L. to R. Chris Winter, Colby Pelligrino, Chuck Cullom.
I was at the Getches-Wilkinson Center & Water and Tribes Initiative shindig this week live-posting on BlueSky (Click the “Latest” tab). The question of whether the negotiators from the seven states were being candid about their proceedings came up. Colby Pelligrino described her frustration with folks jumping all over every proposal as unfair or damaging to their rights. They can’t make any progress towards building a solution if every proposal is prevented from going forward. Chuck Cullom let everyone know that the data the negotiators are working with is available.
Also, Eric Kuhn, maintained that since the Colorado River Compact was written for a river that doesn’t exist any longer parts need to be reworked. He emphasized living with the river we have.
With a deep sigh, he acknowledged that managing the vital river system โis a huge burdenโ for those mere mortals charged with that task.
Atlas bearing the weight of the current Post-2026 negotiations. Credit: ADWR
The Director included in his presentation to the conference audience an image he often uses when describing the on-going negotiations over new guidelines for river management: a depiction of the mythical Greek god Atlas holding up the world.
Buschatzke told the WRRC attendees that โone thing that Atlas had going for him that we donโt have is that Atlas was a god, and we are not gods, so it is a huge burden for us to try to deal with this river.โ
Divided into Upper and Lower Basins, comprised of seven U.S. states, the Colorado River system is operated by the Bureau of Reclamation under the terms of agreements that are scheduled to run out at the end of 2026. For well over a year, representatives of those seven states have been locked into often-intense negotiations over what the new operating guidelines should look like. Director Buschatzke is Arizonaโs representative to those negotiations.
Image credit: ADWR
The Director described Lower Basin conservation efforts in recent years. Among those efforts, the Lower Basin and the Republic of Mexico having combined to reduce consumptive use of river water by 20 percent since 2000. He also noted that Lower Basin states and Mexico have left enough water in Lake Mead, especially since 2014, to raise surface levels by more than 100 feet.
โWithout this, weโd be in a heap of trouble,โ he said. โWeโve shown that we can take proactive measures and weโve been successful in doing it.โ
That 100 feet of elevation in Lake Mead, he said, represents a little over 8 million acre-feet of conserved water.
โAnd Arizona itself has done 4.6 million acre-feet of that 8 million,โ said Director Buschatzke.
The Director emphasized his primary message as it relates to the river-management negotiations: Everyone who benefits from the river needs to contribute to conservation efforts on the river. His Upper Basin counterparts have rejected proposals to share any Colorado River water conservation efforts, he noted.
Image credit: ADWR
In a luncheon address preceding the Directorโs keynote, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs observed the importance of cooperation and collaboration in reaching agreement.
“Collaboration is the foundation of water policy and management discussions in which Arizona is on the cutting edge,” Governor Hobbs told conference attendees.
Collaboration proved a key element in two of the most important water-rights settlements in recent Arizona history.
Under Governor Hobbs, the State in 2024 concluded two tribal water settlements including four Native American tribes โ settlements that concluded Arizonaโs involvement in water-rights negotiations that in some cases had lasted decades.
Created by Imgur user Fejetlenfej , a geographer and GIS analyst with a โlifelong passion for beautiful maps.โ It highlights the massive expanse of river basins across the country โ in particular, those which feed the Mississippi River, in pink.
L. to R. Chris Winter, Colby Pelligrino, Chuck Cullom.
I was at the Getches-Wilkinson Center & Water and Tribes Initiative shindig this week live-posting on BlueSky (Click the “Latest” tab). The question of whether the negotiators from the seven states were being candid about their proceedings came up. Colby Pelligrino described her frustration with folks jumping all over every proposal as unfair or damaging to their rights. They can’t make any progress towards building a solution if every proposal is prevented from going forward.
Also, Eric Kuhn, maintained that since the Colorado River Compact was written for a river that doesn’t exist any longer parts need to be reworked. He emphasized living with the river we have.
Chuck Cullom let everyone know that the data the negotiators are working with is available.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a controversial Utah railway project that critics say erodes the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a bedrock of environmental law for the past half century.
The case centered on a proposed 88-mile railway that would connect the oil fields of northeastern Utah to a national rail network that runs along the Colorado River and on to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
The waxy crude oil is currently transported by truck over narrow mountain passes. Project proponents said shipping the fossil fuel by rail โ as many as 10 trains daily โ would be quicker and revitalize the local economy by quadrupling the Uinta Basinโs oil production, ICN previously reported,
In 2020, the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition applied to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board for approval of the railroadโs construction. Under NEPA, the board was required to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate possible harms from the project and consider how they could be mitigated.
Environmental groups and Eagle County, Colorado, opposed the railway project. They cited the potential for derailments and spills into the Colorado River, the drinking water supply for 40 million people. Opponents were also concerned about increased air pollution in the Uinta Basin, where oil fields emit high levels of methane, a potent planet-warming greenhouse gas, as well as volatile organic compounds, some of which have been linked to increased risks of cancer.
Gulf Coast communities would also be harmed by air pollution when the crude oil was refined, opponents argued. The increased oil production and associated emissions would also drive climate change and its disastrous global effects: hurricanes, floods, droughts and extreme heat.
The Center for Biological Diversity, among the groups that had sued the Surface Transportation Board, said in a prepared statement that the ruling โrelieves federal agencies of the obligation to review all foreseeable environmental harms and grants them more leeway to decide what potential environmental harms to analyze, despite what communities may think is important. It tells agencies that they can ignore certain foreseeable impacts just because they are too remote in time or space.โ
In 2021, the board issued a 3,600-page EIS, which identified numerous โsignificant and adverse impacts that could occur as a result of the railroad lineโs construction and operationโ including disruptions to local wetlands, land use, and recreation,โ according to court documents.
The board nonetheless approved the railroad construction, concluding that the projectโs transportation and economic benefits outweighed its environmental impacts.
Opponents, including EarthJustice and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia. They argued the boardโs environmental review excluded impacts of the project on people living near the oil fields, as well as Gulf Coast residents.ย
The appellate court agreed. It ruled that the boardโs EIS impermissibly limited the analysis of upstream and downstream projects.
โThe appeals court had ruled that the federal agency that approved the railway failed in its obligations to consider the regional consequences of massively increased oil extraction on the Uinta Basin, the increased air pollution for the communities in Texas and Louisiana where the oil would be refined and the global climate consequences,โ said Dr. Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment.
The Seven County Coalition and the railroad company then appealed to the Supreme Court.
โThe Supreme Courtโs ruling will allow all these consequences to unfold without meaningful restraint,โ Moench said. โThis court has made a name for itself making rulings that mock science and common sense and fail to protect the common good. This unfortunate ruling fits that same pattern.โ
The Uinta Basin lies in the northeast corner of Utah and has seen oil and gas development since 1925. The proposed railway could take one of three potential routes โ the favored of which would run through 390 acres of state lands and 401 acres of roadless U.S. Forest Service lands.
James St. John/CC via Flickr
NEPA has been federal law since 1970. It doesnโt prescribe specific environmental decisions, but it does establish a process to ensure federal agencies follow proper procedure in permitting. It can be a laborious, time-consuming process, but requires an agency to be thorough in assessing potential environmental impacts while giving the public adequate opportunity to comment.
NEPA doesnโt necessarily halt projects but it can force project developers to pursue alternatives that protect environmentally sensitive areas and communities.
In his first term, Trump rolled back some aspects of NEPA, including weakening requirements to consider cumulative impacts of a project and the effects of climate change. Shortly after taking office this year, Trump signaled he plans to further streamline NEPA to expedite its approval process, especially for energy projects.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by President Trump in his first term, wrote the opinion on behalf of four other members of the court. โNEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents (who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment) to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects,โ Kavanaugh wrote.
Courts should โafford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness,โ Kavanaugh wrote. โNEPA does not allow courts, under the guise of judicial review of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand.โ
The 8-0 decision excluded Justice Neil Gorsuch, who recused himself because of his close connection to billionaire Philip F. Anschutz, who would economically benefit from the project.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor differed with Kavanaugh on his rationale for the ruling, but agreed on the outcome. She wrote that NEPA didnโt require the board to consider the effects of oil drilling and refining because those activities were outside its authority. โEven a foreseeable environmental effect is outside of NEPAโs scope if the agency could not lawfully decide to modify or reject the proposed action on account of it.โ
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor in the concurrence.
The coalition was represented by Jay Johnson of Venable LLP, who said the ruling โrestores much-needed balance to the federal environmental review process.โ
Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, the projectโs public partner, said the decision affirms the years of work and collaboration that have gone into making the Uinta Basin Railway a reality. โIt represents a turning point for rural Utahโbringing safer, sustainable, more efficient transportation options and opening new doors for investment and economic stability.โ
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said despite the courtโs ruling, โweโll keep fighting to make sure this railway is never built.โ
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
Afederal judge will allow Denver Water to continue work on a $531 million project to raise a dam in Boulder County, dealing a blow to environmentalists who had hoped to stop the construction.
However, Senior U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello in her ruling May 29 prohibited Denver Water from filling Gross Reservoir until federal environmental permits can be rewritten by the Army Corps of Engineers.
โThere is no evidence that there would be additional environmental injury resulting from completion of the dam construction. In fact, the opposite is true,โ Arguello wrote. โThere is a risk of environmental injury and loss of human life if dam construction is halted for another two years while Denver Water redesigns the structure of the dam and gets that re-design approved byโ the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
FERC is involved because of the hydroelectric plant at the base of the dam.
Denver Waterโs general counsel, Jessica Brody, said Friday her agency was pleased the judge recognized the safety issues in leaving the dam half-built.
โWeโre relieved that the judge understood and appreciated the safety issues. We are relieved as well that she understood the impact to Denver Waterโs customers,โ Brody said.
The construction is expected to be completed this year, she said. In the meantime, she said, her agency will move forward in asking a federal appeals panel to rule on whether key environmental permits need to be rewritten, as Arguello has ordered.
If the permits are redone, it could mean that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will determine that the metro Denver water provider, which serves 1.5 million people, needs less water from the Fraser River to fill an expanded Gross Reservoir than the original permit authorized.
Save The Colorado, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said Friday morning that it will defend the portion of the Thursday ruling that could prevent or reduce additional diversions from the Fraser River, a key tributary in the Upper Colorado River system.
โImportantly,โ said Save The Coloradoโs Gary Wockner, โher original 86-page ruling still stands โฆ so they canโt cut trees and they canโt put water in it until it is all resolved.โ
Denver Water is helping ensure its future water security with the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. When the project is complete, it will nearly triple the Boulder County reservoirโs capacity to 119,000 acre-feet. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
How the case progressed
In her April 3 ruling, Arguello said Denver Water had acted recklessly in proceeding with construction in 2022, knowing that important legal questions were being challenged by Save The Colorado, the Sierra Club and others.
The massive construction project to raise the dam 131 feet and triple the capacity of Gross Reservoir has sparked fierce opposition in Boulder County and prompted several legal challenges from Save The Colorado, a group that advocates on behalf of rivers. Though its early lawsuits failed, the group in 2022 won an appeal that put the legal battle back in play. Despite months of settlement talks, no agreement was reached.
Denver Water first moved to raise Gross Dam more than 20 years ago when the water provider began designing the expansion and seeking the necessary federal and state permits. Denver Water has said raising the dam and increasing capacity of the reservoir is necessary to ensure it has enough water throughout its delivery system and to help with future water supplies as climate change continues to reduce streamflows.
After years of engineering, environmental studies and federal and state analyses, Denver received a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and construction began in 2022.
Arguelloโs April 3 ruling said, in part, that the Army Corps should have considered whether ongoing climate change and drought would leave the Colorado River and Western Slope waterways too depleted to safely allow transfer of Denver Waterโs rights into a larger Gross Reservoir for Front Range water users.
At the same time, she ordered a permanent injunction prohibiting enlargement of the reservoir, including tree removal and water diversion, and impacts to wildlife.
Almost immediately, Denver Water filed for temporary relief from the order, saying, in part, that it would be unsafe to stop work as the incomplete concrete walls towered above Gross Reservoir.
Arguello granted that request, too, allowing Denver to continue work on the dam considered necessary for safety.
The Airborne Snow Observatories plane prepares for takeoff at the Eagle County Regional Airport in April 2023. Photo credit: Mark Schwab, Airborne Snow Observatories Inc.
If you want to know about the snow, the sky is the limit when it comes to collecting data about the mountain snowpack.
Thatโs why Denver Water, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and other water providers across the state are investing in a high-tech program to measure snowpack using lasers from a plane.
And in mid-May, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed a bill to formally incorporate the program into the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The boardโs mission is to conserve, develop, protect and manage Colorado’s water for present and future generations.
Monitoring the mountain snowpack is critical for Denver Water because once the snow melts, it becomes the water supply for the 1.5 million people the utility serves in Denver and surrounding suburbs.
Traditionally, Denver Water has tracked the snowpack by sending crews to collect and measure snow samples on the ground and monitoring data from automated backcountry weather stations called SNOTELs.
In 2019, to help improve water supply forecasts, Denver Water began working with Airborne Snow Observatories Inc., or ASO for short, to gain a fuller picture of the snowpack. The company uses advanced technology developed at NASA to measure the snowpack that’s built up across entire watersheds.
“Getting this high-tech information about the snowpack from ASO before the snow starts to melt improves the accuracy of our spring runoff and water supply forecasts for the coming year,โ said Nathan Elder, Denver Waterโs manager of water supply.
โHaving the ASO information in the spring helps us manage our water resources and gives us a better idea of if weโll need to have watering restrictions for our customers in the summer. The data also gives us a very good idea of how the spring runoff in the rivers could impact aquatic habitat and recreation.โ
Space age tech
ASO planes fly with two key pieces of technology and equipment onboard: a lidar and an imaging spectrometer.
The ASO plane uses lidar (the front laser beam under the wings) to measure the depth of the snow. The spectrometer (the rear beam near the tail) measures the amount of solar energy that is reflected by the snowpack. Image credit: Airborne Snow Observatories.
The spectrometer measures how much solar energy is reflected by the snow. This information is used to help determine how fast the snowpack will melt.
Lidar, which stands for light detection and ranging, uses beams of light to measure distance. To determine snow depth, the plane flies over a watershed in the summer and uses lidar to scan the earthโs surface when it’s free of snow.
Then in the spring, when the landscape is covered with snow, the ASO team flies over the same territory again and measures the distance from the plane to the snow surface below. By comparing the differences in elevation, the ASO team can accurately calculate the depth of the snow.
Digging it old school
To supplement the data collected from the plane, ASO also incorporates three โold-schoolโ sources of data. It uses information collected by automated weather stations called SNOTELs, from snow samples collected and measured by crews at predetermined locations in watersheds, and data from samples collected by the ASO team or partners from snow pits dug in the same watersheds the plane flies over.
Denver Water crews use a special tube [Federal Sampler] to gather snow samples near Winter Park as part of pre-set snow courses. ASO uses these ground measurements to supplement data collected from the planes to determine how much water is in a watershed. Photo credit: Denver Water.
This ground-based data helps to verify the airborne snow-depth measurements. The ground data also provides snow density information, which is used to calculate the volume of water in the snowpack, called the snow water equivalent, or SWE.
โWeโre able to use the traditional methods in combination with our next generation technology to measure the mountain snowpack to an accuracy that has never before been possible,โ said Jeffrey Deems, ASO’s co-founder.
Cara Piske, an ASO operations scientist, collects a sample of snow from a pit dug in Mayflower Gulch near Copper Mountain in Summit County. The sample is weighed to determine its density, which is used to calculate the amount of water frozen in the snow, called the snow water equivalent. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Deems said the data from the ASO flights is incredibly valuable because the plane can accurately measure the snow across an entire watershed and at high elevations that donโt have automated weather stations and are inaccessible to people.
ASO snow depth measurements in the Blue River Basin above Dillon Reservoir in April 2021. Photo credit: Jeffrey Deems, Airborne Snow Observatories.
In 2023, ASO flew over eight regions in Colorado (including Denver Waterโs watersheds in the Upper South Platte, Blue, Fraser and South Boulder Creek river basins.)
During the first set of flights in April, which aimed to capture the peak snowpack, the ASO team calculated that there was 108,000 acre-feet of water packed into the snow in the Upper South Platte Basin, 175,000 acre-feet of water in the Blue River Basin which feeds into Dillon Reservoir, and 104,000 acre-feet of water in Denver Waterโs Moffat Collection System located in the Fraser River Basin.
A second round of flights were conducted in late May and early June to capture any new snow and to see how fast the snow melted.
Elder said the ASO snowpack estimates in 2023 turned out to be a very strong prediction of the actual streamflow during that yearโs spring runoff.
The ASO plane flew over the Blue River Basin in Summit County in early May. Scanning the entire watershed takes three to six hours. Photo credit: Kat McNeal, Airborne Snow Observatories.
โHaving ASO really helps reduce uncertainty and improve decision making for our water planning, and each flight uncovers new insight into the snowpack that is otherwise unmeasurable,โ Elder said. โOur first charge is to ensure we have an adequate water supply for our customers, and the sooner we can make that determination the better.โ
Having the additional data helps water planners because traditional snowmelt forecasts can have significant errors or wide ranges, which makes it more challenging to manage water supplies.
Building a statewide program
Recognizing the value of building a statewide ASO effort, in 2021, Denver Water helped coordinate and develop the Colorado Airborne Snow Measurement program or CASM.
The CASM program includes agricultural and municipal water providers such as Denver Water, as well as environmental groups and nonprofits with support from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and federal agencies.
In 2025, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed H.B. 1115 into law, which formally integrated the CASM program into the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The bill created a dedicated staff member to administer the program to help coordinate ASO flights, distribute data and manage funding statewide.
ASO flew over eight regions in 2023 as part of the Colorado Airborne Snow Measurement, or CASM, program. Two rounds of flights were conducted in April, May and June. Image credit: CASM.
“Having accurate water supply data helps all water users,โ said Taylor Winchell, climate adaptation specialist at Denver Water. โOur goal with CASM has always been to create a sustainable statewide program, and this new legislation is a major step in making that goal a reality.โ
The Colorado Water Conservation Board will formally coordinate CASMโs planning team, which includes Denver Water, Colorado River District, San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, Northern Water, St. Vrain & Left Hand Water Conservancy District, Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District, and the Dolores Water Conservancy District, along with ASO and LRE Water.
Benefits today and tomorrow
Winchell said one of the big benefits of the ASO flights is that the data is available within a few days of collecting it, so water managers have a better estimate of how much water supply theyโll have for the coming year โ and when to expect the water to end up in mountain streams.
The other benefit is having a wealth of high-quality data covering thousands of square miles to monitor the effects of climate change.
โAs our snowpack changes with the changing climate, being better able to measure that snowpack becomes more important as more snow falls as rain, as the timing of the spring melt changes and as snow falls at ever-higher elevations because of warming,โ Winchell said.
โWe canโt rely as much on historical snowpack datasets to understand the new snowpack reality.โ
ASO, which also conducts data collection flights in California, Wyoming, Oregon and internationally, also continues to develop its technology and modeling to help water providers get the information they need.
โWe’re really proud of what weโre doing,โ Deems said. โWe love the snow and feel like we’re making a difference in helping our society better understand our mountain snowpack reservoir.โ
Members of the ASO team, (left to right) Jeffrey Deems, Kate Burchenal and Cara Piske, teamed up with Denver Waterโs Taylor Winchell (in the black jacket) to dig a snow pit in Summit County. Photo credit: Denver Water.
In aย 36-page ruling, Supreme Court justices said the Surface Transportation Board, a federal agency that oversees rail transit, had sufficiently considered the proposalโs environmental impacts when it approved the plan in 2021.ย Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing the opinion for the other justices, said the board โidentified and analyzed numerous โsignificant and adverse impacts that could occur as a resultโ of the railroad lineโs construction and operation โ including disruptions to local wetlands, land use, and recreation.โ
[…]
The planย had been on holdย after a lower appeals court in 2023 ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by Eagle County and five environmental groups that claimed the transportation boardโs review had underestimated the railwayโs environmental impact.ย The lawsuit garnered support from a coalition of local governments, including Pitkin, Routt, Grand and Boulder counties, the cities of Basalt, Avon, Minturn, Red Cliff, Crested Butte, Glenwood Springs and Grand Junction, and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments…
At the heart of the lawsuit and the question before the Supreme Court was whether the transportation board had sufficiently followed the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA,ย when it approved the railway…The 55-year-old law requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their decisions, and the transportation board issued a 3,600-page environmental analysis as part of that review.ย
The sun shines on homes in Phoenix, Arizona on October 19, 2024. A significant portion of the Colorado River basin’s groundwater losses came from Arizona, but the new study says those losses might have been worse without state regulations. Experts are now calling for more regulations around groundwater pumping to stem further depletion. Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
June 2, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of water in the West, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
The Colorado River basin has lost huge volumes of groundwater over the past two decades according to a new report from researchers at Arizona State University.Researchers used data from NASA satellites to map the rapidly-depleting resource.
The region, which includes seven Western states, has lost 27.8 million acre-feet of groundwater since 2003. Thatโs roughly the volume of Lake Mead, the nationโs largest reservoir.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
The findings add a layer of complication for the already-stressed Colorado River. As demand for its water outpaces supply, more users may be turning to groundwater instead, which is often less regulated than water from above-ground rivers and streams.
The majority of water conservation work throughout the Colorado River basin has been focused on cutbacks to surface water use. Some river experts say the focus should be broader.
Brian Richter analyzes water policy and science as president of Sustainable Waters. He was not an author of the study but says its findings show the need for a โholistic perspectiveโ on water management from the regionโs leaders.
โIt suggests that we have to become more aggressive and more urgent in our reduction of our overall consumption of water,โ he said.
Creating a balance of water that’s taken from aquifers and water that replenishes aquifers is an important aspect of making sure water will be available when itโs needed. Image from โGetting down to facts: A Visual Guide to Water in the Pinal Active Management Area,โ courtesy of Ashley Hullinger and the University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center
The study found that groundwater losses in the Colorado River basin were 2.4 times greater than the amount of water lost from the surfaces of Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and a number of other smaller reservoirs that store Colorado River water. The study highlights agricultureโs outsized water use in the Colorado River basin, and said that industry could suffer some of the greatest consequences if the region keeps sapping limited water supplies.
Most of the losses happened in the riverโs Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada. The study says Arizonaโs โActive Management Areas,โ which the state set up to regulate groundwater withdrawal, may have helped slow depletion.
Kathleen Ferris, an architect of Arizonaโs groundwater laws, said much more work is needed to protect groundwater.
โWe are not on track,โ said Ferris, who was not involved in the study. โWe are way behind the eight ball, and I’m really sad that nothing seems to get done. We should have been thinking about this issue 25 years ago.โ
Ferris is now a senior research fellow at Arizona State Universityโs Kyl Center for Water Policy.
As experts call for more robust groundwater management policies, Richter said this study presents a small silver lining: scientists are producing better data than ever before, giving policymakers a better sense of the regionโs water problems.
โFrom a public policy standpoint, this is bad news,โ he said. โThis tells us that it’s worse than we thought, because now we understand what’s going on underground as well. From a science perspective, this kind of study is good news, because it says that we are now much more capable of accurately describing a water problem like what we’re experiencing in the Colorado River system.โ
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 article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
May 31, 2025
Concerningly low amounts of water are flowing from Rocky Mountain snowpack this spring, a summer of drought looms across swaths of the West, and the negotiators tasked with devising aย sustainable long-term water planย for the 40 million people who rely on the Colorado River are running out of time. Commissioners from the seven states in the Colorado River Basin โ Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, California and Nevada โ must create a plan that will govern how those states divvy up the riverโs water after theย current guidelines expire at the end of 2026. As the river shrinks due to drought and climate change, the negotiators must decide who will take less water โ and they need to do so in the next few months.
โThe way the law of the river is set up, this is a decision that takes the seven states, and there are so many stakeholders and users who depend on that,โ said Jennifer Pitt, Colorado River program director at the National Audubon Society. โWe are really at their mercy and we are just about out of time.โ
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Those who depend on the river are already dealing with uncertainty: this seasonโs mountainย snowpack is expected to deliver about half the median amount of waterย to the systemโs two major reservoirs, which are already two-thirds empty. Years of drought not balanced by decreases in water consumption haveย drained Lake Mead and Lake Powell, and aridification fueled by climate change is expected to continue toย reduce the flowย of the river that makes modern life possible across the Southwest. The Colorado River irrigates more thanย 5 million acres of farmlandย โ including water supplies for much of the nationโs winter vegetables โ and comprises large portions of many Western citiesโ water portfolio, saidย Brad Udall, senior water and climate research scholar at Colorado State Universityโs Colorado Water Institute.
On its surface, floating solar appears to conserve water while generating carbon-free electricity. River managers are cautious, but some say the West canโt afford to wait.
GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION, Ariz.โAbout 33 miles south of Phoenix, Interstate 10 bisects a line of solar panels traversing the desert like an iridescent snake. The solar farmโs shape follows the path of a canal, with panels serving as awnings to shade the gently flowing water from the unforgiving heat and wind of the Sonoran Desert.
The panels began generating power last November for the Akimel Oโotham and Pee Posh tribesโknown together as the Gila River Indian Community, or GRICโon their reservation in south-central Arizona, and they are the first of their kind in the U.S. The community is studying the effects of these panels on the water in the canal, hopeful that they will protect a precious resource from the desertโs unflinching sun and wind.
In September, GRIC is planning to break ground on another experimental effort to conserve water while generating electricity: floating solar. Between its canal canopies and the new project that would float photovoltaic panels on a reservoir it is building, GRIC hopes to one day power all of its canal and irrigation operations with solar electricity, transforming itself into one of the most innovative and closely-watched water users in the West in the process.
The communityโs investments come at a critical time for the Colorado River, which supplies water to about 40 million people across seven Western states, Mexico and 30 tribes, including GRIC. Annual consumption from the river regularly exceeds its supply, and a decades-long drought, fueled in part by climate change, continues to leave water levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead dangerously low.
Covering water with solar panels is not a new idea. But for some it represents an elegant mitigation of water shortages in the West. Doing so could reduce evaporation, generate more carbon-free electricity and require dams to run less frequently to produce power.
But, so far, the technology has not been included in the ongoing Colorado River negotiations between the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada, tribes and Mexico. All are expected to eventually agree on cuts to the systemโs water allocations to maintain the riverโs ability to provide water and electricity for residents and farms, and keep its ecosystem alive.
โPeople in the U.S. donโt know about [floating solar] yet,โ said Scott Young, a former policy analyst in the Nevada state legislatureโs counsel bureau. โTheyโre not willing to look at it and try and factor itโ into the negotiations.
Several Western water managers Inside Climate News contacted for this story said they were open to learning more about floating solarโColorado has even studied the technology through pilot projects. But, outside of GRICโs project, none knew of any plans to deploy floating solar anywhere in the basin. Some listed costly and unusual construction methods and potentially modest water savings as the primary obstacles to floating solar maturing in the U.S.
A Tantalizing Technology With Tradeoffs
A winery in Napa County, California, deployed the first floating solar panels in the U.S. on an irrigation pond in 2007. The country was still years away from passing federal legislation to combat the climate crisis, and the technology matured here haltingly. As recently as 2022, according to a Bloomberg analysis, most of the worldโs 13 gigawatts of floating solar capacity had been built in Asia.
Unlike many Asian countries, the U.S. has an abundance of undeveloped land where solar could be constructed, said Prateek Joshi, a research engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) who has studied floating solar, among other forms of energy. โEven though [floating solar] may play a smaller role, I think itโs a critical role in just diversifying our energy mix and also reducing the burden of land use,โ he said.
This February, NREL published a study that found floating solar on the reservoirs behind federally owned dams could provide enough electricity to power 100 million U.S. homes annually, but only if all the developable space on each reservoir were used.
Lake Powell could host almost 15 gigawatts of floating solar using about 23 percent of its surface area, and Lake Mead could generate over 17 gigawatts of power on 28 percent of its surface. Such large-scale development is โprobably not going to be the case,โ Joshi said, but even if a project used only a fraction of the developable area, โthereโs a lot of power you could get from a relatively small percentage of these Colorado Basin reservoirs.โ
The study did not measure how much water evaporation floating solar would prevent, but previous NREL research has shown that photovoltaic panelsโsometimes called โfloatovoltaicsโ when they are deployed on reservoirsโcould also save water by changing the way hydropower is deployed.
Some of a damโs energy could come from solar panels floating on its reservoir to prevent water from being released solely to generate electricity. As late as December, when a typical Western dam would be running low, lakes with floating solar could still have enough water to produce hydropower, reducing reliance on more expensive backup energy from gas-fired power plants.
Joshi has spoken with developers and water managers about floating solar before, and said there is โan eagerness to get this [technology] going.โ The technology, however, is not flawless.
Hoover Dam with Lake Mead in the background December 3, 2024.
Paddling Powell. Photo by Jonathan P. Thompson.
Solar arrays can be around 20 percent more expensive to install on water than land, largely because of the added cost of buoys that keep the panels afloat, according to a 2021 NREL report. The waterโs cooling effect can boost panel efficiency, but floating solar panels may produce slightly less energy than a similarly sized array on land because they canโt be tilted as directly toward the sun as land-based panels.
And while the panels likely reduce water loss from reservoirs, they may also increase a water bodyโs emissions of greenhouse gases, which in turn warm the climate and increase evaporation. This January, researchers at Cornell University found that floating solar covering more than 70 percent of a pondโs surface area increased the waterโs CO2 and methane emissions. These kinds of impacts โshould be considered not only for the waterbody in which [floating solar] is deployed but also in the broader context of trade-offs of shifting energy production from land to water,โ the studyโs authors wrote.
โAny energy technology has its tradeoffs,โ Joshi said, and in the case of floating solar, some of its benefitsโreduced evaporation and land useโmay not be easy to express in dollars and cents.
Silver Buckshot
There is perhaps no bigger champion for floating solar in the West than Scott Young. Before he retired in 2016, he spent much of his 18 years working for the Nevada Legislature researching the effects of proposed legislation, especially in the energy sector.
On an overcast, blustery May day in southwest Wyoming near his home, Young said that in the past two years he has promoted the technology to Colorado River negotiators, members of Congress, environmental groups and other water managers from the seven basin states, all of whom he has implored to consider the virtues of floating solar arrays on Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
Young grew up in the San Francisco Bay area, about 40 miles, he estimated, from the pioneering floating solar panels in Napa. He stressed that he does not have any ties to industry; he is just a concerned Westerner who wants to diversify the regionโs energy mix and save as much water as possible.
But so far, when he has been able to get someoneโs attention, Young said his pitch has been met with tepid interest. โUsually the response is: โEh, thatโs kind of interesting,โโ said Young, dressed in a black jacket, a maroon button-down shirt and a matching ball cap that framed his round, open face. โBut thereโs no follow-up.โ
The Bureau of Reclamation โhas not received any formal proposals for floating solar on its reservoirs,โ said an agency spokesperson, who added that the bureau has been monitoring the technology.
In a 2021 paper published with NREL, Reclamation estimated that floating solar on its reservoirs could generate approximately 1.5 terawatts of electricity, enough to power about 100 million homes. But, in addition to potentially interfering with recreation, aquatic life and water safety, floating solarโs effect on evaporation proved difficult to model broadly.
So many environmental factors determine how water is lost or consumed in a reservoirโsolar intensity, wind, humidity, lake circulation, water depth and temperatureโthat the studyโs authors concluded Reclamation โshould be wary of contractorsโ claims of evaporation savingsโ without site-specific studies. Those same factors affect the panelsโ efficiency, and in turn, how much hydropower would need to be generated from the reservoir they cover.
The report also showed the Colorado River was ripe with floating solar potentialโmore than any other basin in the West. Thatโs particularly true in the Upper Basin, where Young has been heartened by Coloradoโs approach to the technology.
In 2023, the state passed a law requiring several agencies to study the use of floating solar. Last December, the Colorado Water Conservation Board published its findings, and estimated that the state could save up to 407,000 acre feet of water by deploying floating solar on certain reservoirs. An acre foot covers one acre with a foot of water, or 325,851 gallons, just about three yearโs worth of water for a family of four.
When Young saw the Colorado study quantifying savings from floating solar, he felt hopeful. โ407,000 acre feet from one state,โ he said. โI was hoping that would catch peopleโs attention.โ
Saving that much water would require using over 100,000 acres of surface water, said Cole Bedford, the Colorado Water Conservation Boardโs chief operating officer, in an email. โOn some of these reservoirs a [floating solar] system would diminish the recreational value such that it would not be appropriate,โ he said. โOn others, recreation, power generation, and water savings could be balanced.โ
Colorado is not planning to develop another project in the wake of this study, and Bedford said that the technology is not a silver bullet solution for Colorado River negotiations.
โWhile floating solar is one tool in the toolkit for water conservation, the only true solution to the challenges facing the Colorado River Basin is a shift to supply-driven, sustainable uses and operations,โ he said.
Denver Waterโs sustainability operations include generating energy from solar power panels installed on the roof of its Administration Building, parking garage and over its visitorโs parking lot at its Operations Complex near downtown. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Some of the Westโs largest and driest cities, like Phoenix and Denver, ferry Colorado River water to residents hundreds of miles away from the basin using a web of infrastructure that must reliably operate in unforgiving terrain. Like their counterparts at the state level, water managers in these cities have heard floatovoltaics floated before, but they say the technology is currently too immature and costly to be deployed in the U.S.
Lake Pleasant, which holds some of the Central Arizona Projectโs Colorado River Water, is also a popular recreation space, complicating its floating solar potential. Credit: Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News
In Arizona, the Central Arizona Project (CAP) delivers much of the Colorado River water used by Phoenix, Tucson, tribes and other southern Arizona communities with a 336-mile canal running through the desert, and Lake Pleasant, the companyโs 811,784-acre-foot reservoir.
Though CAP is following GRICโs deployment of solar over canals, it has no immediate plans to build solar over its canal, or Lake Pleasant, according to Darrin Francom, CAPโs assistant general manager for operations, power, engineering and maintenance, in part because the city of Peoria technically owns the surface water.
Covering the whole canal with solar to save the 4,000 acre feet that evaporates from it could be prohibitively expensive for CAP. โThe dollar cost per that acre foot [saved] is going to be in the tens of, you know, maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars,โ Francom said, mainly due to working with novel equipment and construction methods. โUltimately,โ he continued, โthose costs are going to be borne by our ratepayers,โ which gives CAP reason to pursue other lower-cost ways to save water, like conservation programs, or to seek new sources.
An intake tower moves water into and out of the dam at Lake Pleasant. Credit: Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News
The increased costs associated with building solar panels on water instead of on land has made such projects unpalatable to Denver Water, Coloradoโs largest water utility, which moves water out of the Colorado River Basin and through the Rocky Mountains to customers on the Front Range. โFloating solar doesnโt pencil out for us for many reasons,โ said Todd Hartman, a company spokesperson. โWere we to add more solar resourcesโwhich we are consideringโwe have abundant land-based options.โ
GRIC spent about $5.6 million, financed with Inflation Reduction Act grants, to construct 3,000 feet of solar over a canal, according to David DeJong, project director for the communityโs irrigation district.
Young is aware there is no single solution to the problems plaguing the Colorado River Basin, and he knows floating solar is not a perfect technology. Instead, he thinks of it as a โsilver buckshot,โ he said, borrowing a term from John Entsminger, general manager for the Southern Nevada Water Authorityโa technology that can be deployed alongside a constellation of behavioral changes to help keep the Colorado River alive.
Given the duration and intensity of the drought in the West and the growing demand for water and clean energy, Young believes the U.S. needs to act now to embed this technology into the fabric of Western water management going forward.
As drought in the West intensifies, โI think more lawmakers are going to look at this,โ he said. โIf you can save water in two waysโwhy not?โ
If all goes according to plan, GRICโs West Side Reservoir will be finished and ready to store Colorado River water by the end of July. The community wants to cover just under 60 percent of the lakeโs surface area with floating solar.
โDo we know for a fact that this is going to be 100 percent effective and foolproof? No,โ said DeJong, GRICโs project director for its irrigation district. โBut weโre not going to know until we try.โ
The Gila River Indian Community spent about $5.6 million, with the help of Inflation Reduction Act grants, to cover a canal with solar. Credit Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News
GRICโs panels will have a few things going for them that projects on lakes Mead or Powell probably wouldnโt. West Side Reservoir will not be open to recreation, limiting the panelsโ impacts on people. And the community already has the fundsโInflation Reduction Act grants and some of its own moneyโto pay for the project.
But GRICโs solar ambitions may be threatened by the hostile posture toward solar and wind energy from the White House and congressional Republicans, and the project is vulnerable to an increasingly volatile economy. Since retaking office, President Donald Trump, aided by billionaire Elon Musk, has made deep cuts inrenewableenergy grants at the Environmental Protection Agency. It is unclear whether or to what extent the Bureau of Reclamation has slashed its grant programs.
โUnder President Donald J. Trumpโs leadership, the Department is working to cut bureaucratic waste and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently,โ said a spokesperson for the Department of the Interior, which oversees Reclamation. โThis includes ensuring Bureau of Reclamation projects that use funds from the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act align with administration priorities. Projects are being individually assessed by period of performance, criticality, and other criteria. Projects have been approved for obligation under this process so that critical work can continue.โ
And Trumpโs tariffs could cause costs to balloon beyond the communityโs budget, which could either reduce the size of the array or cause delays in soliciting proposals, DeJong said.
While the community will study the panels over canals to understand the waterโs effects on solar panel efficiency, it wonโt do similar research on the panels on West Side Reservoir, though DeJong said they have been in touch with NREL about studying them. The enterprise will be part of the system that may one day offset all the electrical demand and carbon footprint of GRICโs irrigation system.
โThe community, they love these types of innovative projects. I love these innovative projects,โ said GRIC Governor Stephen Roe Lewis, standing in front of the canals in April. Lewis had his dark hair pulled back in a long ponytail and wore a blue button down that matched the color of the sky.
โI know for a fact this is inspiring a whole new generation of water protectorsโthose that want to come back and they want to go into this cutting-edge technology,โ he said. โI couldnโt be more proud of our team for getting this done.โ
DeJong feels plenty of other water managers across the West could learn from what is happening at GRIC. In fact, the West Side Reservoir was intentionally constructed near Interstate 10 so that people driving by on the highway could one day see the floating solar the community intends to build there, DeJong said.
โIt could be a paradigm shift in the Western United States,โ he said. โWe recognize all of the projects weโre doing are pilot projects. None of them are large scale. But itโs the beginning.โ
Colorado River Connectivity Channel. Photo credit: Colorado Parks & Wildlife
Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Parks & Wildlife website (Rachael Gonzales):
May 2025
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) saw an increase in the native fish population numbers more quickly than anticipated in the recently completed Colorado River Connectivity Channel (CRCC) project at Windy Gap Reservoir, located near Granby, Colo.
In early May, CPW Aquatic biologists completed the first-ever raft electrofishing survey to estimate the trout population in the CRCC. Biologists estimated that approximately 848 brown trout and 221 rainbow trout over 6″ in length live within a one-mile reach of the newly constructed river channel.
“It was very exciting to see a healthy number of adult trout occupying all of this new habitat,” said Jon Ewert, CPW Hot Sulphur Springs Area Aquatic Biologist. “Especially considering that we have not stocked a single fish into the channel.โ
As a result of the improved habitat, trout from connected river sections both upstream and downstream have been able to re-establish in the newly reconnected section of the Colorado River. CPW biologists also observed extensive brown trout spawning activity in the channel last fall and moderate rainbow trout spawning activity this spring.
โSeeing such positive results with water flowing through this new river section for just over a year, we anticipate that this fish population will continue to grow,โ said Ewert.
This is the second time CPW has documented positive signs of native fish repopulating the CRCC earlier than anticipated. In the fall of 2024, CPW’s aquatic research team found evidence of native sculpin returning to the upper Colorado River and the CRCC after several decades of absence in nearly 30 miles of their former habitat. Sculpin found in the CRCC and downstream in the Colorado River included fish that were spawned and hatched in 2024.
During the survey, researchers documented one adult and 11 juvenile sculpin within the CRCC and a single juvenile sculpin in the Colorado River below the channel. Based on these sampling results, aquatic biologists and researchers from CPW believe that young sculpin are now able to take advantage of the new habitat and are dispersing downstream from healthy populations located upstream of the CRCC.
โThe rapid colonization of the CRCC by this unique native fish species and its return to the Colorado River below Windy Gap is an important conservation milestone and a good indication that the channel is starting to improve the ecological health of the river,” said Dan Kowalski, CPW Aquatic Research Scientist.
While the beneficial effects of the CRCC may take years to be fully realized, the results from the fish surveys conducted in May 2025 and fall 2024 represent significant milestones in the efforts to enhance habitat conditions in the upper Colorado River. These findings suggest that the health of the river may be improving more quickly than expected.
Completed in the fall of 2023, the Colorado River Connectivity Project is one of the largest aquatic habitat improvement initiatives ever undertaken in Colorado. This project reconnects aquatic habitats that were fragmented by the construction of the Windy Gap Reservoir in 1985. Currently, the new river section is closed to public fishing access. It is expected to open after the area has had sufficient time to fully revegetate, which will take a couple more growing seasons. To learn more about the Colorado River Connectivity Channel Project, visit the project’s page on Northern Waterโs website.
Sculpin from the Colorado River Connectivity Channel swim in a bucket during a fish survey in fall 2024. Photo credit: Colorado Parks & Wildlife
A CPW aquatic research technician holds a juvenile sculpin documented below the Colorado River Connectivity Channel during a fish survey in fall 2024. Photo credit: Colorado Parks & Wildlife
A close-up of a juvenile sculpin documented below the Colorado River Connectivity Channel during a fish survey in fall 2024. Photo credit: Colorado Parks & Wildlife
The Blue River flows through Silverthorne on May 22 on its way to the Colorado River. Photo/Allen Best
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
May 29, 2025
Even-steven. That was the intent of delegates from the seven basin states in 1922 when they met near Santa Fe to forge a compact governing the Colorado River.
But what exactly did they agree upon? That has become a sticking point in 2025 as states have squared off about rules governing the river in the drought-afflicted and climate-changed 21st century. The negotiations between the states, according to many accounts, have been fraught with tensions. Becky Mitchell, Coloradoโs lead negotiator, delivered a peek into that dispute at a forum on May 22 in Silverthorne along the headwaters of the river.
The Colorado River Compact was a quid pro quo. California, in particular, but also Arizona, was ready to see the highs and lows of the rivers smoothed out. They, as well as Nevada, wanted a giant reservoir in Boulder Canyon near the small town of Las Vegas, which then had a population of 2,300. Those Southwestern states couldnโt do it alone, though. They needed the federal government to build the dam later called Hoover. For that, they needed the support of Colorado and the three other upper-basin states.
Colorado, represented by Delph Carpenter, and the three other headwaters states realized that they had best reach a compromise, as they would more slowly develop the rivers. If the doctrine of prior appropriation that they had all adopted within their own states prevailed on the Colorado River, the water would be gone by the time they found need for it.
This was the foundation for Article III of the Colorado River Compact. It apportions 7.5 million acre-feet in perpetuity for the exclusive beneficial consumption by each of the two basins. On top of this 15 million acre-feet, they knew there would be water lost to evaporation, now calculated at 1.5 million acre-feet annually, plus some sort of delivery obligation to Mexico, which later turned out to be 1.5 million acre-feet.
In Santa Fe, delegates had assumed bounteous flows in the river, as had occurred in the years prior to their meeting. And so, embracing that short-term view of history, they believed the river would deliver 20 million acre-feet.
Source: Colorado River Water Conservation Board.
It has not done so routinely. Even when there was lots of water, during the 1990s and even before, as Eric Kuhn and John Fleck explained in their 2019 book, โScience be Dammed,โ troubles ahead could be discerned. And by 1993, when the Central Arizona Project began hoisting water to Phoenix and Tucson, the river ceased absolutely to reach the ocean.
Then came the 21st century drought. Those framing the compact understood drought as a temporary affliction, not the multi-decade phenomenon now perplexing the states in the Colorado River Basin.
Nor did they contemplate a warming, drying climate called aridification. Similar to drought in effects, it is rooted in accumulating atmospheric gases. Unlike drought, it has little to no chance of breaking.
Now, faced with creating new rules governing the sharing of this river, delegates from the seven states are at odds in various ways, but perhaps none so much as in their interpretation of compactโs Article D. It says that the upper-division states โwill not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years.โ
The lower division states have so far received 75 million acre-feet over every revolving 10-year period. The upper-basin states have not fully developed their apportionment, although Colorado has come close. In the last 25 years, the upper-basin states have been using 3.5 million to 4.5 million acre-feet. The lower-basin states that a decade ago were still using 10 million acre-feet have cut back their use to 7.5 million acre-feet.
In May 2022, water levels at Glen Canyon Dam were dropping so rapidly as to make relevant discussions about potential loss of hydroelectricity. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Lake Powell serves as a water bank for the upper basin states. The storage in 2022 had declined to 22%, although a good snow winter in 2022-23 restored levels somewhat. Today, the two reservoirs are at a combined 34% of full.
โThat means 66% empty,โ said Mitchell at the forum along the Blue River in Silverthorne at a โstate of the riverโ forum organized by the Colorado River Water Conservation District.
Mitchell, an engineer by training, has a large on-stage presence. Sheโs spunky, not one to mince words, sometimes straying into the colloquial. This outspokenness is more evident when she speaks exclusively to a home-town crowd. Silverthorne certainly counted as one.
Shared risk is at the heart of the dispute. Colorado and other upper-basin states want the lower-basin states to accept that the river will not always satisfy all needs.
โHow do we handle drought? We know how to do that in the upper basin, and most of the people in this room know that you get less,โ said Mitchell, Coloradoโs representative on the Upper Colorado River Commission. โThat hasnโt been the case in the lower basin.โ
The two basins differ in three fundamental ways. One is the pace of development. The lower basin developed quickly. The upper basin still has not used its full allocation. From the upper-basin perspective, that does not mean that the lower-basins states should expect something beyond a 50-50 split.
โThe main thing that we got from the compact was the principle of equity and the ability to develop at our own pace,โ said Mitchell. โWe shouldnโt be punished because we didnโt develop to a certain number. The conversation now, she added, is โwhat does equity look like right now?โ
Another difference is that the upper basin has thousands of individual users. Sure, there are a few big ones, like Denver Water and the other Front Range transmountain water diverters who collectively draw 400,000 to 450,000 acre-feet annually across the Continental Divide. The lower basin has just a handful of diverters, and the diversions are massive.
Also different โ as alluded to by Mitchell โ is that the lower basin has the big reservoirs lying upstream. The largest is Mead, with a capacity of almost 29 million acre-feet, followed closely by Powell at a little more than 25 million acre-feet. Mead was created expressly to meet needs of irrigators and cities in the desert southwest.
Source: Colorado River Water Conservation Board.
Powell was created essentially to ensure that the upper-basin states could meet their delivery obligations. Mitchell shared a telling statistic: More water has been released from Powell in 8 of the last 10 years than has arrived into it.
Upper-basin states must live within that hydrologic reality, said Mitchell. If itโs a particularly bad snow year in the upper basin, the farms and ranches with junior water rights and even the cities can get shorted. The lower basin states? Not a problem. They always get their water โ at least so far. But the two big reservoirs have together lost 50 million acre-feet of stored water.
โWeโre negotiating how to move forward in a way different place than we were negotiating 20 years ago,โ said Mitchell.
Upper-basin states have managed to deliver the 75 million acre-feet across 10 years that the compact specifies, but what exactly is the obligation? That has long been a gray area.
At a forum two days before Mitchell spoke in Colorado, her counterpart in Arizona, Tom Buschatzke, reiterated at a conference in Tucson that they see the compact spelling out a clear obligation of upper-basin states to deliver 75 million acre-feet plus one-half of the water obligated to Mexico.
What if the water isnโt there? Thatโs the crux of this dispute as the upper and lower basin states negotiate in advance of a September deadline set by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Denver Water sends diversions from the Ffaser River and other headwater tributaries through the Moffat Tunnel at Winter Park.ย Photo/Allen Best
In theory, if the situation were dire enough, Colorado could stop all its post-1922 diversions to allow the water to flow downstream. But is that what those gathered in Santa Fe in the shortening days of November 1922 had in mind?
Will lawsuits toss this into the court system for resolution? That process might take decades and, if it ended up at the Supreme Court, it might not yield a nuanced outcome. Mitchell didnโt address that directly, although she did say everybody on the river wants to avoid litigation.
The situation described by Mitchell and other upper-basin proponents is perhaps analogous to a divorce settlement. The settlement may call for a 50-50 split of all earnings between the partners, but what if one becomes destitute and has no money to pool?
Upper-basin states do have reservoirs to help buffer them from short-term droughts. Altogether, however, they donโt come close to matching the capacity of Powell.
Again, from the perspective of upper-basin states, California and Nevada have a sense of entitlement. Not that the upper basin states are angelic, said Mitchell. Itโs because they have no choice.
โI say we use three to four million acre-feet less than our apportionment. It varies. You know why? Because hydrology varies. And so we respond to hydrology. Itโs all based on snowpack and itโs all gravity. Most of it is gravity dependent. We donโt have those two big reservoirs above us like the lower basin does. We donโt have those reservoirs to equal out the flows or allow us to overuse. We have to live with variable hydrology, and we take cuts every single year.โ
Upper-basin states want a willingness in this settlement for agreement that focuses on the water supply, not the demand. โCommon sense would tell you, maybe Mother Nature should drive how we operate the system.โ That, she said, is the bedrock principle of the proposal from the upper division.
With plentiful snowfall, greater releases from Powell might be possible, said Mitchell, and in times of extreme duress, water from Flaming Gore and perhaps the Blue Mesa and Navajo too. She said there might be room for greater conservation measures in the upper basin states.
But there must be โreal work happening down in the lower basin,โ she said.
The audience in Silverthorne was comprised of many โrookiesโ to the water world. Some who might have attended, those more knowledgeable about the negotiations, would have wanted more: What are the deal breakers; what are the red lines, what are the issues they intend to kick down the road?
As the session in Silverthorne neared its end, time remained for one last question, and I asked it:
โI have to wonder about who we have in the White House right now, and how the President might alter the negotiations on the Colorado River. Any thoughts you might be willing to share?
โNo!โ she barked back without hesitation. โAllen, you know better than that.โ
I laughed heartily, and so did many others.
Given what weโve seen since January, though, I must continue to wonder.
Postscript: Before her remarks in Silverthorne, Becky Mitchell offered the opportunity for an in-depth interview with Big Pivots sometime later in June. I intend to take up that offer.
Delph Carpenter’s original map showing a reservoir at Glen Canyon and one at Black Canyon via Greg Hobbs
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
The Colorado Water Conservation Board, Coloradoโs top water policy agency, has a new leader: Southern Ute tribal member Lorelei Cloud.
The 15-member board sets water policy within the state, funds water projects statewide and works on issues related to watershed protection, stream restoration, flood mitigation and drought planning. On May 21, board members elected Cloud to serve a one-year term as chair, making her the first Indigenous person to hold the position since the board was formed in 1937.
Cloud said her new role gives Indigenous people a long-sought seat at the table where water decisions are made.
โThis is history,โ Cloud said during the meeting. โWhat a moment. What a great moment for the state of Colorado.โ
In 2023, Gov. Jared Polis appointed Cloud for a three-year term, making her the first known tribal member to hold a seat on the board. Cloud also served as the boardโs vice chair for a year starting in May 2024.
Part of the Colorado Water Conservation Boardโs purpose is to protect Coloradoโs water interests in dealings with other states, like the water sharing agreements among seven states in the Colorado River Basin.
She represents the San Miguel-Dolores-San Juan basin in southwestern Colorado, which is part of the larger Colorado River Basin, a key water source for about 40 million people across the West.
The Colorado River Basinโs water supply has been strained by over two decades of prolonged drought, rising temperatures and an unyielding demand for water.
The rules that govern how water is stored and released from the basinโs reservoirs are set to expire in 2026, leaving officials with the difficult task of negotiating a new set of management rules that will last for years to come.
The seven basin states have been at odds over how water should be managed in the basinโs driest possible conditions. Tribal officials have been working to ensure their priorities are considered in the high-stakes negotiations.
โThis moment isnโt just about me or about the Indigenous people โ itโs about all of the people in this room,โ Cloud said, adding that the board is โmaking decisions that arenโt just about today. Itโs about our future.โ
Decision-makers in the Colorado River Basin have a history of excluding tribal nations that dates back to the 1922 Colorado River Compact.
The compact laid the foundation for how water is shared between the Upper Basin โ Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah โ and the Lower Basin โ Arizona, California and Nevada. The agreement includes one line about tribal water, and tribal nations were not involved in the negotiations.
Native America in the Colorado River Basin. Credit: USBR
Tribal water is a key issue in the basin: The 30 basin tribes have recognized rights to over 25% of the Colorado Riverโs average flow.
Cloud said her new role is โpart of the reconciliation that weโve all been waiting for as Indigenous people.โ
โHaving an Indigenous person in a position that makes water management decisions โ itโs a seat at the table that weโve been wanting for such a long time, and itโs finally here,โ Cloud said. โItโs a joyous moment.โ
Cloud has twice served as vice chairman of the Southern Ute Tribal Council. She has also held leadership positions in The Nature Conservancy Colorado, the Indigenous Womenโs Leadership Network, the Ten Tribes Partnership, and the Water and Tribes Initiative.
As board chair, Cloud will run the meetings, ensure fair voting and represent the board as spokesperson when needed. She will continue to represent the southwestern basin, which reaches 10 counties and includes cities like Cortez, Durango and Telluride.
The Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe โ the two federally recognized tribes with reservation land in Colorado โ are also located in the southwestern basin.
โIโve been lucky to witness Chair Cloudโs rise as a leader in the Colorado water community,โ said Dan Gibbs, Department of Natural Resources executive director. โNo one is more deserving or better positioned to chair the CWCB in this critical moment.โ
GRACE TWS trend map. (a) The time series of nonseasonal GRACE/FO TWS (km3/year) over UCRB and LCRB for the period (4/2002โ10/2024). (b) Spatial variation in TWS trends for the Colorado River Basin for the investigated period (mm/year) (c) Time series comparison of the change in storage ฮS/ฮt derived from the water balance equation (Equation 1) and GRACE/FO. ฮS/ฮt calculated from GRACE/FO TWS anomalies in km3. The light shading represents uncertainties.
New research based on satellite data shows the depletion of groundwater in the Colorado River Basin far exceeds losses from the riverโs reservoirs.ย
Scientists say overpumping is leading to alarmingly rapid declines in groundwater at a time when climate change is putting growing strains on the Southwestโs water supplies.
Scientists at Arizona State University examined more than two decades of satellite measurements and found that since 2003 the quantity of groundwater depleted in the Colorado River Basin is comparable to the total capacity of Lake Mead, the nationโs largest reservoir. The researchers estimated that pumping from wells has drained about 34 cubic kilometers, or 28 million acre-feet, of groundwater in the watershed since 2003 โ more than twice the amount of water that has been depleted from the riverโs reservoirs during that time.
โThe Colorado River Basin is losing groundwater at an alarming rate,โ said Karem Abdelmohsen, the lead author and a researcher at ASUโs School of Sustainability.
[…]
Groundwater movement via the USGS
The losses are being driven largely by heavy pumping to supply agriculture, he said. At the same time, prolonged drought and rising temperatures have sapped river flows and decreased the amount of water percolating underground and recharging aquifers.
โAs surface water becomes less dependable, the demand for groundwater is projected to rise significantly,โ the researchers wrote in the study, which was published Tuesday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. โGroundwater is a crucial buffer โฆ but it is rapidly disappearing due to excessive extraction.โ
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain website (John Fleck):
May 26, 2025
The Bureau of Reclamation has released its May 24-Month Study. It confirms that 2025 will be another very dry year and the consequences will be significant. Under the minimum probable forecast, active storage in Lake Powell will fall to an elevation of 3530โ (5.8 maf), only about 9 feet higher than the February 2023 low of 3521โ (5.3maf). Just as alarming, under the โmost probableโ scenario, 2027 is projected to be another year for a 7.48 maf release from Glen Canyon Dam. This means that the ten-year flows at Lee Ferry are projected to fall well below the 82.0 maf tripwire โ the point at which the basin statesโ disagreement over interpreting the Colorado River Compactโs Lee Ferry delivery/non-depletion requirement could trigger interstate litigation.
The May 1st โmost probableโ forecast for unregulated April to July inflow to Lake Powell was 3.5 maf, down from an April 1 st forecast of 4.3 maf. Since May 1st. However, the runoff forecast has continued to decline, down another ~400kaf as we write this (May 26, 2025). No one should be surprised if we end up with an actual inflow closer to the May 1st โminimum probableโ forecast of 2.6 maf.
Even with continued crop fallowing programs, storage in Lake Mead also continues to decline, dropping to an elevation of 1047โ at the end of Water Year 2026 under the โmost Probableโ forecast and to elevation 1041โ under the โminimum probableโ forecast.
cloudy forecast, part II
Lower Basin use continues to run well below long term averages, with this yearโs consumptive use by Arizona, California, and Nevada forecast at 6.3maf, well below the legal paper water allocation of 7.5maf. Yet Mead keeps dropping. The latest analysis of total reservoir storage from our colleague and collaborator Jack Schmidt (hereโs Jack and colleagues from March, with an update expected later this week) clearly shows that we are once again failing to rebuild reservoir storage. Weโre draining the system.
Of course, the 2007 Interim Guidelines expire after 2026, so we do not know what the rules will be for Glen Canyon Dam releases in Water Year 2027. Lacking any better information, the Bureau of Reclamation has assumed a continuation of the 2007 Interim Guidelines rules. Another approach would be for the Bureau of Reclamation to assume that absent an agreement among the states, the Secretary of the Interior could return to an annual release of 8.23 maf from Glen Canyon as set by the 1970 Long-range Operating Criteria. And curiously, under the โminimum probableโ scenario, assuming a continuation of the 2007 Interim Guidelines, the projected 2027 annual release at Glen Canyon Dam reverts to 8.23 maf. Under a quirk in the 2007 Interim Guidelines, if the December 31, 2026, projected elevation of Lake Powell is below 3525โ and the projected elevation of Lake Mead is below 1075,โ the release reverts to 8.23 maf. This was referred to as the โsacrifice Lake Powell to save Lake Meadโ strategy (seriously!).
Unless the 2025-26 winter is very wet or the Basin States can find consensus, the choices facing the Basin are stark: sacrifice Lake Powell for Lake Mead and perhaps keep ten-year Lee Ferry flows above the tripwire (no guarantee) or reduce annual releases from Glen Canyon Dam to maintain a balanced but small amount of storage in both reservoirs, which risks pushing cumulative 10-year flows past Lee Ferry across the tripwire.
Grays and Torreys, Dillon Reservoir May 2017. Photo credit Greg Hobbs.
Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website (Ryan Spencer). Here’s an excerpt:
May 25, 2025
Both the Dillon Reservoir and the Green Mountain Reservoir are expected to reach capacity this summer, Colorado Division of Water Resources division engineer James Heath said at the State of the River in Silverthorne on Thursday, May 22…An about-normal snowpack in Summit County this winter means both reservoirs are expected to โfill and potentially spill,โ Heath said. While the snowpack levels were close to normal, the runoff has been slightly below normal because the county went into last winter with dry soils, he said…
The snowpack in the Colorado River Headwaters Basin peaked April 7, about a week earlier than normal, Heath said. At 89% of the 30-year-median…The Blue River Basin [peaked] April 8, at 108% of the 30-year-median, Heath said…
.Dillon Reservoir should reach an elevation of 9,012 feet by June 18, allowing both the Dillon and Frisco marinas to be fully operational by that time. Outflows…should exceed 500 cubic feet per second โ the level ideal for rafting the Blue River โ around the third week in June and continue until around the Fourth of July weekend, he said.
Green Mountain Reservoir. Photo credit: Colorado Parks & Wildlife
Glen Canyon Dam during high flow experimental release about a decade ago. These occasional releases are just about the only time the river outlet works (where water is gushing out above) operate. Photo credit: Jonathan P. Thompson/The Land Desk
Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral webiste (Brandon Loomis). Here’s an excerpt:
May 23, 2025
Story Summary
Federal officials have confirmed that they will not flood the Grand Canyon this spring, citing ongoing work on Glen Canyon Dam and in the Colorado River downstream.
Colorado River advocates say failing to flood the Canyon will hurt efforts to restore beaches and preserve the environment below Glen Canyon Dam.
Some river advocates say the government’s decision may run afoul of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, which requires the feds to preserve ecological and recreational aspects of the Canyon.
Federal officials have rejected a plan to release floodwaters from Lake Powell to restore Grand Canyon beaches this spring, frustrating river advocates who question the governmentโs commitment to protecting the canyonโs environment…With repeated decisions not to open the floodgates even when the sand is available, some are questioning whether the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program is preserving Grand Canyonโs ecology and recreation as required under the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992…
โWe are failing,โ said Ben Reeder, a Utah-based river guide who represents the Grand Canyon River Guides on a technical work group that considers management options for the Reclamation Bureau.
Reclamation officials said in April that they would recommend that new Interior Secretary Doug Burgum not authorize the flood because a National Park Service contractor was excavating inย a slough downstream of the damย to disrupt its use as a spawning bed by non-native fish, including smallmouth bass. Work on relining the bypass tubes to protect their steel pipes also interfered…The floods cost perhaps $1 million or $2 million in lost hydroelectric production, according to Leslie James, who represents mostly rural and tribal power consumers in the program as executive director of theย Colorado River Energy Distributors Association. Last year, when there was no major flood but the dam managers regularlyย pulsed cold water through the bypass tubesย to keep the river inhospitable to bass spawning, the agency said the cost in lost power production was $19 million. The losses deplete a fund that pays for dam maintenance and environmental programs, James noted, and drawing more from that fund this year could cause delays in maintenance.
This historical photo shows the penstocks of the Shoshone power plant above the Colorado River. A coalition led by the Colorado River District is seeking to purchase the water rights associated with the plant. Credit: Library of Congress photo
Denver, Aurora, Colorado Springs and Northern Water voiced opposition Wednesday to the Western Slopeโs proposal to spend $99 million to buy historic water rights on the Colorado River.
The Colorado River Water Conservation District has been working for years to buy the water rights tied to Shoshone Power Plant, a small, easy-to-miss hydropower plant off Interstate 70 east of Glenwood Springs. The highly coveted water rights are some of the largest and oldest on the Colorado River in Colorado.
The Front Range providers are concerned that any change to the water rights could impact water supplies for millions of people in cities, farmers, industrial users and more. The Front Range providers publicly voiced their concerns, some for the first time,ย at a meeting of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, a state water policy agency.
The proposed purchase taps into a decades-old water conflict in Colorado: Most of the stateโs water flows west of the Continental Divide; most of the population lives to the east; and water users are left to battle over how to share it.
โIf this proposal were to go forward as presented in the application, it could harm our ability to provide water for essential use during severe or prolonged drought. I think itโs important for the board to understand that,โ Jessica Brody, an attorney for Denver Water, told the 15-member board Wednesday.
Denver Water, the oldest and largest water provider in Colorado, delivers water to 1.5 million residents in the Denver area.
The Colorado River District, which represents 15 Colorado counties west of the Continental Divide, wants to keep the status quo permanently to support river-dependent Western Slope economies without harming other water users, district officials said.
The overstressed and drought-plagued river is a vital water source for about 40 million people across the West and northern Mexico.
โThat right is so important to keeping the Colorado River alive,โ Andy Mueller, Colorado River District general manager, said during the meetingโs public comment period. โThis is a right that will save this river from now into eternity โฆ and thatโs why this is so important.โ
Over 70 people, nearly twice the usual audience, attended the four-hour Shoshone discussion Wednesday, which involved 561 pages of documents, over 20 speakers and a public comment period.
The Western Slope aims to make history
The water rights in question, owned by Public Service Company of Colorado, a subsidiary of Xcel, are some of the most powerful on the Colorado River in Colorado.
Using the rights, the utility can take water out of the river, send it through hydropower turbines, and spit it back into the river about 2.4 miles downstream.
One right is old, dating back to 1905, which means it can cut off water to younger โ or junior โ upstream water users to ensure it gets its share of the river in times of shortage. Some of those junior water rights are owned by Denver Water, Aurora, Colorado Springs Utilities and Northern Water.
The rights are also tied to numerous, carefully negotiated agreements that dictate how water flows across both western and eastern Colorado.
Bicycling the Colorado National Monument, Grand Valley in the distance via Colorado.com
Over time, Western Slope communities have come to rely on Shoshoneโs rights to pull water to their area to benefit farmers, ranchers, river companies, communities and more.
The Colorado River District wants to buy the rights to ensure that westward flow of water will continue even if Xcel shuts down Shoshone (which the utility has said, repeatedly, it has no plans to do).
Theyโve gathered millions of dollars from a broad coalition of communities, irrigators and other water users. The state of Colorado plans to give $20 million to help fund the effort.
Supporters sent over 50 letters to the Colorado Water Conservation Board before Wednesdayโs meeting.
โI wanted to just convey the excitement that the river district and our 30 partners have, here on the West Slope, to really do something that is available once in a generation,โ Mueller said.
The Front Range water providers all said they, too, wanted to maintain those status quo flows. They just donโt want to see any changes to the timing, amount or location of where they get their supplies.
Under the districtโs proposal, the state would be able to use Shoshoneโs senior water rights to keep water in the Colorado River for ecosystem health when the power plant isnโt in use.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board is tasked with deciding whether it will accept the districtโs proposal for an environmental use. The meeting Wednesday triggered a 120-day decision making process.
โAny change to the rights will have impacts both intended and unintended, and it is important for the board to understand those impacts to avoid harm to existing water users,โ Brody said.
The water provider plans to contest the Colorado River Districtโs plan within that 120-day period.
How much water is at stake?
The Front Range providers voiced another concern: The River Districtโs proposal could be inflating Shoshoneโs past water use.
Water rights come with upper limits on how much water can be used. Itโs a key part of how water is managed in Colorado: Setting a limit ensures one person isnโt using too much water to the detriment of other users.
For those who have a stake in Shoshoneโs water rights โ which includes much of Colorado โ itโs a number to fight over.
The River District did an initial historical analysis, which calculated that Shoshone used 844,644 acre-feet on average per year between 1975 and 2003. One acre-foot of water supplies two to three households for a year.
Denver Water said the analysis ignored the last 20 years of Shoshone operations. Colorado Springs, Northern Water and Aurora questioned the districtโs math. Northern was the first provider to do so publicly in August.
โWe think the instream flow is expanded from its original historic use by up to 36%,โ said Alex Davis, Aurora Waterโs assistant general manager of water supply and demand.
She requested the board do its own study of Shoshoneโs historical water use instead of accepting the River Districtโs analysis โ which would mean the state agency would side with one side of the state, the Western Slope, against the other, Davis said.
The River District emphasized that its analysis was preliminary. The final analysis will be decided during a multiyear water court process, which is the next step if the state decides to accept the instream flow application.
Water court can be contentious and costly, Davis said.
โThis could be incredibly divisive if we have to battle it out in water court, and we donโt want to do that,โ Davis said.
Due to decreased water flow from Stagecoach Reservoir, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) will implement a mandatory full-day fishing closure on a 0.6-mile stretch of the Yampa River between the dam at Stagecoach State Park downstream to the lowermost park boundary.
To avoid and minimize fish mortality within this tailwater fishery, a closure will take effect beginning Monday, May 19, until further notice.
“We are trying to be proactive in protecting the outstanding catch-and-release fishery we have downstream of Stagecoach Reservoir,” said Marisa Eley, CPW Steamboat Springs Area Aquatic Biologist. โThis closure is an effort to protect the resource by giving the fish a bit of a reprieve as they are prone to increased stressors related to these low-flow conditions.โ
When water flows are minimal, fish become concentrated in residual pool habitat and become stressed due to increased competition for food resources. The fish become much easier targets for anglers, an added stressor that can result in increased hooking mortality.
CPW works closely with the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District (UYWCD), which owns and operates Stagecoach Reservoir, to stay informed on reservoir releases.
“We are grateful for our partnership with UYWCD,” said Stagecoach State Park Manager Craig Preston. โTheir dedication to keeping us updated on water flows in and out of the reservoir greatly contributes to protecting this unique fishery for current and future generations.โ
โWe will continue to closely monitor the inflow at Stagecoach Reservoir,โ said Andy Rossi, UYWCD General Manager. โIf we see increased inflow, we can respond quickly to adjust outflow and work with CPW to determine if the closure could be lifted.โ
Like many rivers and streams in Western Colorado, the Yampa River offers world-class fishing and attracts thousands of anglers every year.
For more information or current fishing conditions at Stagecoach State Park, call 970-736-2436.
For more information about fishing in Colorado, including current fishing conditions and alternative places to fish, visit the CPW website.
The May 1st forecast for the April โ July unregulated inflow volume to Blue Mesa Reservoir is 460,000 acre-feet. This is 72% of the 30 year average. Snowpack in the Upper Gunnison Basin peaked at 93% of normal. Blue Mesa Reservoir current content is 527,000 acre-feet which is 64% of full. Current elevation is 7483.4 ft. Maximum content at Blue Mesa Reservoir is 828,00 acre-feet at an elevation of 7519.4 ft.
Based on the May forecasts, the Black Canyon Water Right and Aspinall Unit ROD peak flow targets are listed below:
Black Canyon Water Right
The peak flow target is equal to 2,360 cfs for a duration of 24 hours.
The shoulder flow target is 300 cfs, for the period between May 1 and July 25.
Aspinall Unit Operations ROD
The year type is currently classified as Moderately Dry.
The peak flow target is 4,585 cfs for a duration of 1 day (based on a May 15 forecast of 430 Kaf)
There are no half bankfull duration or peak duration targets.
Pursuant to the Aspinall Unit Operations ROD, releases from the Aspinall Unit will be made in an attempt to match the peak flow of the North Fork of the Gunnison River to maximize the potential of meeting the desired peak at the Whitewater gage, while simultaneously meeting the Black Canyon Water Right peak flow amount. The latest forecast for flows on the North Fork of the Gunnison River shows a period of high and near peak flows beginning on May 29th.
Therefore ramp up for the spring peak operation will begin on Saturday, May 24th, with the intent of timing releases with this potential higher flow period on the North Fork of the Gunnison River. Releases from Crystal Dam will be ramped up according to the guidelines specified in the EIS, with 2 release changes per day, until Crystal begins to spill. The release schedule for Crystal Dam is:
Crystal Dam will be at full powerplant and bypass release on May 28th and Crystal Reservoir will likely begin spilling by the next day. The peak release from Crystal Dam should be reached on May 29th and the peak flow on the Gunnison River at Whitewater should be reached on May 30th.
The current projection for spring peak operations shows flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon peaking around 3700 cfs in order to achieve the desired peak flow at Whitewater. Actual flows will be dependent on the downstream contribution of the North Fork of the Gunnison River and other tributaries. Lower tributary flows could lead to higher releases from the Aspinall Unit and vice versa. Once the peak target has been reached, details of the ramp down operation will be released.
Black Canyon July 2020. Photo credit: Cari Bischoff
We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own realityโฆ. And while youโre studying that realityโjudiciously, as you willโweโll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and thatโs how things will sort out.โ
That is indeed the way things seem to be sorting out today, in imperial America, under the imperious Trump, breakers of things. โThe administrationโ breaks a law in the process of creating Trumpโs still vaguely formulated imperial reality. Citizen groups bring suit against his action, and the action is studied by judges in the context of the Constitutional rule-of-law, part of our existing (recently existing?) triumvirate reality of legislate-execute-evaluate, checks-and-balances, et cetera.
The judges tell Trump that he is exceeding his Constitutional authority, and he must undo most of what he has done. But by then he has distracted us from that by breaking something else in his chainsaw massacre of 250 years of American evolution, another action the judges must study and pass judgment on, thanks to suits brought by groups faithful to Constitutional reality.
But Trump ignores all of their judgments by appealing them, as he continues to commit actions reshaping reality and warranting further judicial study. And the Constituttional reality weโve taken for granted for 250 years suddenly begins to seem somewhat less real than it was back in good old 2024. When we should have known better โ but those damn grocery prices, and Trump promised that on day oneโฆ. Well, fool us once, shame on the fool; fool us twice (or fifty or a hundred times), shame on us.
So on to damage control. Today I want to look at the unfolding situation with the nationโs public lands โ always a sore spot with many true conservative Republicans from western states as well as Trumpโs Repugnicans. The map below shows the situation โ more than 630 million acres of public land, most of it by far in the West: small dots and patches of it east of the Great Plains, but vast swaths west of the plains. This land is our land, as the song says, but how the composite โwe the peopleโ can or should relate to and live with this land has been an ongoing debate at all levels of governance for more than 250 years.
Youโll quickly note from the map above that public land is almost half of what we call the โIntermountain Westโ โ the region between (and including) the Rocky Mountains on the east and the Sierra-Cascade ranges on the West. The importance of these particular public lands and their resources extends well beyond their actual geography. Most all of the water for the Colorado River, for example, starts on public lands in the green areas (National Forest lands) in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and nurtures the entire River Basin and some out-of-basin extensions all the way to southern California. Coal trains continue to rumble eastward from Wyoming, Utah and Colorado carrying low-sulphur coal to the remaining back-east coal-fired power plants โ and the Trumpsters want to make coal great again (โclean, coalโ of course). Trucks roll down from the publicโs mountain forests carrying 150-year-old spruce logs like we will not see again for four or five generations, if then, destined for suburban housing โ and the Trumptsters want to increase logging from those lands by 25 percent.
But what I want to focus on today is the yellow land on the map, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land that makes up around half of the Intermountain West, and a large portion of the Colorado River Basin, mostly below 8,000 feet elevation. The BLM is a bureaucracy in the Interior Department, Iโll remind you, charged with managing all of the public lands that have not yet been designated for more specific uses, like National Forests or National Parks.
This gets the BLM nicknamed the โBureau of Leftover Management,โ but that misses the real picture. The BLM lands do include a lot of brown or just barren land that makes one think nature is still trying to figure out what to do with it. But the BLM lands also include a very diverse and often spectacularly beautiful array of ecological landscapes from which areas are regularly designated (and sometimes undesignated then redesignated) as National Monuments (28 of them now on former BLM land), Wilderness Areas (221), and more than 600 others areas designated as part of the National Conservation Lands, including National Scenic Rivers, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and,refuges for various threatened and endangered species. There are treasures yet to be discovered, and either used or protected from use, in the BLM lands.
Significant segments of this land made the news recently when my congressman, Jeff Hurd of Coloradoโs Third District (the West Slope, headwaters of the Colorado River), introduced a bill for a โProductive Public Lands Act.โ Rep. Hurd, I will note, occasionally behaves more like a true Republican than a Repugnican. He was one of the few Republican congressmen brave enough to voice disapproval of Trumpโs pardon of all the January Sixth rebels. Most recently, he was the only Republican to vote against the suspicious sale of some BLM lands in the vicinity of โgrowth hot spotsโ in Nevada and Utah. He has shown some spine in not drinking all of the Trump koolaid.
But the โProductive Public Lands Actโ bill, and the language used to sell it, are pure Trumpish bullshit. I will let Congressman Hurd speak first for it: โThis bill would force the Bureau of Land Management to reissue nine Biden-era Resource Management Plans (RMPs) which locked up access to viable lands throughout Colorado and the West. A reissuance of [the Trump-era] RMPs will put us on a path to energy dominance allowing for a more secure and prosperous United States.โ
A colleague in the Western Republican Caucus, California Congressman Doug LaMalfa, chimes in: โThe Biden Administration was hell-bent on locking up public lands, threatening the prosperity of rural economies across the countryโฆ. Fortunately, a new era has dawned, and we have the opportunity to reverse these lockups and reinstate the multiple-use mandate on Americaโs public lands.โ
Thatโs raw meat to the Trump base, but itโs also disinformation of the sort that sounds good to the uncommitted but under-informed โ and most of us are somewhat under-informed on the public lands. โMultiple useโ โ who can object to that? Especially if Joe Biden was trying to โlock upโ the pubic lands and threatening our rural prosperity!
But as usual the barefoot lie has legs and runs off in all directions while the truth is still pulling on its support hose. The nine Resource Management Plans in question wereย notย created by President Biden and his โdeep stateโ cronies in Washington; they were created in accord with the rule of law, in this case, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. (FLMPA), passed in 1976 in a couple of remarkable decades of what might be called โeco-populismโ: a nation of people deeply concerned about the growing impacts of a century of unbridled industrial capitalism supercharged by fossil-fuel technology โ acid rain killing the forests, industrial pollution killing the rivers, out-of-sight-out-of-mind buried barrels of unidentified stuff killing people drinking from aquifers. The people elected Congresses in the 1960s and 70s that โ imagine this! โ actually addressed the peopleโs concerns with legislation that began to change the game; tempering the enthusiastic power to change the planet with a growing sense of responsibility for the changes being wrought, and their consequences.
American Progress (1872) by John Gast is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Columbia, a personification of the United States, is shown leading civilization westward with the American settlers. She is shown bringing light from east to west, stringing telegraph wire, holding a book, and highlighting different stages of economic activity and evolving forms of transportation. By John Gast – This image is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID 09855.This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=373152
Passage of the FLMPA in 1976 marked a major step in the evolution of public land management โ which did not even exist overall until after World War II. From the 1780s until 1946, all of the new nationโs undesignated lands were under the U.S. General Land Office, which essentially had one purpose: to get as much of that land as possible into private hands as soon as possible, through vehicles like the 1864 Homestead Act, the 1872 General Mining Act, and others going back the 1787 Northwest Ordinance. The American expansionist vision was a land full of rugged American individuals, farming, mining, logging, stockgrowing, all with their own piece of land, and all living in modest decentralized self-sufficient communities that would be the safely dispersed foundation of American democracy.
But by 1900 we were beginning to take ever-larger segments of the public lands out of Land Office control, realizing that cheap land was often getting treated cheaply. Congress began setting aside National Parks and Monuments, beginning with Yellowstone in 1872. In the 1890s presidents began establishing โForest Reservesโ to protect valuable forest land from โtimber minersโ; early in the 20th century these became National Forests, and were moved administratively to the Department of Agriculture, with rangers to protect them and set up grazing fees and timber sales.
Charging for uses on the unclaimed public lands that had basically been used free was not popular (still isnโt), but there was a grudging acknowledgment that management was probably necessary. This was affirmed in the 1930s when a group of Colorado ranchers worked with their congressman Edward Taylor to create the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, and 80 million acres were withdrawn from General Land Office disposition to be managed by a new Grazing Service โ with fees for users.
That paralleled another big cultural change happening in America through the first half of the 20th century: rural Americans were moving to the cities; around 1920 the growing urban population passed the declining rural population, and while the nation still paid lip service to the โfamily farm,โ there were few people going out to homestead on the public lands. Instead, an increasingly well-off and mobile urban โmiddle class,โ with two-week paid vacations, rediscovered the public lands as a resource for recreation, relaxation and renewal; they wanted the public lands to stay forever beautiful, spectacular, adventuresome โ and accessible.
These two changes led to the Grazing Service and the General Land Office being quietly combined in 1946 into the Bureau of Land Management โ with the Land Office gradually fading into irrelevance: the United States were no longer in the business of selling off national treasures cheap.
What we see in this evolution is a nation of people gradually waking up to the reality of needing to begin taking responsibility for the consequences of a century of enthusiastic exploitation. The final step came 30 years later with the Federal Land Management and Planning Act in 1976 noted earlier โ following the foundational National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. NEPA mandated that any project involving federal funding would be preceded by a full environmental impact analysis: we will look before we leap. And if it involved public land, it would have to fit in with developed Resource Management Plans, and some larger projects would have to do their own RMP. This was tedious, difficult, often contentious work โ but essential to serious democratic governance. Impatience with this hard work is the first seed of submission to tyranny.
The Resource Management Plans for public lands are all required to have two components. One is planning for multiple uses โ all the uses practiced or potentially practiced on the land in question had to be fit into the overall purposes of each plan. The other requirement is public participation at every stage of the process, from all groups with a practical or potential use interest in that land.
โMultiple useโ does not mean โeverything going on everywhereโ; it means determining how much of every use represented at the table can go on with reasonable accommodation to every other use, and where in the planning area it should happen. There are land and resource uses that are compatible with other uses, and there are uses destined to be the only thing happening in specific places. Mining/drilling, logging, and intensive farming are obviously single uses on any given piece of land, while grazing and hiking and some conservation uses can all go on in the same area, with reasonable accommodations to each other. And the โmandatedโ public participation means that all would-be users will be heard from in the planning process โ participate or shut up.
A Gunnison sage-grouse hen leads her chicks in the Gunnison basin during the summer of 2019. Some private landowners have undertaken habitat restoration projects on placed conservation easements on their property in an effort to protect the bird. Photo credit: Greg Petersen via Aspen Journalism
I canโt speak to all nine of the Resource Management Plans that Hurd and LaMalfa want to repeal, but I am quite familiar with one of them: โThe Gunnison Sage-Grouse Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment, dated October 2024.โ This is a RMP to try to save a species of Sage Grouse that has been listed as โThreatenedโ by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Endangered Species Act. Without going into the multiple decades of detail, this plan was worked out among ranchers, outdoor recreational users (both motorized and unmotorized), fishermen, environmental organizations, scientists, local government representatives, state and federal agencies, industrial reps when relevant, and citizens just interested.
There are places in the basin where some of the single-use land users are indeed โlocked outโ for restoration needs, but this is not โJoe Biden locking them outโ; this is the people establishing priorities based on difficult efforts to balance economic and ecological needs, in places at least as dependent on recreational uses as extractive uses. Bidenโs only relationship with the whole process was to give the rule of law (FLMPA/NEPA) his blessing, and the time and space it warrants to get it hashed out down on the ground where the problem shapes lives.
To hammer the point home, in case you donโt get it โ This is not an absence of โmultiple use planningโ; it is a stellar example of it. The RMP has been worked out over the past two decades by multiple users of landscapes shared with a threatened species who are all willing to try to live with the plan โ the kind of local governance that was once celebrated by โMain Street Republicansโ (as opposed to โWall Street Republicansโ). I expect the other eight plans have somewhat the same rooted authenticity.
So long as we have the legal mandate to do this, and the local patience and will to work it out in our down-on-the-ground reality, we have not yet fully succumbed to the imperial โcreated realityโ that Trump and our local Congressman want to impose on us.
The next logical step here is to ask whether the poor oppressed oil and gas industry, which the Repugnicans want to โliberateโ through the Productive Public Lands Bill, really needs liberating โ which requires looking at what they can and cannot do now, and whose fault that is or isnโt. But Iโve taken so long here in providing some background for that discussion that itโs time to give you a breather. Iโll be back with the rest of the story in a couple weeks. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, Iโll leave you with this irrelevant reflection on Trumpโs rejection of the low-flow showerhead:
An anti-BLM sticker (referring, presumably, to the federal land agency, not the Black Lives Matter movement) at another Phil Lyman rally against โfederal overreachโ and motorized travel closures in southeastern Utah back in 2014. Photo credit: Jonathan P. Thompson/The Land Desk
North Fork Snake River. Melted snow is the primary source of drinking water for the 1.5 million people who rely on Denver Water every day. Photo credit: Denver Water.
News headlines this spring offered a bleak picture of Coloradoโs snowpack heading into the spring runoff season. But, as always with headlines, it is best to also read the story that follows.
Because the story for Denver Water isnโt quite so dour.
Snowpack woes hit Coloradoโs southern half hard. For Denver Water, positioned farther north, the water supply looks better.
First, letโs do the numbers.
Denver Water had a weak showing in the South Platte River Basin, with peak snowpack hitting just 84% of normal and โ most unhelpful of all โ peaking on April 6, 19 days earlier than typical.
The news was far better in the Colorado River Basin (north of the South Platte River Basin), which accounts for the other half of Denver Waterโs supply. There, peak snowpack clocked in at 109% on April 25, right on the mark for a typical peak date.
โOverall, not great, but not terrible either,โ summed up Nathan Elder, water supply manager for the utility.
The best news for Denver Water: The utility is starting the runoff and reservoir-filling season with existing storage levels about 2% above average.
Thatโs a credit to its customersโ efforts to conserve water and translates into a good chance that Denver Water will be able to fill its storage reservoirs that help 1.5 million people get through the summer hot season.
But โfillโ doesnโt mean โspill.โ That is, there wonโt be excess water to spill into rivers in what can make for dramatic visuals and provide an extra boost to river flows.
โWe hope to fill our reservoirs right to the brim, but thatโs where it stops,โ Elder said.
Denver Waterโs planners are concerned about a hot-and-dry trend taking hold in May, and emphasize the need for residents to adhere to the utilityโs annual summer watering rules that allow irrigation only in the evening and morning hours (between 6 p.m. and 10 a.m.) and limit irrigation to no more than three days a week โ preferably just one or two days when springtime temperatures are lower.
And watch the skies. When we do get a good rainstorm, turn your sprinkler dial to โoffโ for a few days.
The generally poor snowpack and early runoff in much of the state, including in the South Platte River Basin, also stokes concerns for a rough fire season, as 9News meteorologist Chris Bianchi pointed out in a May 13, 2025, story:
โThis yearโs snowpack levels resemble those recorded in 2018, 2012, 2002 and 1992. All of which were marked by intense wildfire activity. Three out of those four years saw large-scale fires, raising concerns that 2025 could follow a similar trajectory unless weather patterns shift dramatically.โ
And, on a too-long-didn’t-read basis, hereโs Bianchiโs tweet that summed up the story:
Denver Waterโs watershed experts agree that conditions could increase wildfire risk.
โThe risk of wildfire is relatively low when there is snow on the ground. When snowpack melts rapidly, vegetation can dry out quickly and become susceptible to wildfire ignitions,โ said Madelene McDonald, a watershed scientist and wildfire specialist for Denver Water.
Though McDonald notes that experts anticipate โaverageโ wildfire behavior in Colorado in 2025, that still means thousands of fires that could collectively affect more than 100,000 acres in the state.
โItโs important to stay vigilant and prepared to experience wildfire under any snowpack conditions or fire outlook scenarios,โ she said.
An April pivot
The current outlook is a pivot from what had been looking like a normal year for snowpack as recently as April 1, Elder said.
โFor Denver Water, April is typically a month where we build snow,โ he said.
But that didnโt happen this year, and by mid-May the snowpack had shriveled to half its typical percentage.
The tepid spring in the South Platte River Basin also highlights the importance of Denver Waterโs Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, which recently has been slowed in federal court. (Read Denver Waterโs recent statement on a May 6 court hearing.)
That project will expand the reservoir and add roughly 80,000 acre-feet of water storage capacity in the utilityโs north system, which gathers snowmelt from the Upper Colorado River Basin. That additional water storage will provide a buffer to protect the utilityโs customers from the effects of years when the snowpack is weaker, like this year, in Denver Waterโs separate and unconnected south system.
โOur system is robust but suffers from significant imbalance,โ Elder said.
โWe rely too heavily on our south system, on the South Platte, which accounts for 90% of our storage,โ he said. โIncreasing storage to the north will give Denver Water far more flexibility to handle these weaker snowpack years on the South Platte.โ
And years marked by a weaker snowpack in the South Platte River Basin have become more common.
In four of the last five years, the South Platte snowpack above Denver Waterโs collection system has peaked below normal. And in that fifth year โ last year โ it barely cleared the โnormalโ bar at 101%. All of which amplifies the need for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.
Raising Gross Dam, seen here on April 8, 2025, will nearly triple the water storage capacity of the reservoir behind it. The project has been in the permitting and review process for 23 years. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Now, as June approaches, water managers will turn their focus to runoff levels, temperatures and fire potential. And come summer, they will once again โ as always โ hope for a big dose of monsoonal moisture.
Those big rainstorms not only deliver a boost to rivers and reservoirs but prompt attentive customers to turn off their irrigation system and let their grass and plants drink up natureโs soaking bounty.
Remember, the less you pour, the more your water utility can store.
And itโs never a bad time to consider transforming your landscape, or even parts of it.
Denver Water has a new guide to help: the DIY Landscape Transformation Guide, and it includes ways to eradicate grass in the areas where you want to remodel your landscape with native plants and other changes.
Denver Water relies on a network of reservoirs to collect and store water. The large collection area provides flexibility for collecting water as some areas receive different amounts of precipitation throughout the year. Image credit: Denver Water.
Grand County is home to numerous lakes, reservoirs and rivers. Currently, the county is sitting better than other areas in Colorado in terms of drought. But as a dry, hot summer is forecast, the Grand County Drought Preparedness Committee declared a drought watch. This is the lowest level of the four drought stages.ย According to the committee, the county has experienced its two driest decades in history.ย Theย drought committeeย includes stakeholders across the county who look at environmental indicators to determine droughts levels and give recommendations for water conservation…In aย news release,ย the committee states the drought watch is spurred by significant snowmelt thatโs occurred since early April. The Upper Colorado River Basinโs snowpack levels were at 67% of median on May 8, the release states…
Foulk said that the preparedness committee will reconvene on May 27 to review the countyโs drought indicators. Based on precipitation levels and other factors, the county could move up to Stage 1 drought warning, or go back down from the current drought watch. For eachย droughtย stage, the preparednessย committeeย recommends specific water reduction actions. Regardless of the current level of drought, residents are encouraged to conserve water as normal practice. Small steps in community membersโ homes and yards can have big impact on the waters that flow through Grand County.
Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website. Here’s an excerpt:
May 15, 2025
The Colorado River District will hold one of its 11 โState of the Riverโ events in Silverthorne on Thursday, May 22. The event, held in partnership with the Blue River Watershed Group, will be held at the Silverthorne Pavilion from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., according to theย Colorado River Districtโs website…
Presentations will cover topics including current river conditions and seasonal forecasts, updates on the Colorado River system,ย local water projectsย affecting the Blue River in Summit County, updates on theย Shoshone River water rightsย efforts, conservation efforts in the region and updates on recent legislative efforts. Registration is required. To register for the โState of the Riverโ event visitย ColoradoRiverDistrict.org/state-of-the-river-meetings-2025
The central mountains of Colorado, including Aspen, are currently experiencing a snowpack that is only 42% of the seasonal average, a dramatic shortfall that is already producing consequences for river flows, drought conditions, and fire risk across the region. Meteorologist Kris Sanders with the National Weather Service in Grand Junction confirmed the snowpack is not only low, but melting rapidly.
โWe peaked at pretty close to normal โ around 80% โ but normally we see the snowpack last a little longer,โ he said. โIt has been melting quicker.โ
The zero snow water equivalent, a measurement of the amount of water contained in snowpack, is projected by the end of May, Sanders said. In other words, there soon wonโt be any water content left in the central mountainsโ snowpack…Sanders noted that recent precipitation will offer only short-term relief.ย He said the Roaring Fork Valley received up to less than one inch of rain, and four to eight inches of snow in the higher elevations, with close to a foot at the highest…He added that the central mountains are forecasted to remain abnormally dry, with moderate drought conditions likely persisting through the summer…[Matthew Anderson]pointed to current Roaring Fork River flows at Glenwood Springs, which are around 900 cubic feet per second (cfs) due to recent cold. The Colorado Basin River Forecast Center expects peak flows to reach 2,000 cfs within 10 days, a steep drop from the usual 6,000 cfs typically seen in early June.
The Colorado River from the Navajo Bridge. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral.com website (Austin Corona). Here’s an excerpt:
May 15, 2025
Key Points
With no settlement yet on how to manage shortages on the Colorado River, the Trump administration is preparing to fill its last vacant Western water post, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
The seven states who draw water from the Colorado have struggled for years to agree on a plan to deal with shortfalls. The divisions remain among the states on the upper river and lower river.
Arizona’s top water negotiator says the Trump administration seems more willing to talk about different approaches to shortage sharing, but issues about who should take the largest cuts remain
The Trump administration is preparing to announce its pick to head the Bureau of Reclamation, a crucial position in deciding the future of the Colorado River, a White House spokesperson told The Arizona Republic. The move would effectively complete the new federal team overseeing strained negotiations over one of Arizonaโs largest water sources. The new commissioner will take charge amid tense negotiations among the seven states that use the Colorado River, which has strained under multi-decade drought and high water demand…
Experts worry that this yearโs poor river flows could trigger lawsuits over foundational river-management laws as soon as 2027. States only have months to reach a deal, and negotiators have not shown signs of progress.
Tom Buschatzke, director of the state Department of Water Resources and Arizonaโs Colorado River negotiator, has said the Trump administration is already more โengaged in a much more meaningful wayโ on the Colorado River than former President Joe Biden’s team and has responded to some of Arizonaโs long-unanswered requests in the negotiating process.ย Trump officials could give Arizona and the other Lower Basin states of California and Nevada a new opportunity to convince federal regulators that those states should not have to take all the cuts on the river. Biden negotiators would not call for cuts in the Upper Basin, while Buschatzke said the new administration may be more open to finding a โcollaborativeโ solution.ย Even so, Upper Basin states โ Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico โ have continued arguing that they cannot be forced to cut their water use if climate change and drought are the causes of low flows in the river, meaning any attempts to cut their use could lead to a lawsuit.ย A case could drag on for years, while water levels in the reservoirs continue to drop.
The Cache la Poudre River flows through Bellevue, Colorado on May 12, 2025. Water from the river will be used to fill the nearby Glade Reservoir once it’s built. The cost to build the new water storage project has grown from $400 million to $2.2 billion. Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
May 15, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of water in the West, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
Thereโs a stretch of highway in Larimer County where prairie grasses sway with each passing vehicle. Cars, horse trailers and semi trucks zip through the valley on their way between Fort Collins and Laramie. Soon, itโll be under more than 200 feet of water.
U.S. Highway 287 runs through the future site of Glade Reservoir. The Larimer county Board of County Commissioners approved the 1041 Land Use Permit for NISP in September, 2020. Photo credit: Northern Water
Itโs the planned site of Glade Reservoir, the cornerstone of a massive new water storage system designed to meet the demands of fast-growing towns and cities in Northern Colorado. After more than two decades of permitting, planning and environmental lawsuits, itโs closer than ever to breaking ground.
But along the way, some things changed. Over the years, costs to build the reservoir system โ and reroute seven miles of U.S. Highway 287 โ have ballooned. Price estimates for the Northern Integrated Supply Project, often referred to as NISP, went from $400 million to $2.2 billion. Because of that, some of the towns that signed up to use its water are cutting back on their involvement before the reservoir system stores a single drop.
Northern Water, the agency building NISP, has projected confidence that it will still get built as planned. The long road from idea to construction, and the things that have changed along the way, can tell us a lot about how Northern Colorado uses water, and how much it costs to keep taps flowing.
The Northern Integrated Supply Project, currently estimated at $2 billion, would create two new reservoirs and a system of pipelines to capture more drinking water for 15 community water suppliers. (Northern Water project pages)
Rising costs
When it was first pitched, in the early 2000s, NISP garnered support as a way to make sure small towns with fast-growing populations could host new housing developments without going dry.
For a tiny town like Severance, that was an attractive proposition. Just 11 years ago, about midway through the NISP planning process, the town had a population of about 3,000. Thatโs when Nicholas Wharton took the job as town manager. Since then, heโs overseen the installation of the townโs first stoplight, the from-scratch development of its own police department and a homebuilding boom that has nearly quadrupled Severanceโs population.
Signing on to NISP, he said, was a way to make sure Severance had enough water for all that growth.
โI think for smaller towns,โ he said, โIt was a great idea back when it was affordable to us.โ
Wesley Lavanchy, the town administrator for Eaton, Colo., poses outside of his office on April 15, 2025. His town is one of four water agencies that reduced the amount of water it would store in NISP, and the amount it would pay to keep it there. Alex Hager/KUNC
Since then, Severance has cut back on the amount of water it will store in NISP, and the amount it will pay to be a part of the project. At one point, the town held 2,000 shares of the project. In 2024, it sold off 1,500 of those shares. Wharton said the town council might try to sell off even more.
And Severance isnโt alone.
Due West, in Eaton, town officials also got cold feet. They were one of four NISP shareholders to offload a portion of their involvement in the new reservoir project on the same day in July 2024.
For years, the water agencies that were part of NISP were mostly focused on paperwork โ making sure the project had the permits it needed to get built. Then, there was a lawsuit from environmentalists standing in the way. But after NISPโs proponents were mostly seeing green lights on permits and decided to settle a major lawsuit, the focus shifted to money.
โI think the question for us now is, how do we afford this?,โ said Wesley Lavanchy, Eatonโs town administrator. โMoving forward, how much can we afford? It’s like chocolate cake. You like it, it tastes great, but you can’t eat the whole thing.โ
Ultimately, Eaton decided to sell off more than half of its NISP shares.
โI suspect that more entities would have been able to hold their commitment had the permitting process not drug on so long, the cost escalated, the litigation kind of wrapped things up,โ Lavanchy said.
Cheaper alternatives
While the cost to build NISP has gone up, the cost of other water sources has gone down. Eaton and Severance said itโs getting easier to afford shares of the Colorado-Big Thompson project, which was a big motivator in their pullback from NISP.
That project, referred to as CBT, pipes water from the Colorado River across the continental divide. It flows underneath Rocky Mountain National Park and into major reservoirs along the Northern Front Range, such as Horsetooth Reservoir near Fort Collins and Carter Lake outside of Loveland.
Water from the Colorado-Big Thompson project is managed by Northern Water, the same agency building and operating NISP.
Boats cruise across Horsetooth Reservoir near Fort Collins, Colorado on May 12, 2025. The reservoir holds water from the Colorado-Big Thompson project, which has seen prices level off in recent years. Glade Reservoir is expected to be even larger than Horsetooth. Alex Hager/KUNC
For years, the CBT system was the main way for growing cities in Larimer and Weld Counties to get water for residential development. Typically, farms have sold their portion of CBT water to cities, towns, or developers. Occasionally, they are taken to auction, where cities bid against one another for water stored in those big reservoirs.
The cost of that water skyrocketed between 2010 and 2022. Estimated prices, adjusted for inflation, went from less than $20,000 per share, to around $100,000 per share, according to data from the consulting firm Westwater research. Since 2022, that soaring rise has leveled out.
โWe believe that’s largely driven by a softening in the home construction sector,โ said Adam Jokerst, a Fort Collins-based regional director for Westwater. โA lot of CBT purchases are by municipalities and developers who dedicate them to municipalities. And when new home construction slows, we see less demand for those shares.โ
How did NISP get so expensive?
Northern Water said the price to build NISP has been climbing for about 15 years. Brad Wind, the agencyโs general manager, cited inflation and rising interest rates as major drivers. He doesnโt, however, expect that to stop or significantly change the reservoir project.
โIt’s an expensive project,โ Wind said. โWe and the participants advancing the project like it was envisioned.โ
The lengthy process to get the projectโs two reservoirs โ Glade, and a smaller one called Galeton reservoir โ from concept to construction gave time for the winds of economic change to shift direction. Itโs not uncommon for a massive dam project like NISP to take more than fifteen years to attain a laundry list of environmental permits.
The project also faced opposition from local governments and nonprofits. At one point, Fort Collins voted to oppose the project. The most significant roadblock came from the environmental nonprofit Save the Poudre.
The group rallied local support and took legal action to try and stop NISP. At a 2015 event, Save the Poudre director Gary Wockner told a crowd of supporters that he would โfight to stop the project for as long as it takes.โ
In late February, Wocknerโs group settled for $100 million dollars. Northern Water will pay that sum into a trust over the course of the next two decades, and the money will be used to fund river improvement projects. In the intervening time, though, the price tag to build NISP likely grew significantly.
Wind said Northern plans to hire a contractor that could find ways to bring down the price by changing construction methods, but doesnโt expect โsubstantial reductionsโ to building costs, especially with rising prices of imported construction materials.
Over the years, the towns and water agencies that wanted to use NISP signed periodic agreements to stay part of the project. Now, time is ticking for those participants to sign a binding contract.
Eatonโs Lavanchy said that upcoming contract made his town take a harder look at their water needs, and whether those needs would be satisfied by NISP.
โWe’re not dating anymore,โ he said, โWe’re getting married, and there’s no way out. Divorce is not an option. So it’s like, โLet’s be smart and think about, what are these obligations going to run us?โโ
โDemand continues to increaseโ
Even as some entities cut back on their financial ties to NISP, the project still has momentum.
For one, those towns and water agencies looking to sell their shares found a willing buyer. Eaton, Severance, Fort Lupton and the Left Hand Water District all sold their shares to the Fort Collins Loveland Water District.
Vehicles drive on U.S. Highway 287, near Bellevue, Colo. on May 12, 2025. The highway will be rerouted to make way for a massive new reservoir. Alex Hager/KUNC
The Fort Collins Loveland Water District, which serves an area roughly between Harmony Road and State Route 34, declined to be interviewed for this story.
Second, NISP has a total of 15 participants, and many of them are still on board for the same amount of water they signed up for years ago.
โNo matter what,โ Severanceโs Wharton said, โIn one way, you’ll see those 15 probably still continue to be a part of it no matter what, because everybody does realize how precious that water is and how this will be one of the last [big reservoirs.] I don’t think anybody’s discouraged.โ
Even the towns that reduced the amount of water theyโll pay to use from NISP are keeping some. Severance and Eaton said they want to make sure theyโre getting water from a diverse group of sources, especially with climate change and political bickering threatening their main source of water โ the Colorado River via the CBT.
Ultimately, the fast-growing region served by Northern Water โ from Boulder County to Fort Collins, and east to Fort Lupton โ will keep needing water for a future that will likely see plenty of new home construction.
โIt doesn’t appear that folks are shying away from moving to Northern Colorado,โ Brad Wind said. โEither from within our state or from outside of our state, so the demand continues to increase for a high quality water supply, which NISP will produce.โ
Regarding the Wolf Creek Reservoir on-going project, the district is still working to get an approval from the Army Corps of Engineers on theirย purpose and need statement to justify the project.ย Despite data from NRCS showing a drop of roughly 1/3 in water usage by area irrigators over the past 5 years, they have received funding to assess area water users need and or desire for additional water.ย The District will pursue a Recreation Survey as well.
The recently released Yampa River Scorecard Project grade of C-plus for the upper segment of the Yampa River shows a need for some improvements for overall river health in the stretch between Stillwater and Stagecoach reservoirs. Jenny Frithsen, environmental program manager at Friends of the Yampa, oversees the long-term river health monitoring and evaluation project. Frithsen said a major reason for the lower score is because that river segment is heavily utilized by agricultural water users but has less water coming in from smaller tributaries compared with downstream sections of the river.
โThe first and foremost contributor to river health is water in the river, and the Upper Yampa and the Bear River are arguably the hardest-working and most heavily administered sections of river in the Yampa River system,โ Frithsen said. โIt probably is no surprise that the flow regime has lower scores for our ecological river health assessment. It is an altered flow regime.โ
Frithsen presented a high-level overview of the 2024 river study segment during a South Routt Water Users meeting Monday evening at Soroco High School. The study looks at 45 indicators and nine characteristics of river health to determine and issue a score for combined flow and sediment regime, water quality, habitat and riverscape floodplain connectivity, riparian condition, river form, structural complexity and biotic community. On the positive side, the study team found the Upper Yampa stretch rated good in water quality, structural complexity, beaver activity, channel morphology and invasive weeds. The healthy beaver activity, especially on U.S. Forest Service land, showcases the natural engineering work of the large rodents to help mitigate the impacts of human water use and infrastructure. The beaversโ work maintains minimum flows in late summer and fall and provides a refuge for fish during low flows.
Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website (Kyle McCabe). Here’s an excerpt:
May 9, 2025
Snowpack in the Blue River Basin, which encompasses all of Summit County, stood at 90% of the 30-year median as of Friday. The figure shows that Summit is in a good position compared to the state as a whole, which sat at 58% of the median. Aldis Strautins, a service hydrologist with the National Weather Service in Boulder, said that 90% of the median is โwithin normal ranges.โ He added that some lower elevation areas of Summit County, like the 9,350 foot-elevation snow telemetry monitoring site atย Summit Ranch, have already melted out or gotten close.
โSome of the higher sites, like your Copper Mountain and Fremont Pass, those are still doing fairly well,โ Strautins said. โStill have quite a bit of snowpack up there, which would make sense for this time of year.โ
The Dillon Reservoir currently sits at 84% of its capacity, according to theย Denver Water website.
The Nutrient Farm store and greenhouse are located on Garfield County Road 335. Garfield County is considering a PUD application from Nutrient Farm to expand its operations into a restaurant, housing, lodging facilities, a music/entertainment area, campground, a health and wellness retreat, and other agricultural tourism-related operations. Credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
The source of water โ and whether thereโs enough to go around โ is at the heart of concerns about a proposed agritourism development for some local residents and Garfield County officials.
Nutrient Farm, an organic farm and ranch on the south side of the Colorado River between Glenwood Springs and New Castle, is seeking approval from Garfield County for a new planned unit development (PUD), which would include a restaurant, housing, lodging facilities, a music/entertainment area, campground, a health and wellness retreat, and other industrial and agricultural tourism-related operations on its 1,140 acres. Nutrient Farm would need water for its planned expansion of outdoor agricultural production including a โu-pickโ orchard, nursery trees, pasture grass, hay, corn, vegetables, lawns and landscaping.
At the confluence of Canyon Creek and the Colorado River. Photo credit: Friends of Canyon Creek
Nutrient Farm is proposing that the main water supply would come from Canyon Creek, a tributary on the north side of the Colorado River. It would be taken out of the creek 1.5 miles upstream from its confluence with the Colorado River and conveyed across the river and Interstate 70 via the Vulcan Ditch.
According to Colorado Division of Water Resources records, the Nutrient Farm property has not used water from Canyon Creek or the Vulcan Ditch in more than two decades.
Water supply studies found that there may not be enough water in Canyon Creek for the Vulcan Ditch to take the full amount to which it is entitled during the late irrigation season in dry years, raising questions about the adequacy of the Canyon Creek water supply and the projectโs impacts on the creek.
Concerned residents who live on Canyon Creek have formed Friends of Canyon Creek, a group dedicated to maintaining the ecological health of the stream. Six nearby property owners have hired a lawyer to oppose three water court cases related to Nutrient Farmโs water rights.
Sonia Linman lives along the creek and is an outspoken member of Friends of Canyon Creek. She is one of several residents who own property on the creek and donโt want to see the Vulcan Ditch reopened. Linman and others say the draw on the creek that Nutrient Farm is proposing could devastate wetlands, would harm the ecological values of properties that are protected by conservation easements between some landowners and the Aspen Valley Land Trust, and put the wildfire-prone valley at risk if the source of water to fight the frequent blazes is diminished.
โFor me, Iโd be losing a family member,โ Linman said of the creek. โFor most of us who believe nature is in an especially tenuous place right now, it would be reflective of a death of hope. We must do whatโs right to protect something that is clearly, legally, morally, ethically deserving of that protection.โ
Nutrient Farmโs proposal has been contentious, with the overwhelming majority of public comment and letters expressing concern about the project. Many took issue with impacts that the water use could have on Canyon Creek. After being continued twice โ in January and March โ the PUD application is scheduled to be revisited by the Garfield County Planning Commission on May 28.
AVLT has 12 conservation easements across eight properties in Canyon Creek, with the common goal to preserve and protect the ecological health of the creek and its habitat.
โNot only would [proposed water diversions] have a devastating impact on the ecology of Canyon Creek itself, it would also have extreme, irreversible and likely impermissible
impacts to the conservation values protected by AVLTโs conservation easements,โ the letter reads.
But under Colorado water law, drawing a creek down to a trickle is not illegal, as long as the water is being put to beneficial use. And the state has no problem with someone using their water right โ especially one that dates to before the 1922 Colorado River Compact โ to the fullest extent possible.
Under Coloradoโs arcane, century-old system of management, water usually belongs not to those who need it most, nor to the stream itself, but to the legacies of the European American settlers who got there first. Water is treated as both a natural resource that belongs to the public and a potentially valuable private property right. For some observers, Nutrient Farmโs plan highlights the systemโs inherent imbalance and demonstrates how few options there are for protecting the health of streams in a warming and drying climate.
Canyon Creek water supply
The Vulcan Ditch snakes across the hillside on the west side of Canyon Creek, roughly parallel to County Road 137. It is filled with downed trees, boulders, marmot holes, and an overgrown tangle of bushes and weeds. Nutrient Farm plans to reconstruct and realign the ditch, and install a 24-inch pipe, work that would require at least a 15-foot-wide โ in some places, a 30-feet-wide โ construction corridor, according to its PUD application. Water would have to be conveyed south across I-70 and the Colorado River to get to the Nutrient Farm property.
Dave Temple is the only other current water user on the ditch, which he maintains just enough in certain places to get his .13 cubic feet per second of water through a narrow, plastic pipe running along the bottom of the ditch to his property, located north of I-70 and the river. He walks parts of the Vulcan Ditch every other day during irrigation season.
โThe ditch is a disaster,โ Temple said. โIโve always done it by myself, and itโs always taken me at least two weeks to get everything cleaned up enough to where I could turn the water in. โฆ Itโs in bad shape and even though [Nutrient Farm is] going to put it in pipes, itโs still going to devastate the whole hillside here.โ
Nutrient Farm holds two water rights on Canyon Creek: a larger right, from 1908, and a smaller right, from 1952. According to a water supply adequacy report from Glenwood Springs-based engineering firm SGM, in dry years in the late irrigation season (August through October), the available streamflow may be limited to the senior 1908 water right.
A revised version of the SGM report, from this past March, clarified that although Nutrient Farm has the legal right to divert its full Vulcan Ditch right of 8.93 cfs, it will not โ and cannot โ divert continuously, year-round. The amount of water allowed to be used by crops (known as consumptive use) is capped at 393 acre-feet per year, which limits how much can be taken from the stream. At its maximum diversion rate of 8.93 cfs, Nutrient Farm would be able to divert only 34 days a year.
The report says the legal and physical water supply from Canyon Creek is sufficient.
โWhether diverting at higher rate for fewer hours, or diverting at a lower continuous rate, the proposed diversions are limited and are well within the supply available from Canyon Creek even in a dry year,โย the report reads.
At the request of Canyon Creek property owners, Wright Water Engineers reviewed the original report from 2020 and submitted a memo to Garfield County. The Wright engineers agreed that there would be limited water available in Canyon Creek at the Vulcan Ditch headgate during the late irrigation season of dry years. Further, they concluded when using 1977, the driest year on record in the Colorado River Basin, as a benchmark, that the streamflow available at the Vulcan Ditch headgate would be below the propertyโs average demand at that time.
โTherefore, the Canyon Creek physical and legal supply is not sufficient to provide for Nutrient Farmโs demands during the late irrigation season in dry years,โ the memo reads.
During late summer and early fall is when many streams in Colorado experience dry-ups as natural seasonal streamflows dwindle but irrigation continues. Many streams in Colorado are overappropriated, meaning there are more water rights on paper than there is water in rivers, depending on the season, and itโs not uncommon for irrigators to experience shortages during these times.
Nutrient Farm is owned by Andy Bruno, who bought the property in 2018. He did not answer a list of specific questions sent by Aspen Journalism, but he provided a statement about the projectโs intended use of Canyon Creek.
โThere is a long-standing adjudicated right for the entire Nutrient Farm water supply,โ Bruno wrote in an email. โThere is more than ample water available in the Canyon Creek to address all needs and Nutrient Farm remains subject to Division of Water Resources oversight. Nutrient Farm owns senior water rights, has a water management plan and will use this resource responsibly.โ
Canyon Creek resident Dave Temple at the headgate of the Vulcan Ditch on Canyon Creek. Besides Nutrient Farm, Temple is the only other water user on the ditch, with a .13 cfs water right. Credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
Water for fish
In a comment letter to the Garfield County Planning Commission, leaders of the Colorado chapter of Trout Unlimited said that if Nutrient Farmโs water right โ in full or in part โ was diverted during fall and winter low-flow periods, it could be devastating to spawning fish.
In 2021, Trout Unlimited completed a $250,000 project to upgrade the culvert system that conveys Canyon Creek under I-70 to improve access for spawning fish from the Colorado River. Trout Unlimited representatives said Nutrient Farm should permanently use water from the Colorado River, and that Canyon Creek should be protected from additional diversions.
โTU is primarily concerned about the detrimental impacts of additional diversion from Canyon Creek on brown trout spawning and subsequent egg incubation and fry emergence,โ the letter reads. โIn a drier, hotter climate, aquatic systems like Canyon Creek should be given special consideration.โ
But historically, the health of aquatic ecosystems have been given very little consideration in the laws that govern water use in Colorado. And the section of lower Canyon Creek where the Vulcan Ditch headgate is located lacks one of the only protections available to rivers in Colorado: a minimum instream-flow water right.
These rights are held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and are designed to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree. They date to the 1970s or later, and under the Western water management system of prior appropriation, where the oldest rights get first use of the creek, they arenโt always effective at keeping water in streams because they are so much younger than many big irrigation rights.
An upper reach of Canyon Creek between the confluence with Johnson Creek and the headgate of the Baxter Ditch has a series of minimum instream-flow water rights, but lower Canyon Creek lacks this protection.
Several other ditches besides the Vulcan Ditch take water from Canyon Creek, including the Williams Canal, the Mings-Chenoweth, Wolverton and Johnson ditches.
DWR does not have a problem with a water user taking so much water that it dries up the creek as long as they are not taking more than legally allowed or increasing their overall consumptive use to more than what is allowed in their water court decrees.
โThatโs called tough luck,โ said Aaron Clay, a retired water attorney, water court referee and expert who teaches community courses about the basics of water law across the Western Slope. โThatโs the way the law works and DWR has no control over that. โฆ Unfortunately, the prior appropriation system does not recognize environmental concerns on creeks.โ
The Vulcan Ditch, which takes water from Canyon Creek, is overgrown and hasnโt been used in more than two decades. Nutrient Farm plans to pipe the ditch and begin using it for a farm and agritourism business. Credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
Vulcan Ditch history
According to Nutrient Farmโs project narrative, โthe Vulcan Ditch has historically provided irrigation water to the property from Canyon Creek and will continue to do so.โ Nutrient Farm plans to use the Canyon Creek water for potable indoor use, irrigating crops, livestock, landscaping, grass fields, open space and recreational ponds.
But although the Vulcan Ditch may have brought water to what is now the Nutrient Farm property decades ago, state diversion records indicate that hasnโt happened in the past 24 years. The year 2000 was the last year that the ditch took a large quantity of water, about 1,500 acre-feet. Records are spotty for the next decade with either a very small amount of water diverted or no diversions at all, until 2010, when diversions resumed, but at a much lower level than in the 20th century. These numbers reflect the diversions of the only other water user on the ditch: Temple, who uses a small pipe to get water from the headgate to his property downstream.
Under Colorado water law, water rights holders must use the water if they want to keep their legal right to it. If they donโt, the water right could be abandoned. Abandonment is the legal term for one of Coloradoโs best-known water adages: Use it or lose it. Abandonment means that the right to use the water is canceled. The principle came about to discourage hoarding of water rights that werenโt being used and to make sure that someone who used water long ago โ but then stopped โ couldnโt suddenly begin diverting water again and disrupt the flows of a river that more current water users have come to depend on.
Vulcan Ditch history
According to Nutrient Farmโs project narrative, โthe Vulcan Ditch has historically provided irrigation water to the property from Canyon Creek and will continue to do so.โ Nutrient Farm plans to use the Canyon Creek water for potable indoor use, irrigating crops, livestock, landscaping, grass fields, open space and recreational ponds.
But although the Vulcan Ditch may have brought water to what is now the Nutrient Farm property decades ago, state diversion records indicate that hasnโt happened in the past 24 years. The year 2000 was the last year that the ditch took a large quantity of water, about 1,500 acre-feet. Records are spotty for the next decade with either a very small amount of water diverted or no diversions at all, until 2010, when diversions resumed, but at a much lower level than in the 20th century. These numbers reflect the diversions of the only other water user on the ditch: Temple, who uses a small pipe to get water from the headgate to his property downstream.
Under Colorado water law, water rights holders must use the water if they want to keep their legal right to it. If they donโt, the water right could be abandoned. Abandonment is the legal term for one of Coloradoโs best-known water adages: Use it or lose it. Abandonment means that the right to use the water is canceled. The principle came about to discourage hoarding of water rights that werenโt being used and to make sure that someone who used water long ago โ but then stopped โ couldnโt suddenly begin diverting water again and disrupt the flows of a river that more current water users have come to depend on.
โWeโre afraid that this kind of precedent is dangerous,โ Linman said. โWhen water has not been used and a ditch has not been maintained, to have the power to reopen a clearly abandoned structure puts residents at risk across the entire West.โ
The reason that Nutrient Farmโs water rights on the Vulcan Ditch havenโt been formally abandoned, despite the ditch itself not being used in more than two decades, is because the farm has been taking water from the Colorado River using whatโs known as an alternate point of diversion.
But those records are spotty. Diversion records indicate that a small amount of water was taken from the Colorado River to the Nutrient Farm property using a pump in five years between 2006 and 2023. Assistant Division Engineer for Division 5 Caleb Foy said his office must evaluate how to best use its resources in pursuing abandonment cases, which are subject to a determination of the court. For a water right to be abandoned, the water user must intend to abandon it in addition to not having used it in the previous 10 years.
โThe water court has typically applied a relatively low standard for users to show they did not intend to abandon their rights,โ Foy said in an email. โAs such, within Division 5, partial abandonment of rights diverted at structures with a record indicating some water use were generally not a priorityโฆ .โ
There may be another reason the Vulcan Ditch and associated water rights have not ended up on the state abandonment list: For the past 25 years, the state of Colorado has also given anย extra layer of protectionย to pre-Colorado River Compact water rights. The state engineerโs office has had a policy of keeping them off the abandonment list for the past two cycles.ย
Nutrient Farm, an organic farm between New Castle and Glenwood Springs, is planning to use water from Canyon Creek for its proposed expansion of outdoor agricultural operations. It would involve reopening the Vulcan Ditch, which hasnโt been used in almost 25 years. Credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
Data gaps
Garfield County planning staff has also expressed its concerns with Nutrient Farmโs water plan, which they outlined in two recommended conditions of approval. The county land-use code requires that applications for land-use change permits have an adequate, reliable, physical, long-term and legal water supply. To ensure this, the county wants Nutrient Farm to use water from the Colorado River instead of Canyon Creek and to complete an additional water supply plan analysis, which includes an assessment of impacts on stream flows in Canyon Creek.
However, counties typically donโt have jurisdiction over water rights issues in Colorado. Normally, that is the responsibility of departments of state government such as the water courts, DWR and the CWCB.
In a written response to the county, Nutrient Farm attorney Danny Teodoru said both these conditions are far outside the proper scope of zoning review in Colorado.
โNutrient Farm, and frankly any water owner in the state of Colorado or the American West, can in no way agree to tie their legal use of legally decreed water rights to a discretionary zoning review,โ Teodoru wrote. โSuch a notion is absolutely untenable and again flies in the face of long-established Colorado law on incredibly valuable water rights.โ
He added that Nutrient Farm would participate in a collaborative stream study if other Canyon Creek water rights holders do.
A stream management plan for Canyon Creek would go a long way to fill what Kate Collins, executive director of the Middle Colorado Watershed Council, called an area with a lot of data gaps. Canyon Creek was not included in the 2021 Middle Colorado Integrated Water Management Plan and was left out of the 2024 Wildfire Ready Action Plan. In addition to having no minimum instream flow for the lower portion of the creek, stream gauge data has been spotty over the years, without a long, consistent record.
โWe believe finding out more science and data to make good decisions is always a good idea when it comes to the watershed,โ Collins said.
Signs have popped up in yards and along roads around New Castle and Glenwood Springs supporting Friends of Canyon Creek, a group dedicated to protecting the watershed. Nutrient Farm wants to resume using a ditch for its planned development that hasnโt been used in more than two decades. Credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
Few options for protecting streams
The issue of who can use water on Canyon Creek gets at a central tension of Western water law: Is water a public resource or a private property right? The answer is both. There are other options for leaving water in streams during environmentally critical times of year, including nondiversion agreements or water leasing programs. But thereโs no way to force it to happen without the willing participation of water users.
โIt has to be a negotiated deal because itโs a property right and the property right says: โI have the right to dry up the stream,โโ Clay said. โIf the dispute is beyond the headgate, itโs no longer a water rights issue โ itโs a private property issue. Those disputes are between private property owners, not DWR.โ
The Friends of Canyon Creek have few options to protect their local stream. Linman said her group shouldnโt be responsible for funding an assessment of impacts when they want to leave the creek the way it is. Within the limited confines of the system, the water court process โ which seeks to minimize harm to other water users โ is the best opportunity to have a say in how Nutrient Farm uses water. Three cases related to Nutrient Farmโs water rights are still pending. However, none of the cases directly affects the projectโs right to use water from the Vulcan Ditch.
โOur intention is to protect the creek and make sure that a new draw wouldnโt be pulled from an already threatened watershed that is significantly responsible for fire mitigation, ecological stability and community well-being,โ Linman said.
Linman, Temple and others are frustrated by what they say is a lack of communication between them and Bruno and his representatives. Temple said he learned of Nutrient Farmโs plan to reopen and pipe the ditch when he talked with an employee of SGM who was surveying the Vulcan Ditch.
โI have not had any communication,โ Temple said. โThey have never ever come over here to talk to me. They should understand you canโt just be secretive; you have to communicate with your neighbors.โ
Residents worry they will soon live next to a diminished stream, harming their quality of life and ability to fight wildfires. They are also concerned that the construction needed to clear the ditch of debris, repair the ditch and pipe the ditch will damage their property. They said they would be more likely to support Nutrient Farmโs development plan if it used water from the Colorado River, a much bigger water source than Canyon Creek and better able to handle the diversion.
According to SGMโs report, Canyon Creek should be the preferred source for Nutrient Farmโs water supply because itโs better quality than the notoriously silty Colorado. Last year, Nutrient Farm filed water court applications to renew water rights from 1983 that would allow the farm to take an additional 2 cfs from the Colorado River and for a 2,000 acre-foot reservoir in which to store this water.
Basalt attorney and JVAM partner Ryan Jarvis represents six property owners who are opposers in the three water court cases that Nutrient Farm filed last year related to its water use.
โBesides a decreed instream-flow water right, I donโt know of any other way, per se, to protect the flows in the creek for environmental concerns,โ Jarvis said.
But residents are holding out hope that there is another potential way forward. They say Nutrient Farm could choose to be a good neighbor.
โThere is an easy and achievable solution,โ Jarvis said. โTake your water from the Colorado River and donโt unnecessarily harm Canyon Creek and its community. My clients are still here and willing to have conversations and find solutions.โ
Six of the seven state representatives who will shape the next chapter of Colorado River rules speak on a panel at the University of Colorado, Boulder on Jun. 6, 2024. The same group is opting not to speak at this year’s conference. Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
May 11, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
As tense negotiations about the future of the Colorado River are stuck at a standstill, the people in charge are retreating further into the shadows.
A group of negotiators โ one from each of the seven states that use Colorado River water โ will not be speaking at a major water law conference in June. Those representatives have appeared together on a panel at the conference for the last few years, and rarely appear together in public otherwise.
โThe unwillingness to answer the public’s questions suggests that negotiations aren’t going well,โ said John Fleck, who teaches water policy at the University of New Mexico. โI think it misses an important obligation in democratic governance of a river that serves 40 million people.โ
The event, the Getches-Wilkinson Conference at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is typically one of two times each year that the negotiators appear together in public. In recent iterations of the same conference, they all spoke on one panel. Occasionally, a state representative has fallen ill or sent a deputy in their stead.
They seemed starkly divided at the other annual appearance, too. In December, they opted to split into two separate panels at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas.
Water policymakers from (left to right) Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming speak on a panel at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas on December 5, 2024. The two rival factions of states chose to appear on two separate panels then, and have opted to avoid speaking entirely in June. Alex Hager/KUNC
People with knowledge of the situation confirmed to KUNC that state leaders told conference organizers they did not want to speak publicly. There is currently no seven-state panel on the published conference agenda.
JB Hamby, Californiaโs top water negotiator, said he would attend the conference but not speak, and he was โ100%โ sure the other top officials wouldnโt be speaking. Representatives from Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico confirmed their statesโ Colorado River negotiators would not be speaking.
Unlike many government processes, Colorado River policymakers work in a space that does not involve a mandate for public access. Their meetings are often held behind closed doors, are not listed publicly and do not yield minutes or records that can be viewed by the public.
โYou need to listen to and have spaces to discuss with the people who are going to be impacted by your decisions,โ Fleck said. โThat’s not happening now, and that’s really disturbing.โ
Those water policymakers are stuck in a standoff about how to use less water from the shrinking Colorado River. Negotiators seem to agree with the broad concept that the farms, businesses and 40 million people of the Colorado River basin need to cut back on water use as the river gets smaller due to climate change. They don’t, however, agree on who should cut back.
Talks so far have largely stayed divided along a decades-old fault line. On one side is the Upper Basin โ which consists of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. The other side, the Lower Basin, is made up of California, Arizona and Nevada.
The Lower Basin has volunteered relatively modest cuts in proposals for how to manage the river after the current rules expire in 2026. The Upper Basin has not volunteered any cuts, insisting that its states are already forced to use less water due to climate change and a longstanding legal requirement to send a fixed amount of water to those Lower Basin states.
โI am fully focused on the negotiations for post-2026 operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead,โ Becky Mitchell, Coloradoโs top negotiator, wrote in an email to KUNC. โAs the Getches-Wilkinson conference drew nearer, it was unclear where we would be in that process, and I wanted to be cognizant of the sensitivity of the work. Time is of the essence, and these critical negotiations have my full attention at this time.โ
The states have dug their heels in on those positions for months now, and their willingness to talk about the status of their closed-door attempts to break the deadlock has only gone down over time.
Reportersโ requests to state water authorities that once yielded interviews with top policymakers are now often met with written statements that tend to be short on detail.
Glen Canyon Dam holds back the waters of Lake Powell near Page, Arizona on Sunday, Feb. 2, 2025. Lake Powell, has approached dangerously low levels in recent years as policymakers have struggled to come up with a long-term management plan for the water it stores. Photo credit: Spenser Heaps/Utah News Dispatch
โI have a lot of respect for the people who are doing these negotiations,โ Fleck said. โThey’re trying to solve really hard problems, and I respect the idea that they need some space to do that, but not showing up in public at all is granting them more space than I’m willing to grant them.โ
Joanna Allhands, an opinion writer at the Arizona Republic who has written about the Colorado Riverโs โbankruptcy of leadership,โ said more transparency from water policymakers โwould be smart as a matter of self preservation.โ
โWhatever the decision is made,โ she said, โWhatever alternative gets chosen, if people feel like they’ve been left out, guess where we’re headed? We’re going to the Supreme Court.โ
Colorado River negotiators have said that they want to avoid taking this issue to the Supreme Court, but have made little recent progress to steer talks away from that outcome.
Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
This yearโs predicted spring runoff into Lake Powell has decreased yet again as the impacts of a dry winter begin to show. Hydrologists at the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center said Wednesday that the amount of water flowing into Lake Powell between April and July this year is expected to be 55% of average. โAverage,โ in forecasting, refers to the average runoff between 1991 and 2020. That prediction follows a decline in forecasted flows since the start of winter…In terms of actual water, 55% of the average runoff translates to about 3.5 million acre-feet of water making it into Lake Powell…Thatโs lower than the runoff in 2022, which was a little over 3.7 million acre-feet, but better than 2021โs 1.85 million acre-feet. Spring runoff in 2023 and 2024 were well above what is forecasted this year. The snowpack above Lake Powell, which is the second-largest reservoir in the U.S.,ย has already begun to melt. At the start of April, the snowpack was 89% of the 1991-2020 median. As of May 1, it has shrunk to 71% of the median.
Homestake Creek is a tributary of the Eagle River. CREDIT: BRENT GARDNER-SMITH/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Click the link to read the article on the Vail Daily website (Zoe Goldstein). Here’s an excerpt:
May 8, 2025
Every year brings different water conditions in Eagle County.ย With climate change, the promise of full rivers in the summer may becomeย even less certain. To prepare for future drought years, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority have a newย water shortage response plan.
โThe goal of this plan is to provide water security, to ensure that we can provide our core services,โ said Justin Hildreth, the districtโs water resources engineer, when presenting the plan to the district board for approval on April 10. Among the core services included in the list are safe drinking water and water for structure fire suppression…According to the plan, โa water shortage occurs when the (district/authority) lacks the physical or legal water supplies neededโ to provide their services and maintain required streamflow levels. This can happen when there are extended calls from older water rights, (like theย Shoshone water rightsย on the Colorado River), when stream flows are low for long periods and when local reservoirs (Eagle Park Reservoir and the Black Lakes) have low supply. The district and authority boards approved the plan during their April 10 meetings after learning about the plan during Feb. 27 work sessions…
One of the best early predictors of a drought scenario is if the snow water equivalent measure has not reached an average of 15 inches across the Vail, Fremont Pass and Copper SNOTEL stations by April 1. โThat directly relates to Eagle Park Reservoir, that relates to the flows in Gore Creek and the flows in the Eagle River,โ Hildreth said. This year, the average was just shy of 16 inches across the three stations on April 1.
Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Times website (Robert Tann). Here’s an excerpt:
Perched above the Dillon Reservoir on the side of a mountain road in Summit County, Gov. Jared Polis on Thursday signed into law three bills aimed at bolstering the stateโs water infrastructure.ย The measures come amid the backdrop of chronic drought and increased water demand in the West which have made finding a path towards water sustainability more urgent. Speaking amid on-and-off snow flurries and bouts of sunshine, Polis said the bills signed on Thursday will help โbuild a sustainable, livable futureโ by โsecuring our water for the state of Colorado.โ
State votersโ decision to approve a tax on sports betting in 2019 has provided a critical funding source for water projects, delivering as much as $30 million a year for infrastructure and conservation efforts.ย House Bill 1311ย takes that a step further by eliminating a tax exemption for revenue generated from free sports bets…
A view of the popular Pumphouse campground, boat put-in and the upper Colorado River. Photo credit: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
Finding solutions to funding woes
While taxes on sports betting have helped shore up state spending on water projects, its other key funding streamย risks running dry…Underย Senate Bill 40, the state will commission a nine-member task force within the Department of Natural Resources to study the future of severance tax revenue and come up with solutions to better fund the stateโs water needs.ย The task force will be required to submit a final report to the legislature in July 2026, with lawmakers hoping to turn those ideas into policy.ย
Grays and Torreys, Dillon Reservoir May 2017. Photo credit Greg Hobbs.
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 article on the AZCentral.com website (Branson Loomis). Here’s an excerpt:
May 13, 2025
Key Points
Arizona has “real skin in the game” as negotiations continue over shares of a smaller Colorado River, Gov. Katie Hobbs said. Now she wants other states to step up.
The seven Colorado River states are trying to reach a shortage-sharing agreement this year, but are also looking to the new Trump administration to see if there are alternatives.
Arizona officials say other parts of the state, such as Yuma, may have to take cuts. Tribes say they expect the state to honor settlements.
Arizona is doing its part and taking its hits to conserve the Colorado River, Gov. Katie Hobbs said, and itโs time for upstream states to do the same. The governor assembled a roundtable of water users and officials on May 13 to present what she called a unified front among the stateโs interests in defending Arizona’s share of the Colorado River as time runs short for reaching a deal with other states that use the water. So far, states upstream from Arizona have not offered cutbacks beyond the limits that a paltry snowpack naturally extracts from their farmers.
โItโs been more than a little frustrating,โ Hobbs said. โWeโve come to the table with real solutions, with real proposals. We have real skin in the game,โ she said, including billions of dollars in water infrastructure upgrades and in conservation agreements that keep water in the riverโs reservoirs. โThe upper states need to be willing to take their share as well.โ
[…]
So far, the Rocky Mountain states known collectively as the Upper Basin have declined to specify new cuts they might take, because they say they already suffer the consequences of a reduced snowpack that shortchanges their farmers every year. The federal government has paid some Lower Basin farmers and others to cut back on their demands from Lake Meadโs storage bank, and the four Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming argue that their year-in, year-out hardship is unrewarded and largely invisible to water users in the Southwest.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Following a day of testimony on May 6, Denver Water has been asked by U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello to provide the court with the utility’s final summary highlighting its position following the witness testimony and exhibits. There isnโt a specific timetable set for this yet.
The focus of the hearing was for the judge to determine if construction can safely stop while Denver Water moves forward on an additional permitting review as the court ruled on April 3. Here is Denver Waterโs statement on the risk presented by delaying construction:
Denver Water has already started the appeal process with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. As part of this, the project has been allowed to continue (under a temporary stay) while legal proceedings are underway.
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
The Palisades Fire, photographed here from Palisades Drive, ignited Jan. 7, 2025, in the Santa Monica Mountains of Los Angeles County. It spread rapidly because of hurricane-force Santa Ana winds, burning for 24 days, consuming more than 23,000 acres and destroying 6,837 structures. Photo credit: Ariam23, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0
One of the initial concerns during the series of tragic Los Angeles wildfires that burned in January 2025 was whether fire hydrants were ready to combat the inferno that left so much destruction in its wake.
To be clear, and as Denver7 highlighted in January, public water systems are designed to help firefighters battle urban fires.
For instance, Denver Waterโs system includes built-in redundancies to ensure it can meet water demand, and the utility continually invests in the system to keep it that way.
Denver Water’s distribution system includes 31 treated water storage tanks across the metro area (many of which have been upgraded in recent years), more than 3,000 miles of pipe and 22,000 fire hydrants, along with dedicated mechanics who focus on maintaining those hydrants and keeping them in top condition.
During a fire in the Denver Water service area, its operators can analyze and adjust the operation of the distribution system so that firefighters have the water pressure they need to fight the blaze. The utility also will send experts to the scene to help maintain pressure.
The system of hydrants is not designed, however, to provide sufficient flows for a long enough period to effectively battle long-lasting, wind-driven, large-scale wildfires. Hydrants are pressurized and are crucial to fighting structure fires, but they can only do so much. And when many hydrants are in use in the same area at the same time, water pressure is going to weaken.
While Denver Water can store millions of gallons of drinking water in dozens of large water storage tanks around town to accommodate increases in demand, there are limits โ like being able to provide enough water to fight a wildfire.
Fortunately, much of Denver Waterโs service area is in a different environment compared to Los Angeles. But that doesnโt mean the area is immune, as there are portions that blend wildland environments with urban communities.
In fact, just last summer aย string ofย wildfiresย ignited during the same week in the foothills along the Front Range. The fires required aggressive coordination from fire departments up and down the corridor, alongside state and federal agencies, to extinguish, with a focus on wildland firefighting. Wildland fire responders cleared fire lines and fought the fires from the air.
A plane pulls in water from Chatfield Reservoir to help fight the Quarry Fire, a wildfire that ignited in summer 2024 in Jefferson County, Colorado. The fire required a multi-jurisdictional effort to extinguish. Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Urban fire hydrants were not the focus.
Ultimately, when a fire like the tragic blazes in Los Angeles occurs, it is always going to require a coordinated, multijurisdictional effort, often across city, state and even international lines.
So, what can be done?
Colorado Public Radio in January spoke with Colorado State Forest Service wildfire mitigation program specialist Chad Julian, who discussed the importance of focusing on the right topics when analyzing any fire.
โIf we focus on increasing budgets, more water storage, more fire trucks, it’s not going to change the outcome of the next event. It would take the engagement of homeowners to really work on the resistance to ignition and hardening those buildings, the vegetation and the yards,โ he said.
โNinety-five percent of it was likely still caused by land use patterns, how we build, how we interact with the ecosystem, whether we adapt to it or not. And unfortunately, that’s not the focus at the moment,โ he said.
But this was the focus in Colorado after the devastating Marshall Fire of 2021, leading to new legislation:
In Louisville, an โฏordinanceโฏtook effect in December 2024ย requiring implementation of wildfire-resistant measures in buildings. (Boulder is considering something similar.)ย
Many new construction sites in Denver include 5-foot vegetation barriers around new structures in their landscape planning.ย
Theย Wildfire Resilient Homes Grant Program, created by Coloradoโs state legislature, encourages homeowners to make their properties more resistant to wildfire.
Julian says these are the types of changes that can make a real difference.
Denver Water has long focused on investing in the resiliency of its watersheds and system, and plans to invest about $1.8 billion over the next 10 years.
When customers pay their water bill, the money goes to building a reliable system, which includes regular infrastructure inspection and maintenance programs to ensure pipes, hydrants and storage tanks are ready to protect communities during urban fires.
Water bills also fund watershed resiliency projects that protect the lands and facilities that collect and store Denverโs drinking water.
The From Forests to Faucets partnership alone has committed more than $96 million to reduce wildfire risk in critical areas, from 2010 through planned work into 2027. Half of that money has come from Denver Water. The risk of wildfire in Denver Water’s watersheds remains the greatest risk to Denverโs water supply, making this investment crucial to the resilience of the system.
A Ponsse tree harvester works to thin a 40-acre section of forest in Breckenridge in August 2020, as part of the From Forests to Faucets partnership. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water’s 10-year investment plan also includes expanding Gross Reservoir in western Boulder County, which will improve water supplies on the north side of the metro area and make the system more balanced and resilient in the face of increasing impacts from climate change, drought and wildfire.
This improvement on the north side of the metro area will prove pivotal should wildfire inhibit resources that deliver water on the south side of the region, via the South Platte River, where wildfires have struck consistently over the past 20 years.
These are just a few examples of investments and partnerships already underway, but challenges lie ahead.
As Salazar noted in his column published in The Denver Post (which can also be found on Denver Water’s TAP news site), climate change continues to impact the environment and, as the wildland-urban interface continues to merge, even more investment and collaboration will be crucial.
Aerial view of Lake Estes and Olympus Dam looking west. Photo credit Northern Water.
From email from Northern Water (Jeff Stahla):
May 9, 2025
The Northern Water Board of Directors allocatedโฏ23,000โฏacre-feet of Regional PoolโฏProgram (RPP)โฏwater during itsโฏMayโฏ8, 2025, Board meeting. RPPโฏwater is available for lease byโฏeligibleโฏNorthern Coloradoโฏwater users, withโฏsealedโฏbids due 2 p.m.โฏMayโฏ22, 2025. Bid prices per-acre-foot must be greater than or equal to $33.80, a floor price the Board selected based on theโฏ2025โฏagricultural assessment rate.โฏLate bids will not be considered.
The allocation will be available to bidders from two subpools of 11,500 acre-feet each; one that delivers water from Horsetooth Reservoir, and a second that delivers to water users south of Horsetooth Reservoir, including the Big Thompson River, St Vrain Creek and Boulder Creek.
The following forms are required to submit a bid:โฏ
Pre-Approval FormโฏโโฏTo confirm eligibility, interestedโฏbidders must email or mail the Pre-Approval Form to Northern Water. A new Pre-Approval Form is required each year.โฏโฏโฏ
Carrier Consent FormโฏโโฏIf the RPP water will be deliveredโฏbyโฏa carrier, such as a ditch or reservoir company, biddersโฏandโฏtheir carriers must complete the Carrier Consent Form or provide a signed agreement stating that the carrier will deliver the RPP water to the bidder. This form must also be emailed or mailed to Northern Water.โฏโฏ
Bid FormโฏโโฏSealedโฏbidsโฏwill be accepted atโฏNorthern Waterโs headquarters throughโฏaโฏโself-serveโโฏprocess.โฏBidders will sign inโฏat a kiosk in the Building Aโฏlobby at Northern Water, 220 Water Ave., Berthoud, and print aโฏbid labelโฏfor their sealed bidโฏenvelope. Theโฏlabelโฏwillโฏidentifyโฏtheโฏbidderโฏname, date and time stamp,โฏand bid number. Bidders are then asked to secure the label toโฏtheโฏbidโฏenvelopeโฏand place it in the drop box.โฏSealed bidsโฏmay alsoโฏbe mailed to NorthernโฏWater, butโฏbids must be receivedโฏbefore the deadline.โฏโฏ
Sealed bids are due by 2 p.m.โฏThursday, Mayโฏ22,โฏat Northern Waterโs headquarters, 220 Water Ave., Berthoud, CO 80513.โฏAs described above,โฏsealedโฏbids can beโฏmailedโฏor hand delivered; email and fax bid formsโฏwillโฏnotโฏbeโฏaccepted. RPP leases within each subpool will be awarded based on highest bids per acre-foot.โฏSealed bids will be opened at 2:10 p.m. Thursday, May 22, in the Grand Lake Conference Room of Building A at Northern Water.
Questions regarding the Regional Pool Program and bidโฏsubmittalโฏcan be emailed toโฏregionalpool@northernwater.orgโฏor by callingโฏSarah Smith at 970-622-2295 orโฏWater Schedulingโฏat 970-292-2500.
A new study finds that airborne dust deposited on snow in the Upper Colorado River Basin speeds up spring snowmelt. Regular readers of the Land Desk wonโt be surprised by this conclusion, as there are regular mentions here regarding the effects of dust-on-snow in the San Juan Mountains. This study, however, is the first to quantify the effects across the entire Colorado River Basin.
When dust, lifted up from the lowlands by spring winds, falls on mountain snow, it decreases the snowโs albedo โ the measure of a surfaceโs reflectivity โ causing the snow to melt faster. That adds another variable into the water forecasting mix, since about 85% of the Coloradoโs flow comes from snowmelt.
Dust events have been occurring for thousands of years on the Colorado Plateau and in the San Juan Mountains, but picked up significantly following the white settler-colonist influx of the mid-1800s, and peaking in the first few decades of the twentieth century, when volumes of dust were five times higher than they were prior to colonization.
The lowest dust-on-snow impacts occurred in the northern Uinta in Utah and the Wind River Range in Wyoming, while higher and more persistent effects were seen in the central and southern Rockies.
Dust impacts tend to be largest in the lower alpine elevations (8,000 – 10,000 feet).
The researchers observed greater dust effects in the first part of the observation period (2001 to 2014) and lesser after that, โproducing a slight but statistically significant decreasing trend over the record.โ And the patterns donโt necessarily align with drought intensity, โindicating that there is not a straightforward relationship between aridity and dust.โ
The reason for the decreasing trend arenโt clear, but researchers hypothesize that it relates to a combination of increasing surface roughness (vegetation) and decreasing wind speeds related to climate variability.
The good news for the San Juans is that dust events have been relatively mild this spring, according to the Center for Snow and Avalanche Studiesโ April 29ย report,ย which has helped keep the meagre snowpack around a while longer. At least for now: A storm is forecast to move into the San Juans this weekend and early next week, likely bringing both dust and snow to the high country, which could throw off some of our Predict the Peak guesses, for sure.
***
Fire season has arrived in the Southwest. It feels early, but then, who the hell knows anymore? Maybe last yearโs fire season is simply continuing on. Theย Stronghold Fireย has scorched a little over 2,000 acres in the east edge of the Dragoon Mountains in southern Arizona, forcing evacuations in the rural sprawl. As of May 1, it was 62% contained and fire activity had ebbed. And theย Otero Fireย burned through 494 acres of the Rio Grande Bosque adjacent to Socorro, New Mexico.
The outlook is for a hot, dry, maybe smoky summer for a good swath of the West:
๐ Random Real Estate Room ๐ค
I stumbled upon an unexpected headline in the Las Vegas Review-Journal today: โInventory flooding Las Vegas Valleyโs home market with no buyers in sight: Zillow.โ Say what? For I donโt know how long, weโve been hearing that Las Vegas was suffering a severe housing shortage โ i.e. demand was far outstripping supply โ and that the only solution was to sacrifice surrounding public lands to housing developers.
Yet now Zillow is saying there are too many houses for sale? And whatโs also interesting is that home prices continue to rise alongside inventory. Thatโs right: There are more homes available for sale, and yet the median sales price continues to increase, showing that the laws of supply and demand donโt always apply to housing (and showing that the push to bulldoze federal land for affordable housing is a sham).
I checked out Zillow for myself and found about 1,600 homes listed for less than $300,000 for sale in the greater Las Vegas area. I decided to look around the region a bit, too, and it actually seems like there are more sub-$300k homes/condos available now than during my previous scans over the past four years. Oh, and I found this tiny home in the sprawling metropolis of Ticaboo, Utah. A little overpriced, but the location? Heck yeah!
๐คฏ Trump Ticker ๐ฑ
Sigh. That guy is still president, and continues to do his darnedest to wreck everything that makes America great. Wes Silerโs Newsletter is reporting that the National Park Service plans to fire another 1,500 employees in coming days, bringing total Park Service staffing losses through resignations, firings, and layoffs to 5,000 under Trump. Meanwhile, year-to-date visitation at Zion National Park is at near-record levels. The combination of more visitors and fewer staff could get messy.
And all Interior Department employees (which includes the Park Service, BLM, and so forth), have been ordered to submit their resumes โ i.e. reapply for their existing jobs โ in preparation for significant job cuts and an expected complete overhaul of the department and its agencies.
Firing thousands of people from what seemed like secure jobs will not be good for the economy, which is already struggling mightily due to Trumpโs policies. And on that note, if youโre interested in tariffs and how they might affect things, Iโd urge you to read this smart take from Aaron Smith at his Ag Data News:
๐ Data Dump ๐
WildEarth Guardians just released their first quarter โOil & Gas Waste Watchโ report tallying up industry and regulatory failures in New Mexico. Findings include:
307/330ย The number of oil and gas facility incidents/spills reported during the first three months of the year in New Mexico.
78,858 barrelsย Volume of liquid, including 22,927 barrels of wastewater in addition to crude oil, condensates, and other materials, spilled in those incidents. Some of the material was recovered.
118ย Number of spills involving crude oil or condensates.
292/36ย Number of spills in the Permian Basin/San Juan Basin, respectively.
Denver Water is helping ensure its future water security with the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. When the project is complete, it will nearly triple the Boulder County reservoirโs capacity to 119,000 acre-feet. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Adam engineer who designed a major expansion of Gross Reservoir Dam in Boulder County told a federal judge Tuesday that the raising of the dam, facing a potential halt due to an April federal court ruling, needs to proceed to protect public safety.
Mike Rogers, the civil engineer who designed the $531 million expansion of the dam, said bad weather could create flood conditions that would lead to a catastrophic failure similar to what occurred with the Oroville Dam failure in California in 2017.
But Stephen Rigbey, a Canadian dam safety expert testifying for Save The Colorado, said any issues with putting the construction project on hold, even in its partially-complete state, could be addressed, and that the risk of a catastrophic failure was โnegligible.โ
Workers from Denver Water and contractor Kiewit Barnard stand in front of Gross Dam in May 2024 to mark the start of the dam raise process. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Rogersโ and Rigbeyโs testimony Tuesday came during a federal hearing in Denver, after which U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello will determine whether to allow construction to move forward on the Denver Water project or whether the construction will be paused until new federal reviews she has ordered are completed and legal questions are answered.
But at the end of Tuesdayโs hearing, Arguello said the parties to the case had not provided enough information for her to make a decision and ordered them to submit more data later this month.
The massive construction project has raised fierce opposition in Boulder County and prompted several legal challenges from Save The Colorado, a group that advocates on behalf of rivers. Though its early lawsuits failed, in 2022 the river defenders won an appeal that put the legal battle back in play. Despite months of settlement talks, no agreement was reached.
Boulder County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann was unmoved by Rogersโ testimony, saying she hopes the judge halts the work to prevent further environmental damage in Boulder County and to protect the Fraser River, a tributary to the Upper Colorado River. The Fraser has served as the source of water for Gross Reservoir since the 1950s, when it was built.
โItโs incredibly disappointing that Denver has chosen to move forward,โ Stolzmann said. โWith climate change, it really is a time for different entities to work together to repair the climate. I want to see Denver seek alternative solutions.โ
Denver Water first moved to raise Gross Dam more than 20 years ago when the water provider began designing the expansion and seeking the necessary federal and state permits. Denver Water has said raising the dam and expanding the reservoir is necessary to ensure it has enough water throughout its delivery system and to help with future water supplies as climate change continues to reduce streamflows.
The Gross Reservoir Expansion Project involves raising the height of the existing dam by 131 feet. The dam will be built out and will have โstepsโ made of roller-compacted concrete to reach the new height. Image credit: Denver Water
After years of engineering, environmental studies and federal and state analyses, Denver received a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and construction began in 2022. It has involved taking apart a portion of the original dam and raising its height by 131 feet to nearly triple the reservoirโs storage capacity to 119,000 acre-feet from 42,000 acre-feet.
The case took center stage again April 3, when Judge Arguello put a temporary halt to construction of the higher dam, at Save The Coloradoโs request.
In that high-profile ruling, Arguello said, in part, that the Army Corps should have considered whether ongoing climate change and drought would leave the Colorado River and Western Slope waterways too depleted to safely allow transfer of Denver Waterโs rights into a larger Gross Reservoir for Front Range water users.
At the same time, she ordered a permanent injunction prohibiting enlargement of the reservoir, including tree removal and water diversion, and impacts to wildlife.
Almost immediately, Denver Water filed for temporary relief from the order, saying, in part, that it would be unsafe to stop work as the incomplete concrete walls towered above Gross Reservoir.
Arguello granted that request, too, allowing Denver to continue work on the dam considered necessary for safety.
Denver Water has also filed an appeal with the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of appeals, seeking to permanently protect its right to continue building the dam. The appeals court is expected to wait for the lower court to rule, before considering Denver Waterโs request.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Skiers descend Arapahoe Basin Ski Area in Colorado on May 4, 2025. Snowpack across the mountains that supply the Colorado River is far below normal for this time of year. Forecasts call for 55% of average runoff into Lake Powell, the nation’s second-largest reservoir. Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
May 8, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
If you took a look at a map of Rocky Mountain snow right now you would see a lot of red.
The mountains that feed the Colorado River with snowmelt are strikingly dry, with many ranges holding less than 50% of their average snow for this time of year. The low totals could spell trouble for the nationโs largest reservoirs, but those dry conditions donโt seem to be ringing alarm bells for Colorado River policymakers.
Inflows to Lake Powell, the nationโs second largest reservoir, are expected to be 55% of average this year, according to federal data released this week. If forecasts hold true, 2025 would see the third-lowest amount of water added to Lake Powell in the past decade.
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map May 8, 2025 via the NRCS.
โItโs looking like a pretty poor water supply and spring runoff season,โ said Cody Moser, a hydrologist with the Colorado River Basin Forecast Center.
If Lake Powell drops too low, the reservoir would lose the ability to generate hydropower for about five million people across seven states. Much lower, and it could lose the ability to pass enough water downstream, where tens of millions of people depend on it.
Eric Balken, who watches Lake Powell closely as director of the nonprofit Glen Canyon Institute, said this yearโs snow data is concerning, but it isnโt driving the same level of concern from policymakers and media outlets that emerged in previous dry years.
Balken said that may be happening for two reasons.
First, itโs because negative outcomes might not be felt immediately. Lake Powell is unlikely to drop low enough to lose hydropower capabilities this summer, but the dry spring is making that more likely to happen in 2026.
Second, itโs because water managers simply have bigger fish to fry.
The federal offices that manage Western water are in disarray amid layoffs and restructuring since Donald Trump returned to the White House. The Bureau of Reclamation, the top federal agency for Colorado River dams and reservoirs, is without a permanent commissioner.
All the while, state and federal policymakers are spending most of their time and attention on drawing up new water-sharing rules. The current rules expire in 2026. Talks between states have reached a standstill, and negotiators say theyโre working toward a compromise.
โThat chaos within the agencies, the broader negotiations happening on the Colorado River, all of these other factors, I think, are sort of drowning out the severity of the drought situation right now,โ said Balken.
Glen Canyon Dam creates water storage on the Colorado River in Lake Powell. Low water levels in Lake Powell could jeopardize the dam’s ability to produce hydropower or pass water downstream. Credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
This year got off to a strong start for mountain snow, but took a dip during a dry spell that lasted from December through February. Snowmelt from Colorado accounts for about two-thirds of the water in Lake Powell. A portion of Western Colorado saw less than 15% of normal precipitation from December through April.
Scientists say these low snow years are the result of climate change, which is causing less snow to fall, and more of it to be soaked up by dry, thirsty soil before it has a chance to reach rivers and reservoirs. That has left the Colorado River in a dry trend going back more than two decades.
Balken said the climate reality is here to stay, and should spur the regionโs leaders to rein in demand accordingly.
โJust because we’ve gotten used to it doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem,โ he said. โWe have to stay laser focused on what’s happening on the Colorado River, because there are some very big problems that need to be addressed.โ
Layers of snowpack melted rapidly in Colorado in April, which could lead to less water supply in the summer and higher wildfire potential, according to data from theย National Integrated Drought Information System.ย The federal data, released on May 1, indicate that โsubstantial and rapidโ snowmelt occurred throughout broad swaths of Colorado between April 10-17. Several weather stations maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture logged record snowmelt during that week, compared to the same period in prior years. Snow disappeared up to 4 weeks early in parts of Colorado compared to previous years, federal data show…How quickly snow melts, and when it happens, can impact water availability during hot summer months and affect how likely wildfires are to occur in a region. An area thatโs seen rapid snowmelt in early spring could have dried-out vegetation by summer, a potential fuel for blazes…
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map May 8, 2025 via the NRCS.
Spring heat waves in early April rapidly melted snow across Coloradoโs Rocky Mountains, leading to large drops in the stateโs median โsnow water equivalent,โ compared to past levels. Snow water equivalent (SWE) measures how much liquid water is stored in the snow, which will eventually melt and flow into the soil and bodies of water…
The federal data alsoย showย that water supply forecasts for the Upper Colorado River Basin โ an area that stretches four states including Colorado โ declined compared to rosier projections from early April.ย
The area around Yuma, Ariz., and Californiaโs Imperial Valley provide roughly 95% of the vegetables available at grocery stores in the United States during winter months. February 2017 photo/Allen Best
From the sprawling alfalfa fields of the Imperial Valley to the lush, water-guzzling grass of cities like Phoenix, the definition of what the feds consider โbeneficial useโ along the Colorado River needs an update, according to a coalition of nonprofits. In a legal petition filed Tuesday, the Natural Resources Defense Council and a group of river advocates urged the federal Bureau of Reclamation to use its power to better dictate how water can be used in the Lower Basin states of Nevada, California and Arizona. Its authors acknowledge thatโs a bold request…Asย states remain deadlockedย on which ones should take cuts in how much water they can use, the agency emphasized in a statement its commitment to โlong-term operational agreement for the river after 2026…The petition hinges on Part 417 of federal regulations โ a section of code that gives the Bureau of Reclamation the authority over water deliveries to the Lower Basin states, with an obligation to ensure that water use is reasonable. Some worry that if the Bureau of Reclamation took the actions outlined in the petition, it could open the door to even more legal challenges from states and water users, kicking progress on conservation even further down the line when time is a luxury that water managers no longer have…
Goldโs petition specifically calls out the inefficiency of the agricultural sector, whereย more than half of the riverโs water is usedย every year โ far more than city use. The petition says exporting water-intensive crops is โakin to exporting water itself.โ Californiaโs Imperial Valley, where farming isย a multibillion-dollar industry, receivesย more water than Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas combinedย to grow crops like alfalfa, carrots and lettuce. Gold hopes the feds will use better discretion in choosing which contractors are able to divert water from the river, prioritizing conservation. Some practices, like using flood agriculture to cover fields in water, are not practical, especially on days that break 100 degrees, he said.
Yampa River May 3, 2025. Yampa River on Saturday evening was flowing strongly through Steamboat Springs, but the snowpack in the the Yampa-White drainage area of northwest Colorado was still less than two-thirds of average. Photo credit: Allen Best
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
May 6, 2025
Coloradoโs southern mountains had another miserable snowpack. This is not good for the Colorado or Rio Grande rivers. It fits in with a theme.
Louis Meyer awoke on Monday morning at his farm about 10 miles north of Durango to see Engineer and Red mountains wearing fresh blankets of snow. The two mountains had been scantily clad for much of the winter.
The spring snow was welcome news, he said, but unlikely to change the story of southwest Colorado. Runoff will be abysmal.
A resident of southwest Colorado for about eight years, Meyer has conferred with others with deeper local knowledge. Right now, it appears that those farmers and ranchers who might normally expect to get three or four cuttings of hay will get no more than two. And in La Plata County, they will be lucky to get one cutting of hay.
Snow contributing water to the Animas, San Juan and other rivers of southwestern Colorado have only 28% of median of snow-water equivalent, according to maps released on Monday by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, a federal agency.
East of Wolf Creek Pass, in the upper Rio Grande drainage, numbers were worse yet, 21% of median. Last week, before the fresh snow, they had been even less.
Water managers in the San Luis Valley warned in a May 1 posting on Facebook that they expect early runoff, low rivers flows, and a short boating season. Heather Dutton, manager of the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District, said there had been high hopes several times of 16- to 18-inch snow dumps, even 36 inches. โIt just never materialized for us.โ
Snowpack in Coloradoโs southern mountains always has been uneven. Some years are better, other years worse. But a trend has emerged of earlier springs and less moisture in the San Juan Mountains and Sangre de Cristo Range of Colorado, and this yearโs snowpack and weather fits in with it.
Russ Schumacher, the Colorado state climatologist, and associates at the Colorado Climate Center have analyzed data from the Snotel stations in Colorado going back to at least 1979. Their studies have focused on the volumes of peak snow-water equivalent in the snow and the dates of those readings.
Snotel stands for SNOwpack TELemetry, an automated system.
โIn Coloradoโs northern mountains, trends over the last 45 years are fairly modest overall, with some mixed signals,โ he wrote in in an April 14 posting at Colorado Climate Center.
Many stations in the San Juans and Sangre de Cristo mountains showed levels below the 10th percentile of records, he said.
โBut in the southern mountains, the data make a very clear statement: snowpack is declining, and the peak is happening earlier. At many of the stations in the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo mountains, the peak snow-water-equivalent has declined by 3% to 5% per decade, and the peak has shifted two to four weeks earlier.โ
The 1980s were unusually wet, which makes the recent declines look even worse. Contributing to the declines have been dust-on-snow events and the rising temperatures.
During the 21st century, Colorado has had just one year of below-average annual temperatures when compared to the 1971-2000 average, according to a study commissioned by the state government. Seven of the top 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2010.
Coloradoโs northern mountains looked somewhat below average as of early April. But unseasonably warm temperatures caused the snowpack to sag as the month went on.
โIt was clear by early April that it was going to be a bad year in southern Colorado,โ Schumacher wrote to Big Pivots in an e -mail on April 29. โBut with very little snow and a lot of sunshine in the last couple weeks, snowpack in the northern mountains has started declining early as well.โ
The Natural Resources Conservation Service Snotel readings on Monday morning showed improvement after an overnight snowfall but remained far below average.
Snow was notably absent in Coloradoโs southern mountains this winter. It started out OK, then got warm and dry. By late January, the odds were for a very poor runoff.
A Snotel station near Wolf Creek Pass had the second lowest peak snow-water equivalent since the station was established in 1979. The lowest reading was in 2002. This was even less than in 2018, a year plagued by wildfires in southern Colorado.
At his farm along the Animas River, Meyer first noticed a problem in February. The well that taps water for domestic purposes went dry. The water table had dropped 35 feet. He persuaded others on the ditch to begin diverting water from the Animas River through the ditch. This caused the groundwater level to rise. It worked, although he was out of water for a week to 10 days.
Meyer is relatively new to southwest Colorado but not to Colorado water issues. An engineer by training, he operated a Glenwood Springs-based water consulting business for 35 years before he retired. He then bought ranch property in southwest Colorado near the community of Mancos. After a drought in 2021, he resolved to get a property with better access to water.
The property north of Durango is where the San Juan Mountains begin to pinch the Animas River Valley. The farm he and his children tend has plentiful orchards: peaches, apples, and pears. They also grow cherries and plums along with raspberries, strawberries and blackberries.
Family members also like to raft, but on Sunday found too little water to do so.
At his office in Cortez, Ken Curtis, director of the Dolores Water Conservancy District, has been monitoring the snowpack numbers. In late April they suggested a runoff of 30% of average. Because his district owns more senior water rights, the farmers of alfalfa, pinto beans and other crops in his district will probably do better than that might suggest.
โItโs been a weird year,โ he said. โWe are definitely going to have a shortage.โ
The good news he reported was the relative absence of dust-on-snow, a phenomenon that warms the snow more rapidly and causes faster melting.
This was the eighth or ninth year out of the last 15 that the runoff from the winter snowpack has been on the low side.
Cortez lies amid the remains of the Ancestral Pueblo, known colloquially as the Anasazi. Because of a multi-decade drought about 1200, they abandoned their cliff dwellings and took up homes along the Rio Grande to the east.
West Drought Monitor map April 29, 2025.
At least part of this drought is something different, the result of rising temperatures created by accumulating greenhouse gases. The process is called aridification, and scientists since about 2017 have conducted studies that convincingly demonstrate that it is responsible for roughly half of declined flows. Drought may go away, but human-caused aridification will not any time soon.
The Colorado River during the last 25 years has yielded significantly less water than the 20th century average โ and even less than delegates from the seven basin states assumed when they drew up the Colorado River Compact in 1922.
The states, divided into the upper and lower basins, have been trying to come to grips with the new realities of the 21st century for most of the century. Results have been uneven.
First California and then Arizona gulped waters from the river with giant diversion projects. Colorado but especially other basin states were slower to put straws into the river and they have also been smaller straws.
Who should cut back given the clear evidence for need? At his farm near Durango, Meyer thinks that Colorado must recognize it needs to cut back somewhat in line with what Arizona and California have agreed to do.
Runoff into Lake Powell during March 2as 61% of average. The reservoir is 31.4% full, far better than in 2022, when capacity dipped to below 23% of capacity. Runoff in the last couple of years has been at least okay. This yearโs runoff will be a stern reminder that new agreements must be hammered out.
On April 25, water journalist and author John Fleck and four collaborators โ including Anne Castle and Eric Kuhn of Colorado โ issued a short paper that outlined what they said are the seven essential pillars for post-2026 management of the Colorado River. The first calls for enforceable reductions in water use in both the Upper and Lower Basin.
The compact assumed far more water than occurred in the 20th century, but that faulty assumption was tolerable until the 1990s, when the Central Arizona Project withdrawals began. Then came the drought and aridification of the 21st century. The river that delivered 14.5 million acre-feet (unlike the 20 million acre-feet that was assumed) was in trouble.
Colorado, to a small extent, but Wyoming and Utah especially, had not been using the amount of water that was assumed by the compacts. California and Arizona had been โ and then some.
In recent years, California and Arizona have cut back their use of the Colorado River dramatically. The argument made by Castle and Kuhn as well as the others is that there must be shared pain in reduced wager use. That runs counter to the official stance of Colorado and other basin states that itโs a lower-basin problem.
โShared pain is also critical to inducing the various states not to litigate over the interpretation of the 1922 Compact,โ they wrote. โShared does not mean equal, either in amount, triggers or duration,โ they added.
They also say that reductions in water use cannot be predicated on federal compensation, as was important in enabling Arizona and California to reduce their flows during the last few years.
Kuhn was the long-time general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District in Glenwood Springs, and Castle, an attorney who specialized in water, was undersecretary for Water and Science in the Interior Department during the Obama administration. She is now with the Getches-Wilkinson Center at the University of Colorado Law School.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
From email from the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (Sue Uerling):
Please see the attached notice for the May Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Lake San Cristobal Water Activity Enterprise Meetings in Lake City, Colorado on Tuesday, May 20th, 2025 with lunch beginning at noon. If you would like to join the meeting via Zoom, please use the following link to pre-register for the meeting:
Aerial images of the Gunnison Basin revealed that much of the rolling lowlands had already melted out by the end of March. With warmer-than-usual temperatures lingering most of April, the high country is also on track for a speedy melt, triggering the potential for a short water supply this summer. Snowfall was sporadic across much of the valley and Colorado this winter.
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map May 4, 2025 via the NRCS.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, on April 30 snowpack statewide is 57% of normal, with the southwestern portion of the state faring far worse than its northern neighbors. These are the lowest snowpack levels for this time of year since the 2014-15 water year. Marked on the map in hues of red and orange โ signaling a drought is in place โ the snowpack this week in the Gunnison Basin sat at 47% of normal, the Upper Rio Grande at 23% and the San Miguel-Dolores-Animas-San Juan at 28%. There is little moisture in the current forecast, and the NOAA Climate Prediction Center outlook continues to show a warm and dry spring.. Winter 2024-25 started off with momentum with a huge early-season storm around Thanksgiving. Headed into the spring runoff season, near- to above-normal soil moisture conditions were also present in the Gunnison Basin, Cody Moser said during a water supply update on April 24. Moser is a senior hydrologist with the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center. Positive soil moisture conditions impact the water supply outlook as these areas can expect increased runoff. But over the last four months, the valley dried out, Moser said. Precipitation levels October through March across the Gunnison Basin were 88% of the 30-year average (this spans from 1991-2020, some of the driest years on record). December was by far the worst, at 48% of average. The arrival of spring brought no relief. The dry trend continued in April and brought record-high temperatures. The heat resulted in an early melt, draining some of the high-altitude areas that usually hang onto snow much later in the season.
According to the 10-day forecast the melt is expected to pick up this week. Water supply projections across the Gunnison River Basin are below normal, ranging from between 50-80% of average. At Blue Mesa Reservoir, projections show an inflow of just under 500,000 acre-feet of water as the snow melts. This runoff year falls into the โmoderately dryโ category, similar to 2020 and 2022. Blue Mesa is currently 61% full, and is expected to fill to 80%.
Overview maps of the Upper Colorado Basin (UCRB), outlined in black. (a) The major UCRB waterways overlaid on satellite imagery from April 2022 visualizing typical extent of springtime snow cover. Over the MODIS record, (b) annual snow covered days visualizing extent and duration of snow cover, (c) spring RFdust, and (d) persistence of RFdust (% of time above 50 Wmโ2).
Click the link to read the letter on the AGU website (Patrick Naple,ย S. McKenzie Skiles,ย Otto I. Lang,ย Karl Rittger,ย Sebastien J. P. Lenard,ย Annie Burgess,ย Thomas H. Painter). Here’s an excerpt:
Abstract
In the mountainous headwaters of the Colorado River episodic dust deposition from adjacent arid and disturbed landscapes darkens snow and accelerates snowmelt, impacting basin hydrology. Patterns and impacts across the heterogenous landscape cannot be inferred from current in situ observations. To fill this gap daily remotely sensed retrievals of radiative forcing and contribution to melt were analyzed over the MODIS period of record (2001โ2023) to quantify spatiotemporal impacts of snow darkening. Each season radiative forcing magnitudes were lowest in early spring and intensified as snowmelt progressed, with interannual variability in timing and magnitude of peak impact. Over the full record, radiative forcing was elevated in the first decade relative to the last decade. Snowmelt was accelerated in all years and impacts were most intense in the central to southern headwaters. The spatiotemporal patterns motivate further study to understand controls on variability and related perturbations to snow water resources.
Key Points
Spatiotemporal patterns in dust on snow radiative forcing and melt contribution assessed over the MODIS period of record
Dust darkens snow every year and impacts were generally higher in the first half of the record
The dust on snow radiative impacts accelerate snowmelt every spring with relevant melt contribution even in lower magnitude years
Plain Language Summary
Seasonal melt from mountain snowpacks dominates water resource availability in the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB). The mountainous Colorado River headwaters are adjacent to arid regions that regularly emit dust that darkens the snow. Darker snow melts earlier and faster due to the snowpack absorbing more of the sun’s energy. This study uses 23 years of daily remotely sensed images to observe patterns in dust on snow impacts during the melt season across the UCRB. Results showed that impacts were greatest in the central-southern Rocky Mountains at mid-alpine elevations. Over time, snow darkening and accelerated melt were generally higher in the first half of the record with a slight declining trend across the full record. However, dust contributed to accelerating melt every spring over the record. Results suggest the need for further study to understand what controls dust on snow variability and magnitude of impact from year to year.
Dusk falls on Lake Powell near Bullfrog Marina on July 15, 2024. A new letter from water policy experts gives negotiators some recommendations on how to sustainably manage the Colorado River in the future. Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
May 3, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
The seven states that use the Colorado River are deadlocked about how to share it in the future. The current rules for dividing its shrinking supplies expire in 2026. State leaders are under pressure to propose a new sharing agreement urgently, so they can finish environmental paperwork before that deadline.
Right now, they donโt appear close to an agreement, so a group of prominent Colorado River experts co-signed a letter outlining seven things they want to see in the next set of rules.
The letter gives a clear, concise list of recommendations for ways to keep taps flowing while protecting tribes and the environment. Whether the states will listen is another matter entirely.
โShared painโ
The letter, written by a group of academics and retired policymakers, makes no bones about it: states need to find a collective solution to their collective problem. And some of them might not be happy.
State leaders have been reluctant to volunteer cutbacks, and have largely stayed divided along a decades-old fault line. On one side, the Upper Basin โ which consists of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. The other side, the Lower Basin, is made up of California, Arizona and Nevada.
The recent letter is interesting in part because itโs co-authored by people from both sides of the Colorado River debate. Eric Kuhn led an agency that defends Western Coloradoโs water. Kathryn Sorensen led Phoenixโs water department.
The letter was also written by Anne Castle, who has worked in federal water policy positions, and Jack Schmidt, a water researcher at Utah State University. Co-authors John Fleck and Katherine Tara research water policy at the University of New Mexico.
The authors write that states need to engage in some level of โshared pain,โ meaning cutbacks to the amount of water that flows to farms, homes, and businesses.
โโSharedโ,โ the letter writes, โDoes not mean equal, either in amount, triggers, or duration.โ
Water from the Colorado River flows through the East Highline Canal on its way to farms in the Imperial Valley on June 20, 2023. The Colorado River’s single largest user has taken federal money through incentive programs to cut back on water use. Alex Hager/KUNC
The Lower Basin states have already proposed relatively modest cutbacks, and the Upper Basin seems to be digging in its heels on the idea that they should not have to give up any water at all.
This letter pushes back on that stance.
โThere’s lots of wonderful legal arguments about why it shouldn’t be me that needs to use less water,โ Anne Castle, one of the letterโs authors, told KUNC. โBut in order to have a viable and politically viable agreement, everybody has to do a share.โ
Other recommendations
In addition to calling for states to put their heads together, the authors also warned against leaning too hard on federal checks as a way to conserve water. Money from the federal government has been a key part of avoiding catastrophe on the Colorado River in recent years. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to big water users, often farmers, as an incentive to use less water.
Those funds have come under threat during President Donald Trumpโs second term. The letter says new rules for the Colorado River โcannot assume that federal taxpayers will reimburse Western water users over the long term to forgo the use of water that does not exist.โ
The letter goes on to advocate for groups that can sometimes be an afterthought in Western water policy. It essentially re-ups an earlier call from a group of tribes in the Colorado River basin, which are asking for a bigger seat at the table after more than a century of exclusion. It also pushes for new rules to be more flexible, which would make it easier to protect river ecosystems. That mirrors similar comments from a group of nonprofits.
The shortest and final recommendation in the letter says that any new Colorado River rules have to make sure thereโs enough water to keep people safe and healthy.
โThere must be absolute protection of domestic water deliveries for public health and safety,โ it reads.
In short, itโs asking to make sure that a worst-case-scenario doesnโt see drinking water reserves go dry, while agriculture and other industries keep their faucets flowing.
โI don’t think that would happen,โ Castle said. โI think the market would intervene and take care of this situation.โ
The reaction
KUNC reached out to top water negotiators in Arizona and Colorado for this story. Their answers fell in line with oft-repeated talking points from each basin.
A spokesman for the Arizona Department of Water Resources wrote that its director, Tom Buschatzke, โagreed with the authors that โevery state and sector of the economy must contribute to the solution to this imbalance.โโ
Water policymakers from (left to right) Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming speak on a panel at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas on December 5, 2024. The Upper Basin states have been reluctant to volunteer cutbacks ahead of the next set of river-sharing rules. Alex Hager/KUNC
Coloradoโs top water official, Becky Mitchell, wrote that the recommendations overlooked climate changeโs impact on Upper Basin water supplies, and that states already take โmandatory and uncompensatedโ cuts.
โColorado water users do not enjoy a guaranteed delivery of the full amount of their water rights each year,โ she wrote.
Jennifer Gimbel, Coloradoโs former top water official, did not contribute to the letter and also took issue with the suggestion that both basins could afford to make cutbacks.
โAre the authors of the paper thinking that federal law should be enacted to override state law?โ Gimbel wrote to KUNC in an email. โAre they thinking that users in the Upper Basin, who they say should not rely on federal compensation, should just give up their livelihoods voluntarily or be compensated by the state legislatures? I donโt know because they donโt say.โ
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain website (John Fleck):
April 25, 2025
A group* of my Colorado River collaborators has put together what we hope can be a useful set of foundational principles as the basin states and federal leadership search for a path toward a negotiated agreement for post-2026 Colorado River management. Theyโre based on a number of key premises:
The Colorado River Compact will remain the foundation of the riverโs management, but we have to find a way past the deep disagreement between Upper and Lower basin states on what the Compact actually says.
Colorado River Basin tribes must be essential partners in crafting the next set of guidelines, including through compensation for foregone water use.
Shared pain is essential. The path toward a sustainable river system requires everyone to contribute to the solution to the problem of the river we all share.
