shortages would kick in when Lake Mead’s surface elevation drops below 1,145 feet, reaching a maximum of 2.1 maf at 1,000 feet and lower. (As of Jan. 12, Mead’s level was 1,063 feet). Shortages would be distributed according to priority and proportionally.
The estimated “natural flow” at Lee Ferry. Some of the alternatives would base Lake Powell releases on recent average natural flows at Lee Ferry. If the recent past is an indicator of what’s to come, we could expect a relatively minuscule amount of water running through the Grand Canyon to the Lower Basin states. Source: Bureau of Reclamation.
The Lower Basin states reportedly aren’t too happy about any of the alternatives, because they put most of the onus for cutting consumption on the Lower Basin. Under the Maximum Flexibility option, for example, Lower Basin shortages could go as high as 4 million acre-feet, or about half of those states’ total annual consumptive use. And under another, California alone could have to cut up to 1.5 million acre-feet of water use, which could trigger litigation, since California users have some of the most senior rights on the river. Some of the alternatives would potentially nullify the Colorado Compact’s clause ordering the Upper Basin to “not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 maf for any period of ten consecutive years.”
The Bureau does not pick a “preferred” alternative, like federal agencies typically do with environmental impact statements, leaving readers guessing about which option or combination of options might be chosen should the need arise. But it also gives more room for the states to reach some sort of agreement to pick an option from the provided list.
* It is found in the Hydrologic Resources section: “While the flows in the Colorado River would not affect groundwater in the region, changes to the groundwater systems in the Grand Canyon due to climate change may be an additional environmental factor that affects flows in the Colorado River.”
The snowpack remains dismal in most of the West, and it’s not just because of lack of precipitation. In fact, it’s probably more due to the crazy-warm temperatures. The average temperatures across the Interior were way above normal in November and December, as the map below shows. And January’s similarly unseasonably balmy so far. Yikes.
Precipitation levels were mixed across the West during late autumn and early winter, but temperatures were warmer than normal across the entire region, diminishing snowpack and leading to rather unwintery conditions. Source: NOAA.
🌵 Public Lands 🌲
Last week the new public lands media outlet, RE:PUBLIC, warned readers of “major shrinkage” this year. They meant, of course, that the Trump administration will probably get around to eliminating or eviscerating at least one national monument in the next twelve months. It’s probably a pretty safe bet, given that in Trump’s first term he shrank Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, and Project 2025, which the administration has hewn closely to, calls for even more reductions.
Indeed, I’m surprised they haven’t already moved to eliminate some of these protected areas, especially the more recently designated ones like Bears Ears, Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, or Chuckwalla National Monument in California. An optimist might hope that the Trump administration has realized how deeply unpopular this would be, or has come to terms with the fact that the Antiquities Act only allows presidents to establish national monuments, not eliminate them. But I think it’s more likely they were simply too busy dismantling other environmental safeguards — and, for that matter, democracy — to get around to diminishing national monuments.
I was a little surprised by RE:PUBLIC’s list of vulnerable national monuments, however. It included Bears Ears et al, which makes sense, but then also speculates about other “likely targets, due to their proximity to energy and mining interests,” including: Aztec Ruins, Dinosaur, Hovenweep, and Natural Bridges national monuments.
I hate trying to predict what the Trump administration will do in the future, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that these particular national monuments are not in the administration’s crosshairs. While these protected areas are close to energy-producing areas, and probably have some oil and gas, uranium, lithium, and/or potash producing potential, they simply offer too little to the extractive industries to make it worth the political blowback from eviscerating them.
Hovenweep National Monument. Jonathan P. Thompson photo
For those who may be unfamiliar with these places, I’ll take each one individually:
Aztec Ruins: First off, this tiny national monument adjacent to the residential neighborhoods of Aztec, New Mexico, is an amazing place and well worth the visit. The Puebloan structures here are built in the style of Chacoan great houses, and the community — which was established at the end of Chaco’s heyday — may have been become succeeded Chaco as a regional cultural and political center. It is in the San Juan Basin coalbed methane fields and is surrounded by gas wells. In fact, there are a few existing, active wells within the monument boundaries. But no one is champing at the bit to drill any new wells in this region, and they certainly don’t need to do so in this tiny monument.
Dinosaur National Monument, in northwestern Colorado, is probably somewhat vulnerable, given its size and proximity to oil and gas fields. But again, there’s not a whole lot of new drilling going on in the area. It was established in 1915 to protect dinosaur quarries — clearly in tune with the Antiquities Act — so shrinking it would be met with serious bipartisan political pushback.
When Warren G. Harding designated Hovenweep National Monument in 1923 to protect six clusters of Puebloan structures in southeastern Utah from development and pothunters, he strictly followed the Antiquities Act’s mandate to confine its boundaries to “the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” As such, the boundaries of each “unit” is basically drawn right around the pueblo and a small area of surroundings, leaving little room for shrinkage. Though it lies on the edge of the historically productive Aneth Oil Field, oil and gas drillers have no need to get inside the boundaries to get at the hydrocarbons. Besides, Trump and Harding have a lot in common, so Trump’s not likely to want to erase his predecessor’s legacy.
Natural Bridges: It’s odd to me that this one, which is currently surrounded by Bears Ears National Monument, is included on this list. Yes, there are historic uranium mines nearby, and yes, White Canyon, where the monument’s namesake formations are located, was once considered for tar sands and oil shale development. But the small monument itself — which was designated by Teddy Roosevelt in 1908 — is not getting in the way of any of this sort of development. It’s much more likely that Trump would remove the White Canyon area from Bears Ears National Monument, as he did during his first term, potentially opening the area around Natural Bridges back up to new uranium mining claims, while leaving the national monument’s current boundaries intact.
So, in summary: Don’t fret too much about these national monuments getting eliminated or shrunk anytime soon. And for now, maybe we shouldn’t worry about any national monument shrinkage. It is possible that Trump won’t go there this term. Trump shrunk Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante during his first term in part out of spite toward Obama and Clinton, but also to get then-Sen. Orrin Hatch’s legislative support. That the shrinkage also re-opened some public lands to new mining claims and drilling was a secondary motivation.
This time around, Trump has come up with far more generous gifts for the mining and drilling companies, and much more sinister ways to attack his political adversaries. Besides, he’s got his eyes on much bigger prizes — like Greenland.
1 * The single use of the term “climate change” is found in the Hydrologic Resources section: “While the flows in the Colorado River would not affect groundwater in the region, changes to the groundwater systems in the Grand Canyon due to climate change may be an additional environmental factor that affects flows in the Colorado River.”
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
The Government Highline Canal, in Palisade. The Government Highline Canal near Grand Junction. The Grand Valley Water Users Association, which operates the canal, has been experimenting with a program that pays water users to fallow fields and reduce their consumptive use of water. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
January 15, 2026
Absent a crucial but elusive consensus among the seven Colorado River states, federal authorities are forging ahead with their own ideas on how to divvy up painful water cuts as climate change diminishes flows in the critical river. The Bureau of Reclamation last week made public a 1,600-page behemoth of a document outlining five potential plans for managing the river after current regulations expire at the end of this year. The agency did not identify which proposal it favors, in hopes that the seven states in the river basin will soon come to a consensus that incorporates parts of the five plans. But time is running out. The states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, California, Arizona and Nevada — already blew past a Nov. 11 deadline set by federal authorities to announce the concepts of such a plan. They now have until Feb. 14 to present a detailed proposal for the future of the river that makes modern life possible for 40 million people across the Southwest. They were set to meet this week in Salt Lake City to continue negotiations. Federal authorities must finalize a plan by Oct. 1…
“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,” Andrea Travnicek, the assistant secretary for water and science at the Department of the Interior, said in a news release announcing the document. “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.”
A 45-day public comment period opens Friday on the proposed plans for managing the river system, contained in a document called a draft environmental impact statement. The current operating guidelines expire at the end of 2026, but authorities need a replacement plan in place prior to the Oct. 1 start to the 2027 water year. The water year follows the water cycle, beginning as winter snowpack starts to accumulate and ending Sept. 30, as irrigation seasons end and water supplies typically reach their lowest levels…
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
Already, Lake Mead — on the Arizona-Nevada border — and Lake Powell are only 33% and 26% full, respectively. Projections from the Bureau of Reclamation show that, in a worst-case scenario, Powell’s waters could fall below the level required to run the dam’s power turbines by October and remain below the minimum power pool until June 2027. Experts monitoring the yearslong effort to draft new operating guidelines said any plan implemented by Reclamation must consider the reality of a river with far less water than assumed when the original river management agreements were signed more than a century ago.
Water forecasts for the Colorado River are grim going into 2026 as several bad trends are converging. The Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC) cited snowpack levels that are lagging badly, dry ground conditions that will soak up moisture that falls, and snow cover statistics that are the lowest on record since satellite monitoring started in 2001. CBRFC water scientist Cody Moser said conditions are “extremely poor” right now. He spoke during a webinar on Thursday morning. The two biggest factors in the CBRFC’s forecasts are snowpack levels and soil conditions. Storms that soaked California in November and December didn’t continue on to the Colorado Rockies, and that meant a slow start on building the foundation for a good snowpack to feed the river before it flows to Lake Powell and down the Grand Canyon to Lake Mead…Water flowing into Lake Powell this year is expected to be 57% of normal levels, and those “normal” levels are based on 30-year averages that include a 25-year megadrought.
Left: January 1, 2026 SWE – NRCS SNOTEL observed (squares) and CBRFC hydrologic model. Right: CBRFC hydrologic model SWE condition summary.
After Coloradan U.S. House Reps. Lauren Boebert and Jeff Hurd saw their Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act approved unanimously by Congress in December, they were stunned when President Donald Trump — once a proponent of the project — vetoed it…After the rejection of the legislation sponsored by Boebert, the former 3rd Congressional District representative and co-sponsored by Hurd, the district’s current representative, they sought a rare move for Congressional Republicans in the Trump era: a veto override that could have defied the president. A vote on the veto override was held in the House on Thursday, needing two-thirds of voters to vote “yes” to pass. It ultimately failed with 249 “yes” votes and 176 “no” votes, with one “present” vote, around 8% short of the threshold for passage. All 213 Democrats voted to back the override, while 36 Republicans backed the override but 176 did not. Five Republicans did not vote…
Boebert’s bill, H.R. 131, would have provided communities in the region more time and flexibility to repay the federal government by extending repayment periods and lowering interest rates. In his veto decision, Trump cited financial concerns, but on the House floor, both Boebert and Hurd emphasized that the bill would not expand the project, authorize new construction or increase federal share. Per Boebert, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation found that Arkansas Valley drinking water has such high levels of radium, uranium and other pollutant contamination that people in the area could see the cost of drinking water triple without this legislation.
“Contrary to what the veto message states, my bill does not authorize any additional federal funding. It simply modifies the repayment terms for small rural communities in my district so they’re able to afford their 35% cost share of the project that they are statutorily obligated to repay,” Boebert said…
Hurd said that rural Colorado and rural America voted “overwhelmingly” for Trump because they didn’t want to be forgotten by the government, adding, “They expected Washington to keep its word, not abandon them midway.” He also expressed concern about the precedent a failed veto override would set, not just for the rest of Trump’s term but moving forward on Capitol Hill. This was a similar, though less alarmingly phrased, point as Neguse earlier stating, “No state is safe from political retaliation.”
Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.
Click the link to read the article on the Pagosa Springs Sun website (Clayton Chaney and Randi Pierce). Here’s an excerpt:
January 7, 2026
Snowpack and stream flow
According to data from the Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS), as of 1 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 7, the Wolf Creek Pass site at 10,930 feet had a snow water equivalent of 7.6 inches, compared to that date’s median of 15.5 inches. This is up from the Dec. 31, 2025, report of 7 inches. The current amount is 49 percent of that date’s median snow water equivalent…The San Miguel, Dolores, Animas and San Juan River basins were measured to be at 49 percent of its 30-year median snowpack as of December 31, 2025, and at 56 percent on January 7, 2026…
In Pagosa Springs, U.S. Geological Survey for the San Juan River at Pagosa Springs has showed record flows multiple times since the start of the year. For example, at 9 a.m. on Jan. 2, the river was running at 128 cubic feet per second (cfs), which compares to a median of 53 cfs and a previous high of 118 in 1986. At 11 a.m. on Jan. 5, the river was running at 119 cfs, which compares to a median for that date of 54.5 cfs and a previous max value of 116 in 1987. By 11 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 7, the river was flowing at 111 cfs. The Jan. 7 median is 55, and the record high is 116 cfs, which was recorded in 1987. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor’s most recent map released on Dec. 31, 2025, 100 percent of Archuleta County is in an “abnormally dry” drought stage.
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.
On January 6, 2026 Town of Pagosa Springs staff informed the Pagosa Springs Town Council about the town’s ongoing flood recovery funding efforts in the wake of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) denial of the town’s request for $5.7 million to aid cleanup efforts. Development Director James Dickhoff and Projects Manager Kyle Rickert were both on hand to walk the council through various other funding opportunities, with Dickhoff stating, “We are not counting on FEMA money to come through to us” after the denial on Dec. 21, 2025. Dickhoff stated that staff just wanted to inform the council “on where we are at” regarding the town’s relief funding efforts from the October 2025 flooding…
The total project cost of river cleanup and restoration following the October flood event is estimated to be just shy of $6 million, stated Town Manager David Harris in correspondence. Rickert explained that, with the FEMA funding off the table, the town is pursuing several state grants, and possibly a state loan, as well as two other federal funding programs. Dickhoff added that if the town wanted to pursue “the loan opportunity through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB),” the council would need to put it before the voters in an upcoming spring election to be legally eligible to take out the loan…
Rickert explained that the federal Emergency Watershed Protection had awarded the town about $3.3 million and the Colorado Office of Emergency Management awarded $463,504 in funds. These funds will go toward embankment stabilizations near the Pagosa Springs History Museum and near 6th Street, pedestrian bridge abutment stabilization at Centennial Park, restoring the River Center ponds, as well as Apache Street bridge repairs and log jam removals, all coming with a total project price tag of $4,178,038, the slideshow states…
He added, “The river is an important part of our tourism portfolio and we need to get it cleaned up” and make it safe for those recreating in the river before summer hits. Rickert then informed the council about a Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Fishing is Fun grant that the town has requested in the amount of $328,603. This grant would go toward dredging the River Center ponds, a headgate replacement at Pond #1 (the east pond), ditch restoration, debris and sediment removal upstream of town limits to the future 1st Street pedestrian bridge, as well as rebuilding rock structures in the same area. Rickert noted that the town was also awarded $15,000 from History Colorado Emergency Grant for its ongoing efforts to stabilize the river bank near the museum…One or possibly two water gauge stations would give the town an estimated two hours of warning time as water levels rise during another flood event, providing historic data as part of the U.S. Geological Survey monitoring system, she noted. This grant application would be due by Jan. 31, so she asked the council to pass a resolution supporting the CWCB river gauge grant, which the council passed unanimously.
The San Juan River has peaked above 8,000 cfs twice in the last several days, reaching the highest levels seen since the 1927 flood. Source: USGS.
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.
Photo shows Lake Mead with a water elevation of 1078. Credit: USBR
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 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 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:
As a condition precedent, the Lower Basin states agree not to place a “compact call” for the duration of the agreement.
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
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%.
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)
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.
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.
Fully mitigate the on-stream and off-stream community and environmental impacts of the water use reductions identified above.
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.
John Wesley Powell at his desk—same desk used by the USGS Director today via the USGS
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
Michael Cohen. Photo credit: Pacific Institute
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.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
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 (Kevin Freking and Nick Coltrain ). Here’s an excerpt:
January 8, 2026
Rep. Lauren Boebert, who sponsored bill, pushed president in November to release Jeffrey Epstein files
The U.S. House refused Thursday to override President Donald Trump’s vetoes of two low-profile bills — including one that would help pay for a water pipeline in Colorado — as Republicans stuck with the president despite their prior support for the measures. Congress can override a veto with support from two-thirds of the members of the House and the Senate. The threshold is rarely reached. In this case, Republicans opted to avoid a fight in an election year over bills with little national significance, with most GOP members voting to sustain the vetoes. The two vetoes were the first of Trump’s second term. One bill was designed to help local communities finance the construction of a pipeline to provide water to tens of thousands in southeastern Colorado. The other designated a site in Everglades National Park as a part of the Miccosukee Indian Reservation…
On the Colorado bill, 35 Republicans sided with Democrats in voting for an override — with all members of the state’s delegation from both parties supporting an override. On the Florida bill, only 24 Republicans voted for the override. The White House did not issue any veto threats prior to passage of the bills, so Trump’s scathing comments in his recent veto message came as a surprise to sponsors of the legislation. Ultimately, his vetoes had the effect of punishing backers who had opposed the president’s positions on other issues. The water pipeline bill came from Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, a longtime Trump ally who broke with the president in November to release files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The bill to give the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians more control of some of its tribal lands would have benefited one of the groups that sued the administration over an immigration detention center known as “Alligator Alcatraz.”
It doesn’t matter if you’re a full-time ski bum, a longtime resident, or a first time visitor — the ramifications of the distressing 2025-26 winter on the Western Slope impacts everyone. The combination of unseasonably warm temperatures and jarring lack of snow has created a perfect storm — or lack thereof — and will continue to impact agriculture, recreation, and potable water for over 30 million people long after the 2025-26 winter concludes. Brendon Langenhuizen, the Director of Technical Advocacy for the Colorado River Water Conservation District, compared the snowpack to a reservoir but said the extreme heat is detracting from the benefits of a natural reserve.
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map January 8, 2026.
“How warm it’s been has been a concern for me, because snowpack is really a big reservoir for us,” he said. “You can hold that water for the warmer times of the year and then it slowly runs off or melts into the deltas and then comes back into the rivers later in the summer when we need it for crops and water temperatures and recreation.
“If we have these really warm temps continuing, it just diminishes the snowpack and we can’t hold as much snow into the spring — making it so even if we had the moisture, we wouldn’t be able to hold it.”
[…]
According to a Colorado Climate Center graph, parts of Colorado experienced some temperatures exceeding averages by double digits during the first week of January. The graph shows all of Garfield County experienced average temperatures at least eight degrees hotter than average, with northern Garfield County facing average temperatures at least 12 degrees hotter than average. He continued to explain that there was already evidence of a fast runoff, using the Dotsero marker on the Colorado River as reference…Although the area has finally experienced some precipitation since the calendar flipped to 2026, the temperatures aren’t letting a solid base build in the higher alpines – further threatening the snowpack. Walter admitted that every little bit helps, but doesn’t think the recent storms were enough to move the needle, especially since the forecast dries out after Thursday night.
U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet issued the following statement after President Trump vetoed their bipartisan Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act:
“Nothing says ‘Make America Great Again’ like denying 50,000 rural Coloradans access to clean, affordable drinking water. President Trump’s first veto of his second term blocks a bipartisan bill that both the House and Senate passed unanimously, costs taxpayers nothing, and delivers safe, reliable water to rural communities that overwhelmingly supported him. Trump’s attacks on Southern Colorado are politics at its worst—putting personal and political grievances ahead of Americans. Southeastern Coloradans were promised the completion of the Arkansas Valley Conduit more than 60 years ago. With this veto, President Trump broke that promise and demonstrated exactly why so many Americans are fed up with Washington. We will keep fighting to make sure rural Coloradans get the clean drinking water they were promised.”
Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
‘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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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 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.
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.
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)
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
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
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.
Glen Canyon Dam from the visitor center December 19, 2025.
Update: I found a more complete rendering of Seldom Seen’s Prayer in the Coyote Gulch archives. Scroll to the bottom.
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.
“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.
I found a more complete rendering of Seldom Seen’s prayer in the Coyote Gulch archives.
Seldom Seen’s prayer at about Glen Canyon Dam from The Monkey Wrench Gang — Edward Abbey
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
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.
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.
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)
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
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
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)
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.
— Colorado River Water Users Association (@CRWUA_water) December 18, 2025
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.
— Colorado River Water Users Association (@CRWUA_water) December 17, 2025
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)
Bureau of Reclamation’s Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron speaks at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association’s conference. (Photo: Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)
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.
As the 80th annual Colorado River Water Users Association (CRWUA) conference wraps up, SNWA General Manager John Entsminger reflects on the shared responsibility of everyone on the river, emphasizing collaboration while continuing to protect Southern Nevada’s water future. pic.twitter.com/JjuvUrHwuR
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”.
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.”
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)
