And the existing plans and commitments, including a federal outline announced in late July 2026, don’t get close to achieving what’s needed to keep the river flowing. Here’s a look at the key issues making an agreement so hard to reach.
The Lower Basin states – Arizona, California and Nevada – have been using less water, even as their populations have grown.
They have proposed to further reduce water use in 2027 and 2028, and Mexico has, too. Those decreases, coming only from the Lower Basin states, would be the biggest-ever reductions of Colorado River water use, but they would amount to only about 3.7 million acre-feet over two years, about half what is likely needed.
If the winter of 2026-27 is like the winter the West had in 2025-26, the river and reservoirs will likely be at that point by mid-2027. A really good winter with lots of snow might push the timing out a year or two, but it won’t solve the problem: People are using a lot more water from the reservoirs than nature is replenishing each year with rainfall and snowfall.
The other key problem is evaporation. These massive reservoirs are in a hot, dry region. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that annual evaporation is about 1.5 million acre-feet. That’s about 10% of what the seven states expect to be able to use each year – and about half of the overall cuts in water use that would be needed to keep the river flowing.
Even if sufficient water were released from Lake Powell to Lake Mead to cover the Lower Basin’s and Mexico’s apportionments, Lake Mead would continue to decline because of evaporation.
What would deep cuts mean for people?
Farmers and ranchers in the Upper Basin have had less water available in 2026 because the winter was extraordinarily dry.
But if water levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead fall too low to allow dam managers to release stored water, the effects would be on the Lower Basin.
Entities that receive water from the Central Arizona Project have junior priority in the Lower Basin. Central Arizona cities have years’ worth of groundwater they could access – not a forever supply, but enough to use for some years while they work on developing new water supplies.
If cuts go deeper, tribal and nontribal agriculture along the main stem would arguably take the hardest hit. They may have higher-priority rights, but if there’s no water they’re still in trouble. And there isn’t an alternative water supply for agriculture along the river’s main route.
Across the nation, people would notice higher costs and limited availability of some produce, especially in the winter. At times of year when those crops can’t grow in colder parts of the country, Yuma County, Arizona, and Imperial County, California, are key suppliers of vegetables. Other products would be affected too, including Desert durum wheat, a high-gluten wheat that is preferred for pasta.
What would those cuts mean for electricity?
The federal Bureau of Reclamation has made clear its commitment to continuing hydropower production by keeping reservoir elevations above the minimum level needed to generate electricity.
As a result, the reservoirs will likely not reach the point called “deadpool,” at which no water can move through the dam. But they may reach levels at which no water beyond what’s required to generate power – or what arrives as rain or snow – would flow downstream.
What are the states’ positions?
The Lower Basin states have said they would reduce water use by 1.6 million acre-feet a year, effectively handling the reduction due to evaporation. But the Lower Basin has remained insistent on the Upper Basin states’ sharing in additional conservation measures.
Without a negotiated way forward, there are two potential legal fights on the horizon, which could happen at the same time.
One is a Supreme Court fight over how to interpret the Colorado River Compact. It tends to take about a decade to resolve interstate water-sharing fights in the Supreme Court. If that happens, the region will face years of uncertainty regarding the amount of water available to different users.
At the same time, negotiators, tribes and others in the Lower Basin have made clear that they don’t agree with the approach to the crisis the Bureau of Reclamation announced in late July 2026. The specifics of how that plan will be carried out have not yet been released, but Arizona and Nevada have already threatened to sue.
I think it’s going to require federal leadership. In the 1930s a national effort set out to improve farming efficiency all around the nation, but especially in the South and West. Under the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1937, the federal government bought millions of acres of marginal farmland to take it out of production.
Farming is important, but not every acre of farmland should stay in production. If it’s a choice between making sure some water goes to cities or keeping every possible acre of farmland irrigated, we have to be able to discuss both options.
For Mead and Powell, fresh record lows. Data: USBR; Graph: Jack Schmidt
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain website (Jack Schmidt and John Fleck):
August 7, 2026
When Lake Mead’s elevation crossed the threshold of 1,040 feet above sea level in the spring of 1937, stretching upstream 100 miles behind Hoover Dam in the deserts of the Arizona Nevada border, it was national news.
So much water!
Kerrville Times, Kerrville Texas, May 13, 1937
As Mead drops past that threshold in the opposite direction in the summer of 2026, it’s telling a different story. So little water.
Two milestones in the last few days are worthy of note. The first is Lake Mead itself, which in the last two days dropped past the previous lowest levels in history set in 2022, meaning it is now the lowest it has been since the reservoir was first filled in the 1930s.
Lake Mead was at 7.012 maf yesterday (Aug. 6, 2026) (1040.5 ft). The previous record low was 7.018 maf (1040.58 ft) that was set on July 28, 2022. Thus, yesterday’s reservoir contents in Lake Mead are the lowest since at least May 1937.
Meanwhile, Lake Powell is now 85,000 af (1.51 ft) above its lowest historical amount since it was first filled in the 1960s.
But that does not fully capture the extent of the crisis. Total reservoir contents of all 46 reservoirs in the Reclamation data base (extending from Fontenelle and Grand Lakes to Lake Havasu) was at 21.27 maf on July 1, the lowest since at least May 29, 1965 (probably earlier, since the Reclamation data base doesn’t report many reservoir contents at that early date).
The vultures didn’t wait long to feed on the carrion of shrunken national monuments. Within days of President Donald Trump’s order slashing nearly 3 million acres from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, mining claims were filed within the former boundaries of both monuments with San Juan County and Kane County, respectively.
While Trump’s shrinkage did reopen that land to new mining claims and mineral leasing, it does not go into effect until Sept. 11, 60 days after the proclamations were issued. The claims have not officially been recorded with the Bureau of Land Management.
On July 14, Kimmerle Mining LLC out of Moab filed seven claims just within the eastern border of what had been Bears Ears National Monument just two days earlier. A few weeks later, Charles Rosequist filed two claims in the southwest corner of the GSENM, near Kaibab Gulch and the Vermilion Cliffs.
Kimmerle Mining, its principal Kyle Kimmerle, and other family members hold dozens of mining claims across southern Utah and western Colorado uranium country. The family firm became known for staking claims in what would become Bears Ears National Monument leading up to its designation, and for locating more after Trump’s first national monument shrinkage in 2017.
Just before Biden restored the boundaries in 2021, Kimmerle Mining staked five new claims within the national monument and acquired additional claims from another firm in the historic White Canyon mining district. Kimmerle Mining promptly filed for a permit to do exploration work there, but the BLM said they had to demonstrate the claims’ “validity,” or show that they contained “valuable minerals.” The process for doing so would cost up to $100,000. Shortly thereafter, Kimmerle joined the state of Utah’s lawsuit seeking to eviscerate the national monument, claiming that its establishment had caused him to lose out on mining profits.
And, in 2018, the Kimmerle family staked the Easy Peasy claims in the Cottonwood Wash drainage in what had been Bears Ears National Monument. The new claims are adjacent to those, in the Cheese & Raisins Hills area, which was mined historically for vanadium and uranium. The Shumway brothers staked claims there back in the 1930s, including the Big Hole Mine, and the ruins of an old vanadium mill are still visible nearby.
Remnants of a historic vanadium processing plant in the Cottonwood Wash drainage near where Kimmerle Mining filed seven mining claims in an area removed from Bears Ears National Monument. Jonathan P. Thompson photo
Whether the firm plans to mine the claims, or is just looking for more grounds for a future lawsuit in the event that the next administration restores the boundaries isn’t clear. They have been known to use mining claims to make political points: Late last year, Kimmerle Mining staked four 20.66-acre lode claims on the east slope of the Henry Mountains, naming them Trump I, Trump 2, Trump 3, and Trump 4.
Also in the shady mining moves around national monument shrinkage: Less than a week before Trump issued the proclamations, Energy Fuels CEO Ross Bhappu purchased 74,000 shares of the uranium mining and milling firm’s stock, and the company’s chairman Bruce Hansen bought 4,000 shares. Democratic lawmakers on the House Natural Resources committee are now investigating the trade and the possibility that the executives received privileged, non-public information from the Trump administration in advance of the shrinkage.
Energy Fuels owns and operates the White Mesa uranium mill in San Juan County, Utah, east of Bears Ears National Monument. The company lobbied the Obama administration prior to its original 2016 designation. Though the administration ultimately excluded Energy Fuels’ Daneros mine from the monument, the firm lamented the fact that seven miles of the mine’s one access road still fell within the boundaries.
In 2017 Energy Fuels lobbyists, including former U.S. Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., met with Trump administration officials, and requested that it “reduce the size of the (Bears Ears National Monument) to only those specific resource areas or sites, if any, deemed to need additional protection beyond what is already available to Federal land management agencies.”
In 2021, IsoEnergy acquired the Daneros Mine and other mining properties from Energy Fuels. But any ore mined in the former Bears Ears is likely to be processed at Energy Fuels’ White Mesa mill, so they stand to benefit from the shrinkage.
⛈️ Wacky Weather Watch⚡️
It wasn’t exactly a hurricane that hit Hurricane, but it was pretty darned destructive. This past weekend a huge storm pounded southwestern Utah, leading to arroyo-busting flash floods that turned the city’s streets into rivers of mud. The water gave a big boost to the Virgin River, which shot up from about 165 cubic feet per second to over 4,000 cfs in a matter of hours.
🐟 Colorado River Chronicles 💧
Lake Powell reached a grim benchmark this past weekend, when its surface elevation dropped to its lowest level since 1968, when the nation’s second largest reservoir was still filling up. In April of 2023, the level fell to 3,519.92 feet. On August 15 of this year, it reached 3,519.91 feet and is still falling at a rate of about two inches per day.
While not exactly surprising, the event launched many a news story in the mainstream media. And as is often the case with complicated issues like these — and the Glen Canyon Dam problem is not exactly simple or straightforward — some of the facts in these stories can be a little less than factual, and could use a bit of clarification.
The graphic showing reservoir levels at Lake Powell says that at 3,370 feet, known as dead pool, “Water no longer flows past the dam.” As Zak Podmore — who wrote the book on Lake Powell and deadpool — pointed out on X-Twitter, that is not quite right. What actually would happen is that the dam would become a run-of-the-river facility, meaning water released from the dam would be equal to water flowing into the reservoir (minus losses from seepage and evaporation). So the Grand Canyon would not go completely dry, though there would be times when flows are pretty darned low.
The piece notes: “About 6 million people across the Southwest rely on electricity from the dams [both Glen Canyon and Hoover].” This isn’t wrong, it’s just worded in a way that overstates the importance of these generators’ energy output to the Western power grid. Combined, the dams produce enough electricity annually to power some 550,000 households for a year. That power is sold at cost to municipalities, cooperatives, tribal nations, irrigation districts, and utilities across the West, which include it as part of their larger portfolios. The 6 million figure probably refers to all of the customers all of those entities serve; if the dams go down, these folks most likely wouldn’t notice except for a small jump in their power bills.
Humpback chub. National Park Service illustration by Joe Tomelleri.
Protect the Grand Canyon’s Humpback Chub A guest dispatch by Ron Rudolph
This month Lake Powell will shrink to a level last seen in 1968, a few months before the first astronauts orbited the Moon. The receding reservoir has forced the Bureau of Reclamation to abandon the practice of releasing cool water from the reservoir, a strategy used successfully to prevent smallmouth bass from becoming entrenched in Grand Canyon National Park below Glen Canyon Dam.1 The bass are an invasive species that can escape from Lake Powell and could imperil the Grand Canyon’s native humpback chub population, the most important remnant of a federally protected species that was once widespread throughout the Colorado River system.2 Scientists attribute steep declines in the humpback chub population in the upper Colorado River Basin largely to smallmouth bass predation.3
Sustaining the humpback chub population in the Grand Canyon is essential to prevent the species’ extinction. With cool water releases no longer feasible, protecting the humpback chub now requires a different approach. Increasing the delivery of sediment into the Grand Canyon may be the most effective remaining tool. Additional sediment transported from Lake Powell, either around or through Glen Canyon Dam, would increase turbidity, making it more difficult for smallmouth bass to establish a stable population.
The Bureau’s decision to halt cool water releases reflects the severity of the ongoing drought, which has reduced this year’s unregulated flow of the Colorado River to the second lowest since Glen Canyon Dam was completed 63 years ago.4 In April, the agency instituted unprecedented efforts to bolster Lake Powell, which were intended to preserve Glen Canyon Dam’s ability to generate hydropower.5 Despite those efforts, the Bureau’s July 24-month forecast of the minimum probable flow of water into Lake Powell anticipates Glen Canyon Dam will be unable to generate electricity from February 2027 through at least June 2028.6 In fiscal year 2025, Glen Canyon Dam generated enough electricity to supply the annual average needs of 269,000 U.S. households.7
Humpback chub evolved exclusively in the Colorado River system, the water often referred to as “too thick to drink and too thin to plow.” It developed exquisite adaptations to thrive in a volatile environment, driven by flash floods that can rapidly turn relatively clear water to an opaque reddish-brown, making it impossible to see one’s finger one inch below the surface. Its gills and mouth have protective flaps that prevent sediment from clogging them, its eyes are tailored to see in muddy water, and special sensory organs detect prey and plants, allowing the fish to breathe and eat in highly turbid conditions. In contrast, smallmouth bass evolved in clear lakes and streams, relying on their vision to obtain food.
Fortunately, the adult humpback chub population is flourishing in the western Grand Canyon where sediment from the annual monsoon season turns the river into a torrent of mud. From 2010 to 2024, the population grew about 160-fold, with the median population estimated at about 70,000.8 This resurgence caused the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reclassify the species from being endangered — i.e., in imminent threat of extinction, under the Endangered Species Act — to a less serious status of threatened.9
Smallmouth bass were not present in the Grand Canyon prior to the construction of Glen Canyon Dam, but now occur occasionally in its western section. The largest smallmouth bass captured in the park – 15.2 inches – was found in the far western section of the Grand Canyon in 2006.10 The fact that humpback chub flourish in the western Grand Canyon while smallmouth bass do not underscores the importance of intense and sustained pulses of turbidity created by suspended particulates. These conditions appear to be a key factor in preventing smallmouth bass from becoming established.
Because Glen Canyon Dam traps most sediment before it can reach the Grand Canyon, the Bureau should commission a study to evaluate options for increasing sediment delivery from Lake Powell. A sediment bypass system, such as a pipeline around or through the dam, could provide the turbidity needed to suppress smallmouth bass in the absence of cool water releases. Given current hydrologic realities, such an approach may be the most effective long‑term strategy for protecting the humpback chub and preserving the ecological integrity of the Grand Canyon.
1 “Feds Nix Grand Canyon fish protection flows below Lake Powell,” Arizona Republic, August 7, 2026
2 Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program — https://gcdamp.com/index.php/ Smallmouth_Bass_Page
3 U.S. Geological Survey, “Dropping the Bass: USGS science helps partners stop spread of invasive smallmouth bass in the Colorado River,” March 21, 2025
4 The Bureau of Reclamation’s July 2026 “Most Probable” 24-Month Study projects unregulated inflow for this water year at 3.501 million acre-feet. 2002 is the driest on record at 2.64 MAF
6 Bureau of Reclamation, July 2026 Probable Minimum 24-Month Study; https://www.usbr.gov/ lc/region/g4000/24mo_MIN.pdf. When Lake Powell drops below elevation 3,490, it can no longer generate hydropower. See Bureau of Reclamation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, Technical Appendix 15, Dams and Electrical Power Resources, page 15-11
7 In Fiscal Year 2025 Glen Canyon Dam generated 2,792,000,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, according to the Western Area Power Administration’s Statistical Index — https:// http://www.wapa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FY-2025-Statistical-Appendix.pdf, page 9. According to the U.S., Energy Information Administration, U.S. households use an average of 10,365 kWh annually. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3; avg monthly consumption 863; annual 10,365 kWh EIA https://www.eia.gov/electricity/ sales_revenue_price/pdf/table_5a.pdf
8 Dzul et al., “Integrating mark-recapture, catch, and expert habitat assessments to quantify recent increases in humpback chub abundance over a 200 km long river segment of the Colorado River in western Grand Canyon,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, July 2026. Dzul estimated with 95% confidence that the population was between 40,000–200,000
Department of the Interior releases Operating Guidelines and Record of Decision for the Colorado River. Photo credit: USBR
Click the link to read the release on the USBR website:
August 21, 2026
The Department of the Interior issued the 2027-2028 Operating Guidelines and the Record of Decision for the Post-2026 Colorado River Operations Final EIS, establishing a 10-year Decision Framework with a broad operational range that will be used to develop future operational guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Together these decisions provide for reliable operations of the Colorado River system, delivery of vital water supplies, and protect critical federal infrastructure while preserving the flexibility necessary to respond to Basin states’ voluntary actions, consensus recommendations and the continued prolonged drought. The combined contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead have not been this low since before Lake Powell began filling following the closure of the gates at Glen Canyon Dam in 1963, with both Lake Powell and Lake Mead hitting record lows the last few weeks.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
“We are grateful for the Seven Basin States, the thirty Basin Tribes, Mexico, and many other basin stakeholders who have provided the feedback and voluntary arrangements necessary for the development of the 2027-2028 Operating Guidelines.” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “Forty million people, millions of acres of farmland and ranchland, industries that power the American West, and some of our nation’s fastest growing metropolitan areas depend on the Colorado River.”
The 2027-2028 Operating Guidelines respond to hydrologic conditions and provide flexible tools to protect critical infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam. They were developed after extensive engagement with the seven Basin States and incorporate concepts from proposals from both the Upper and Lower Basins and Basin tribes.
These 2027-2028 Operating Guidelines:
Provide objective criteria to determine releases from Lake Powell based on actual hydrology and maintaining a minimum elevation of 3,510 feet to support continued operational reliability at Glen Canyon Dam.
Provides for reductions in deliveries of Colorado River water among the Lower Basin States of 1.25 million acre-feet in each year of the next two years. If the Lower Basin States implement their proposed sharing agreement, the reduction per State would be:
Arizona: 760,000 acre-feet
California: 440,000 acre-feet
Nevada: 50,000 acre-feet
Provide for Lower Basin States to voluntarily conserve and store at least 700,000 acre-feet of water over the two-year period to protect the system, in addition to the 1.25 million acre-feet per year of reductions.
Provide for the Upper Basin States to enter into an agreement, in consultation with Lower Basin States and Basin tribes, using the Secretary’s authorities to operate the Colorado River Storage Project Upper Initial Units (i.e. Aspinall (CO), Flaming Gorge (UT/WY) and Navajo (CO/NM) Reservoirs) to help protect Glen Canyon Dam infrastructure.
Provide tools and flexibility in the Lower Basin to respond to drought conditions by allowing water users to store water.
Provides for a Federally managed pool to help meet tribal firming obligations and provide limited offsetting to reduce tribal impacts.
Provide elevation triggers for coordination and consultations to determine additional actions, if necessary, to minimize operational risks to infrastructure, and manage risks to the urban, agricultural, and natural systems that rely on the Colorado River.
Reclamation also released today the August 2026 24-Month Study, determining the 2027 operations based on the new guidelines. Lake Powell will begin the October 1 water year between elevations 3,540 and 3,510 feet, placing operations in the Lower Elevation Infrastructure Protection Range with an expected water year release between 6.0 and 7.0 million acre-feet. Reclamation will begin the water year with lower releases between 6.0 and 7.0 million acre-feet in order to attempt to maintain an elevation of 3,510 feet or higher and will adjust releases through April to continue to maintain elevation 3,510 feet. The water year 2027 release volume will be determined in April. For Lake Mead, water deliveries to the Lower Basin States will be reduced by 1.25 million-acre feet for calendar year 2027.
The Decision Framework establishes an operational range that provides the flexibility to develop specific operating guidelines within the 10-year period while preserving the opportunity for Colorado River Basin negotiations to continue and, if successful, be incorporated into years three or four or longer for future operational guidelines. Operational elements include enhanced coordinated reservoir operations and expanded opportunities for the storage and delivery of conserved water in system reservoirs and other flexible water management tools. The Decision Framework prioritizes consensus agreements, voluntary actions, and a commitment to coordination and consultation throughout the period of adoption.
The Decision Framework anticipates operating guidelines in two-year periods and can be scaled longer depending on evolving Basin circumstances. This mechanism leaves room for the Basin States, tribes and stakeholders to adjust these parameters with their own voluntary actions and consensus whenever such agreements are reached.
“These decisions provide a water management strategy for Basin stakeholders to respond to the prolonged drought by incorporating flexible tools and voluntary actions while leaving room for consensus agreements,” said Assistant Secretary — Water and Science Andrea Travnicek. “The Department and Reclamation will continue to work with all Basin stakeholders to identify areas to maximize efforts throughout the Basin to modernize infrastructure, develop conservation programs, and identify innovative approaches to deliver water under changing conditions”.
Since the beginning of the Trump administration, President Trump has made delivering water to people a high priority. The administration has demonstrated a commitment to improving and enhancing water supply within the Colorado River Basin through investments in water storage, distribution, treatment, and improving water efficiency. Specifically in the Lower Basin investments over $3 billion have been made since January 2025.
In April 2026, the Secretary asked for feedback from the seven Basin States on potential water supply and conservation projects throughout the Colorado River Basin during a time of shortage. The administration continues to review the submittals and will work with the Basin States and Basin Tribes to identify opportunities to use available Working Families Tax Cuts funds, and other federal cost-share programs related to water storage and expansion and optimization; desalination and advanced water treatment; and water movement, exchanges and infrastructure.
Background
The NEPA process was initiated in June 2023. Over this three-year period the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation engaged extensively with Basin stakeholders and that input is reflected in the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS and the Preferred Alternative of a Decision Framework that would guide future operational guidelines, released on July 31, 2026. The 2027-2028 Operating Guidelines and ROD released today further incorporate extensive feedback from Basin stakeholders. The Final EIS, ROD and 2027-2028 Operating Guidelines are available on Reclamation’s website.
For the past 26 years, the Colorado River Basin has been experiencing an unprecedented multidecadal drought, resulting in historically low runoff and reservoir levels. Conditions worsened during 2026, driven in part by the lowest observed snowpack on record during the winter of 2025-2026. Last week, Lake Mead reached a record-low elevation, highlighting the need for flexible operations that can respond to rapidly changing conditions across the Colorado River Basin.
A separate binational process addressing water deliveries to Mexico is nearing completion and the Department is committed to continued collaboration with Mexico. The Department will conduct all necessary and appropriate discussions regarding post-2026 operations and implementation of the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico through the International Boundary and Water Commission in consultation with the Department of State.
The Colorado River provides water for more than 40 million people and generates hydropower for seven states. It serves as a vital resource for 30 tribes and two Mexican states, sustaining 5.5 million acres of farmland and agricultural communities throughout the West, while also supporting critical ecosystems and protecting endangered species.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Army Corps approves a permit for the Line 5 oil pipeline tunnel just as a state permit is invalidated.
NOAA finds that July was the warmest month in the country’s 132-year historical record.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes comments on draining farmland near protected prairie wetlands.
Two Senate Democrats introduce water system cybersecurity bill.
USGS reports on long-term changes in U.S. groundwater and surface water.
And lastly, the two big Colorado River reservoirs drop to all-time lows as the federal government prepares a new two-year operating plan.
“What can we do if the administration isn’t willing to allow us to use the [Glen Canyon Dam] bypass tubes for high-flow experiments, if that’s going to be off the table, at least for a while?” – Wayne Pullan, Upper Colorado regional director at the Bureau of Reclamation, discussing Trump administration constraints on using Glen Canyon Dam to assist threatened fish in the Grand Canyon and rebuild eroded beaches along that stretch of the Colorado River. Earlier this month, Reclamation decided against a short-term release of cold water from deeper in Lake Powell to disrupt non-native fish spawning because the release would have reduced hydropower generation. “We’re in a pinch point,” Pullan added. “A real pinch point.”
News Briefs
Line 5 Decision The Army Corps of Engineers approved a permit for Enbridge to build a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac, a waterway that connects Lake Michigan to Lake Huron. The tunnel would house a new Line 5 oil pipeline.
The federal agency’s decision is not the final word. State permits for the tunnel are being litigated and reversed. On July 31, the Michigan Supreme Court invalidated a state Public Service Commission approval because the commission did not properly assess project impacts or need.
Cybersecurity Bill Some two weeks after Iranian hackers allegedly targeted U.S. water utilities, two Senate Democrats introduced a bill to bolster water system cybersecurity.
The Water Cyber Shield Act focuses on risk reduction. It requires water systems to assess their cybersecurity risks, develop a response plan, and submit them for state approval. The submitted information is exempt from FOIA.
The bill also requires the EPA to establish baseline cybersecurity standards that impose more burdens on higher risk water systems. It authorizes $300 million annually over five years to help drinking water systems identify and fix vulnerabilities, as well as $300 million annually for wastewater systems.
According to NOAA data, it was the hottest single month since record-keeping began at the end of the Gilded Age, in 1895.
The average temperature for those 31 days was 76.9 F, which was 3.3 F above the 20th century average. It was especially warm in the Intermountain West, where states are also observing record-low river flows. [ed.emphasis mine]
Water Trends The West and the High Plains are drying while the Upper Midwest and Northeast are getting wetter.
That is the broad pattern identified in a U.S. Geological Survey evaluation of large-scale groundwater and surface water changes between 1980 and 2020.
On the Radar
Colorado River’s Shrinking Reservoirs Both Lake Mead and Lake Powell now sit at their lowest levels since the manmade reservoirs were first filled.
The record-breaking plunge underscores the precarity of water supplies in the Colorado River basin. Because this year’s mountain snowpack has already melted, the reservoirs will likely set new lows through at least next April.
Lake Mead key elevations. Credit: USBR
Lake Mead is at 1,039 feet, four feet above the level at which hydropower generating capacity at Hoover Dam will drop by 70 percent.
Lake Powell rests at 3,519 feet. The Bureau of Reclamation is attempting to keep the reservoir above 3,500 feet to protect Glen Canyon Dam’s water supply and power-generating infrastructure.
Draining, or Not Draining, Prairie Wetlands The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took comments on the process for draining waterlogged lands for farming in an important duck habitat in the northern plains where the government holds wetlands easements.
Formed by retreating glaciers, prairie potholes are shallow ponds in Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota that sustain most of North America’s waterfowl. To protect the habitat, the FWS began buying easements from farmers in 1959. Those easements prohibit draining the wetlands.
To grow crops on sodden land, farmers install drain tile – perforated pipes placed underground. Farmers whose land contains an easement can request the FWS calculate a distance beyond the wetlands where drain tile can be installed.
The agency wants to know how it should make those calculations.
Prairie-Pothole Region of North Dakota. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
This past week, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation posted an attention-grabbing statistic. By dropping to less than 25% of its capacity, Blue Mesa Reservoir has lost its status as the state’s largest body of water. Lake Granby, itself just 62% full, now holds the title.
Recent best seller set in Iola and the West Fork of the Gunnison River. Click the image to read about it.
The ruins of Iola, a community flooded in the creation of Blue Mesa, are now visible. Parts of the Gunnison River snake through the lakebed in imitation of its historic path before the reservoir was dammed in the 1960s.
In a different year, the water storage unit that includes Blue Mesa might have helped replenish Lake Powell, the second-largest reservoir in the U.S., which now sits worryingly close to power pool. Power pool is the threshold when water levels drop too low to produce hydroelectric power…There’s no chance of Blue Mesa contributing much to Lake Powell this year, said Steve Pope, manager of the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association…The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association relies on water stored in the Blue Mesa, which is diverted downstream through the Gunnison Tunnel to irrigate tens of thousands of acres of farmland. The communities of Montrose, Delta and Olathe also rely on raw water from the tunnel for municipal use. The association typically has a secondary water supply from the Uncompahgre River, but Pope said that source is “nonexistent” this year. In anticipation of shortages, the association already limited users to 50% of their allocations this spring. Pope said he hoped no further restrictions would be necessary before Labor Day. Large row crop producers have already fallowed 30%-60% of their land in the valley, he said…
The Bureau of Reclamation has taken steps to avoid that scenario, said Caleb Foy, senior water resources engineer at the Colorado River Water Conservation District. Water managers were already anticipating a historically dry year this spring, when the window for the mountains to accumulate snowpack passed leaving the lowest amount ever recorded. Snowpack melts in spring to produce runoff, which feeds the Colorado River Basin. If the Bureau of Reclamation and water rights holders along the Gunnison River had not put restrictions in place, Blue Mesa might have been on a trajectory to drain past power pool, Foy said. The reservoir’s generators have an 86.4-megawatt capacity, enough to generate power for about 3,400 homes.
Lake Powell’s drastically low water levels are evident in the discoloration of ancient cliffs that were submerged for decades, often referred to as “the bathtub ring” in March 2026 | Page Buono (American Rivers)
Click the link too read the article on the Colorado Politics website (Marianne Goodland). Here’s an excerpt:
August 17, 2026
In the past 10 days, both Lake Mead on the Arizona-Nevada border and Lake Powell roughly 300 miles northeast on the Utah-Arizona line have recorded their lowest water levels since the reservoirs were first filled. Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir and which supplies water to Nevada, Arizona and California, measured 1,040.4 feet above sea level on Aug. 7. The level has continued to drop since then. On Monday, the reservoir measured 1,039.83 feet above sea level, nearly 190 feet below full and down about 2 feet over the past 30 days. A year ago, Lake Mead stood at roughly 1,054 feet.
Rarely seen back of the Hoover Dam prior to first fill
Hoover Dam, which created Lake Mead, was completed in 1935. The reservoir was last at full in 1983. If the reservoir loses another 4.76 feet, Hoover Dam begins to lose its ability to generate significant hydropower. At 895 feet, it reaches “dead pool” — a complete shutdown of Hoover’s hydropower system.
Lake Powell, the nation’s second largest reservoir and the water bank for Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, reached its lowest point in history on Sunday at 3,519.8 feet above sea level. A year ago, it stood at 3,551.33 feet above sea level.
Glen Canyon Dam construction. Credit: Sibley’s Rivers
Glen Canyon Dam, which created the reservoir, was constructed in 1966. The last time Lake Powell was close to full was in 1999. At 3,490 feet, Glen Canyon Dam also begins to lose its ability to generate hydropower. At 3,370 feet, the elevation known as dead pool, hydropower production would stop entirely.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Both reservoirs are fed by the Colorado River, which has been hit by what some called a thousand-year megadrought that has cut its supply from around 15 million acre-feet per year to 12 million…This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, according to Eric Kuhn, retired general manager of the Colorado River District.
“This was inevitable,” he told Colorado Politics. “All of the science has been pointing to this for 25 years.”
The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and is divided into Upper and Lower Basins. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)
Climate change will almost certainly feature prominently in any multi-state litigation over the Colorado River. A court case over an almost-finished dam expansion may decide how.
Is climate change enough justification to stop the expansion of a reservoir that will take more water from the dwindling Colorado River?
That’s the central question in a lawsuit pitting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Colorado’s largest water utility against a consortium of environmental nonprofits. The environmentalists say the Colorado River has no more water to give, while Denver Water, the utility whose Gross Reservoir would nearly triple in capacity, argues it is ensuring its customers can withstand droughts. The Corps contends it is not required to consider climate change or the downstream effects of its expansion of a dam to grow the reservoir.
The case in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has the potential to ripple through Western water management as states, tribes, cities and the federal government struggle to find a compromise on how to steeply cut water use. Some see history repeating itself, with the Gross Dam expansion emblematic of the kind of thinking that helped put the West into the very water crisis the project is meant to buffer the region against.
“Does it make sense for major water projects like this to continue to move forward?” asked Sarah Matsumoto, an associate professor of clinical law at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and director of the Getches-Green Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law Clinic. “I just don’t think it does anymore, without at minimum considering impacts of climate and impacts of overappropriation on the river.”
The Corps and Denver Water appealed that decision, arguing that construction of the dam expansion is nearly complete, and topping off the reservoir behind it is in the public’s best interest. There are no other alternatives to consider, the utility asserts. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires evaluating the impacts of projects that need federal approval, does not require the assessment of climate change, they contend.
“We believe that considering potential climate impacts to a project goes beyond the scope of any guidelines, practicability, or NEPA reasonableness analysis,” said U.S. Department of Justice attorney Kyle Glynn, representing the Army Corps, during oral arguments for the case before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The expansion of Denver Water’s Gross Reservoir would hold an additional 77,000 acre feet of water diverted from the declining Colorado River, enough water for roughly 150,000 homes. Denver Water would get that water incrementally from an unused 1945 water right of 18,000 annual acre feet to ensure it can supply the growing metropolis of Denver and protect its water supplies during droughts.
The utility plans to only use its water right during wet years when it can stockpile water from excess supply. Of the 77,000 acre feet in diversions, 5,000 would be sequestered in an “environmental pool” that would enhance streamflows on South Boulder Creek and serve as additional storage for the cities of Boulder and Lafayette.
But environmentalists are not convinced there will be enough surplus water in the future for the utility to fill the reservoir. If the state is required to cut back its water use to address system-wide shortages on the Colorado River, reductions the seven states that depend on the river are currently negotiating, what happens to the over $800 million project, they wonder.
Those are the concerns driving the environmental groups, which sued over what they called an inadequate NEPA process and a failure to properly examine alternatives to the project. Natural resource professors watching the case share their concerns. The court’s decision, both say, could have far-reaching consequences for Southwestern states and nearly 40 million people who rely on the Colorado River, and could determine how climate change is considered in any future litigation.
Denver Water’s position is in direct contradiction with what Colorado is arguing in the current negotiations about how much water from the river states must give up, said Gary Wockner, founder of Save the Colorado, the environmental group that’s led the push against the Gross Reservoir expansion.
Colorado has maintained that it and other states close to the river’s headwaters should not have to make mandatory cuts because climate change is already limiting their supply by reducing river and stream flows. Should the negotiations over cuts to allocations from the river devolve so completely that states in the upper and lower halves of the Colorado River Basin sue one another, some water law experts believe climate change would figure prominently in the litigation.
“If the court supports Denver Water and says that Denver Water did not have to account for climate change to prove that they could operate the project, it sets a very difficult and perhaps powerful precedent, potentially undermining the state of Colorado’s position in the entire Colorado River negotiations,” Wockner said.
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.
Can a Dam’s Progress Block Climate Considerations?
On the last day of July, attorneys for the environmental groups, Denver Water and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gathered before three justices on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a courtroom in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Their oral arguments came nearly two years after senior federal judge Christine Arguello ruled in favor of the environmentalists, saying that “the cracked foundation of the Colorado River’s management system all but demands skepticism over any proposal that will affect the hydrology of the Colorado River basin.”
Arguello’s decision didn’t stop construction to expand the dam, but forced the parties to meet and agree on remedies. Those discussions failed, however, leading Arguello to issue an injunction to stop construction in April 2025. That was lifted due to safety concerns about the dam being left incomplete, but an injunction remained preventing the clearing of the forest below to make room for the additional water, or filling the added space behind the dam.
The Gross Reservoir expansion solves a problem Denver Water has been trying to address for 23 years, said Jessica Brody, general counsel for the utility, in the 10th Circuit last month.
Denver Water has a water storage imbalance between its two collection systems with 90% of its reservoir storage located in the utility’s South System compared to 10% in its North System. This storage imbalance creates vulnerability if there is a drought, mechanical issue or emergency that affects the South System. The storage imbalance is one of the reasons Denver Water is expanding Gross Reservoir. Image credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water’s storage and delivery network is divided into north and south systems, which are unconnected and imbalanced. The south system provides 80 percent of the utility’s water supply, and if it were to go down, the north system, which includes Gross Reservoir, could run out of water in just one year. That leaves the utility’s system vulnerable in times of severe drought, wildfires or other emergencies.
Despite construction being nearly done, Brody said, Denver Water has a dam it cannot fill because of the lower court’s opinion.
That decision was an “abuse” of the court’s power, she said, as the water rights at stake are under the jurisdiction of the state, not federal agencies. Plaintiffs never sought a preliminary injunction to stop construction, although they did when later mediation failed. Jurisdiction over the cutting of trees to make room for the expanded reservoir lies with the U.S. Forest Service and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, not the Corps, she said.
The arguments from Denver Water and the Corps seemed to resonate with the three justices presiding over the case, largely due to the fact the dam is nearly complete.
“Poor pun: It’s water over the dam, because it’s built,” said Judge Timothy Tymkovich. “So costs, and I think climate change, are off the table now.”
William Eubanks, the attorney representing the environmental groups, disagreed. The dam expansion is part of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System project, which requires work in addition to the Gross Reservoir project, such as felling the trees.
And there is still the question of where the water will come from.
A central point for the lawsuit, he said, is that under the Clean Water Act, water infrastructure developers have to show a project can be built and fulfill the expected need—in this case, a reservoir with more water. That wasn’t done here, Eubanks said.
“With the Moffat Collection System project, Denver Water and the Army Corps have recklessly gambled with over $800 million of ratepayer money,” Eubanks said before the court. Neither the Corps nor the utility forecasted whether there would be enough surplus water in the Colorado River for Denver Water to fill its reservoir, he argued. “In effect, they’re building a giant bathtub, even though there’s likely no water to ever fill it.”
CU Boulder professor Matsumoto is one of 11 natural resource law experts who submitted an amicus brief to the court asking it to affirm the lower court’s decision.
This case, they wrote, is a “classic example of why we need NEPA”—illustrating the consequences of an agency permitting and approving a project without a full evaluation of other alternatives and whether the project was even feasible. The foundational U.S. environmental law was designed to push agencies to “fully appreciate the consequences of their actions before they move forward with those actions,” they wrote.
The Corps violated NEPA by limiting the number of alternatives it considered for the project and only examining impacts up to 50 miles downstream, not along the full course of the river, the brief noted.
“It just doesn’t make any sense for the amount of water that they’re getting,” said Mark Squillace, a natural resources law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and another one of the professors part of the amicus brief. “It’s insane.”
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
A Complicating Compact
Since 1922, the Colorado River has been governed by its eponymous compact, which is now widely acknowledged to have overallocated the river by millions of acre feet of water. Under the compact, both the Upper Colorado River Basin, made up of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada, are entitled to 7.5 million acre feet of water, with another 1.5 million acre feet going to Mexico. But the river has averaged closer to 11 million acre feet since 2020—more than 6 million acre feet less than the total that has been allocated, according to the most recent federal data.
Though both basins get an equal share of the river, Article III(d) of the compact specifies that the Upper Basin “will not cause the flow of the river” to be depleted below an average of 7.5 million acre feet per year over any 10-year period downstream.
Failing to meet that requirement could trigger the Lower Basin to demand more water from the Upper Basin in what is known as a “compact call.” That unprecedented action could force severe water usage curtailments in the Upper Basin, and how that would affect users like Denver Water is unclear. The system is dangerously close to the hydrological conditions that could trigger a compact call.
It’s a known risk for this project, the professors say, but one that was ignored during permitting.
Gross Reservoir is far from the only new diversion proposed in the Upper Basin, which has never used its full allocation from the river, but sees that water as key to the region’s continued economic growth and prosperity. Over 1 million acre feet of diversions have been proposed across 30 projects in the Upper Basin. Many of those may not be developed, but they have become a sticking point in negotiations over the river’s future.
“Repeating the Same Mistakes”
As the lawyers argued in Santa Fe, news of a short-term federal proposalfor managing the Colorado River rippled across the basin. In the absence of a new consensus among the states over how to allocate the water, the federal government stepped in to manage the crisis.
Its track record on the Colorado River is deeply checkered.
The compact has served as the bedrock for a web of dams, reservoirs, canals and ditches built largely with federal funding and engineering prowess to distribute water across arid Western lands. The magnitude of this diffuse system and its overreliance on diverting and impounding water, experts say, is at least partially responsible for the severity of the West’s water crisis.
Building the Gross Reservoir Dam in the 1950s. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Some believed not everyone has learned the lesson. “We’re just repeating the same mistakes,” Squillace said. “A lot of it just results from a lack of imagination about a better way to do things.”
As water supplies shift, water utilities across the West are squeezing every last drop out of their systems through a range of modifications and adjustments to their infrastructure.
After the first of the West’s deep 21st-century droughts in 2002, Denver Water, which serves 1.5 million people across Colorado’s Front Range, decided it needed to act. The utility convinced the Army Corps of Engineers, which completed the original Gross Reservoir in the 1950s, that raising the dam to triple the amount of water it could impound would be the best course of action to combat drought.
Since then, Denver Water has also invested in water efficiency, which allowed it to better endure droughts from 2002 to 2026. Despite a growing population, water use is below the benchmarks from the 1970s, said Jeff Martin, Denver Water’s program manager for the reservoir expansion.
“We’ve really capitalized on most of our customer savings at this point,” he said. “Now, we need to shore up the rest of our need with the expanded reservoir.”
But a drier future is precisely what should preclude Denver Water and the Corps from seeing this project through, said Wockner with Save the Colorado.
“It’s nonsensical to be diverting more water out of rivers anywhere in the Southwest United States,” he said. “Because in many ways the climate change bullseye in the United States is on the Southwest and Colorado River Basin.”
The Colorado River, Wockner said, has no more water to give. But Martin sees room for more improvement in how the river is managed.
“I would be the first to say something needs to change there on how we use the river for all stakeholders, including some type of cuts throughout the system,” said Martin. “I’m not that decision maker though.”
Graphic credit: RogerWendell.com
The state, he said, controls Denver Water’s rights to the river. The utility has the right to use the water that may one day fill Gross Reservoir, he said, and has been planning to do so for decades.
Despite arguments that the water isn’t available, Martin has no doubt Denver Water will be able to one day fill the reservoir—if the courts allow it.
What Comes Next
The justices have given no indication of when a ruling on the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project will land.
If Denver Water loses its current appeal, the utility claims it will be unable to ensure a reliable water supply during times of drought, and the decision may deter developers from pursuing other ambitious projects to solve the West’s water problems, from new dams to expensive desalination plants.
In the Santa Fe courtroom, Teagen Blakey sat on a wooden bench watching the lawyers argue over a project that has loomed over more years of her life than it hasn’t.
President of The Environmental Group, a nonprofit from Colorado’s Front Range and one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, Blakey grew up in the area around Gross Reservoir. She remembers sitting in community meetings as a teenager when the project was being permitted.
Despite the project’s impacts on Boulder County, the water won’t serve residents there, she pointed out. But the dam and reservoir expansions’ impacts will fall on the local population. At the site where Denver Water will clear the forest is a hike featuring a waterfall that would be submerged.
“It’s something you can’t quantify as a value,” she said.
With such a high cost to something so special, Blakey said, there must be certainty about the benefit it will provide.
South Platte River Basin via Wikipedia
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Tensions about water management are high on the Colorado River, even as water levels in reservoirs like Lake Mead drop to record lows and the west faces severe drought conditions…On July 31, the federal Bureau of Reclamation released a final environmental impact statement which outlines a potential framework for management of the river between 2027 and 2036. This framework would include mandatory water use cuts of up to a combined 3 million acre-feet per year for the lower basin states of California, Nevada and Arizona while seeking 200,000 acre feet in voluntary reductions from the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The impact statement and the associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision-making process still leave an opportunity for the states on the Colorado River to reach their own agreement about future water use…
Colorado is introducing a new near-term water contribution program designed to take advantage of federal funding to encourage voluntary, compensated reductions in Colorado River water use. At a webinar on Aug. 6, Amy Ostdiek, section chief for the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) interstate, federal and water information section, explained that this program is one of several parallel activities that the state is undertaking alongside the ongoing NEPA process. She explained that the Bureau of Reclamation has announced that $100 million in funding will be available to support the upper basin states in establishing water contribution programs that will provide “water that but for these actions would not be there” to the Colorado River. She noted that funding would likely support about two years of a program, based on previous project costs, and that, to participate and claim the funds, Colorado would need to act now to begin establishing a program. Ostdiek stated that establishing such a program would honor commitments the state has made in negotiations to making voluntary water use reductions and would show that “Colorado is committed to being part of the solution.”
Map of the San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado River, in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, USA. Made using USGS National Map data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47456307
After years of analysis and stalled negotiations, the federal government last month finally laid out its proposal for managing the Colorado River’s biggest reservoirs for the next decade. The Bureau of Reclamation still needs to release its final decision and an operating plan for the next two years. But its final environmental impact statement provides a framework for how it intends to manage parts of the Colorado River system under its control…
It still might not be enough in a drying West
The Colorado River Basin has been mired in drought for more than two decades, and research shows that area will likely only get warmer and drier. The question that really matters is how the new plan operates in a dry world, said Jack Schmidt, senior research scientist at Utah State University’s Center for Colorado River Studies. The document gives Reclamation flexibility to respond to an uncertain, but likely drier, river basin. It doesn’t solve all issues, though. If drought conditions don’t improve, Reclamation said in its analysis that “even large and unprecedented reductions may be needed and may not be enough to stabilize storage” at Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
“The scary thing about all of this is that none of this solves the problem if the world keeps getting drier,” Schmidt said. “That should be taken as an enormous warning for the desperate need to reduce the impact of a warming planet and the drying of the Colorado River Basin.”
[…]
Reclamation’s framework sets a goal of 200,000 acre-feet of voluntary water conservation in Utah and other Upper Basin states — Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. Gene Shawcroft, Utah’s Colorado River negotiator, said it will likely take Utah and its upstream neighbors three to five years to conserve that amount.
The largest reservoir in Colorado, Blue Mesa, is holding just over 240,000 acre-feet — “roughly about a third of the volume that we would typically expect to see in the reservoir in this time of year,” says Caleb Foy, senior water resources engineer at the Colorado River District. April-through-July inflow, 151,000 acre-feet, is the lowest unregulated inflow on record. This time of year, Blue Mesa is operated to maintain a minimum flow at the Whitewater gauge, far downstream, just above where the Gunnison joins the Colorado. A 2012 federal record of decision sets base-flow targets there — as low as 750 cubic feet per second, though June and July normally call for “upwards of just over 1,000 CFS at 1,050 CFS,” Foy says. Those flows exist to protect biology and recreation in the lower Gunnison, and endangered fish in the 18-mile reach of the Colorado below the confluence. This summer the Bureau of Reclamation, in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, other Gunnison Basin water users and the State of Colorado, “decided and agreed to lower the whitewater target down to 500 CFS.” It “isn’t certainly done lightly” Foy says: the cut preserves “nearly 500 acre-feet of storage per day” buying time against a Bureau forecast that Blue Mesa could drop below minimum power pool as early as October. Below that elevation the dam’s 86.4-megawatt plant (enough energy to supply at least 34,000 homes at full pool) — stops generating, and Foy says electrical output is already falling. Unlike Glen Canyon Dam, he is “not aware of any concerns” about operating below power pool.
A group of paddlers take a lunch break on the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River this week. Boaters had to occasionally drag their duckies and paddle boards through the shallows because of extremely low flows. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
On a hot and sunny morning in August, a group of nine paddlers pushed their duckies and stand-up paddle boards into the Colorado River at Harky’s boat launch in Palisade.
The goal of the float was to experience and document the river at one of the lowest levels it has ever seen. With flows hovering around 93 cfs, a bathtub ring showed on the rocks along the riverbank and rusty hunks of old farm equipment emerged from the streambed. Bright green algae grew between the rocks, and herons and ospreys hunted in the shallows.
In many places, paddlers got hung up on rocks and were forced to drag their watercrafts through the ankle-deep water. It took about four hours to float the roughly six-and-a-half miles from Palisade to Corn Lake, a trip that normally takes two to three hours with higher flows.
The trip was organized by Joel Sholtes, a water resources engineering instructor at Colorado Mesa University and a coordinator for the Grand Valley River Corridor Initiative.
“I knew that the river would kind of be on life support and maybe even dry up so I wanted to get out on the river with the people that were involved in managing its flow and experience the 15-mile reach at such a historically low level,” Sholtes said. “It just felt important to be on it and see it both from a habitat standpoint and from a user experience standpoint.”
Boaters got hung up on rocks in the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River during extremely low flows this week. The stretch of river between Palisade and the confluence of the Gunnison River is chronically dry. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
The Colorado River and its water users are now experiencing the consequences of the lowest winter snowpack on record, exceptionally hot temperatures and resulting low streamflows. The impacts are being felt across Colorado as farmers and ranchers have their irrigation water cut, cities and towns impose severe water restrictions on their customers and flows dwindle in stretches of river that are critical habitat for the ecosystem.
The stretch of the Colorado River between the large agricultural diversions in Palisade and the downstream confluence with the Gunnison River is known as the 15-mile reach. This chronically depleted section is also home to endangered fish. Water managers work each year to keep enough flows for fish by coordinating carefully timed releases from upstream reservoirs.
This map shows the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River near Grand Junction, home to four species of endangered fish. Map credit: CWCB
Grand Valley’s 15 mile-reach
This year’s historic drought makes keeping enough water in this reach more challenging than usual. The recovery program has pools of water dedicated to the fish in Lake Granby and Ruedi Reservoir that it releases specifically to boost flows in the 15-mile reach, but because of the dry conditions, less of that water is available. According to the Colorado Division of Water Resources, the average August flows in the 15-mile reach have been about 119 cfs this year, far below the 810 cfs target set by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
The program’s Instream Flow Coordinator David Graf told water managers on a conference call Wednesday that the program is trying to keep 75 cfs in the river through the end of August. Graf said the program was responsible for about 70% of the water in the river during Tuesday’s float; without it, flows could have dipped to around just 25 cfs.
“We are so far below the recommended flows anywhere in the Colorado River basin right now,” Graf said. “Keeping water in there is valuable; it takes a village.”
Irrigators reduce diversions
Nearly all of the river’s flows are being diverted to the Grand Valley’s agricultural producers. Colorado River water transforms the valley’s desert into a ribbon of verdant peach orchards, vineyards, corn and alfalfa fields. The valley’s irrigation districts can collectively draw 1,950 cfs from the river, but this year, they have reduced that down to 1,450 cfs in an effort to save some water for later in the season.
“We collectively set the target flow lower for the sole purpose of extending to gain and accrue some storage,” said Jackie Fisher, manager of Orchard Mesa Irrigation District. “We had none at the beginning of the year and it became super critical to talk with our partners and say, what can we live on now because we knew we needed it two or three months later.”
The Grand Valley Irrigation Company canal on the left is the last big agricultural diversion on the Colorado River in the Grand Valley. It marks the beginning of the 15-mile reach. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Late summer is a crucial time for irrigators because the high flows of spring runoff have come and gone, but hot temperatures drive up the amount of water needed by crops. Irrigators often depend on releasing water stored in upstream reservoirs during this time to supplement low river flows. This year, spring runoff peaked weeks early and a pool of water in Green Mountain Reservoir known as the Historic Users Pool did not fill, which created far-reaching impacts.
HUP water is released mainly to satisfy farmers and ranchers in the Grand Valley, which hold the senior, commanding water rights on the river. The HUP also protects other water users, known as HUP beneficiaries, because without the releases from Green Mountain to supplement the Grand Valley, these other users could have to cut back.
Entities that own or lease stored water, like the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the Colorado Water Trust, Grand County and Northern Water, among others, have pitched in this year to contribute extra acre-feet to Grand Valley irrigators. But even with collaboration and water sharing, Grand Valley Water Users Association General Manager Tina Bergonzini said they cannot guarantee water deliveries to their farmers after September 1. Irrigation season typically goes through Oct. 31.
Low flows in the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River revealed a bathtub ring on the rocks lining the riverbank. Water managers strive to keep water in this section for endangered fish. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
“It probably sounds a little melodramatic to say, but it’s not: It’s literally the first time in 111 years that we’ve run out of water in the Grand Valley Water Users Association,” Bergonzini said. “I’ve done my best and my staff has done their best to make sure that our producers and our residents that are under our system are aware that we could get to the point that we have unreliable delivery.”
GVWUA irrigators have been on restriction all season and the association has been taking just 500 of its 730 cfs water right. Bergonzini said many of her producers have switched to less thirsty crops this year like triticale and Sudangrass, instead of corn and alfalfa, and have made adjustments to the way they irrigate to adapt to less water.
Heading into the fall with unreliable water is a scary scenario for some, Bergonzini said. It’s the time of year when some farmers plant winter crops and have a need for lots of water.
“We’ve tried to make sure everybody is prepared and that’s really all we can do,” she said.
Flows in the 15-mile reach were extremely low this week due to agricultural diversions and a historic drought. The reach is home to endangered fish. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
As water managers grapple with how to stretch this year’s meager flows as far as possible, Sholtes said from a recreation and quality of life standpoint, the Colorado River still provides so much value to the community – even when it’s barely flowing.
“I think it’s important to know that even in drought conditions, the river is accessible and enjoyable,” he said. “It’s my interest as a citizen in the Grand Valley, and as a scientist, to have a river that works for everyone, and to have growth and use that is compatible with the river ecosystem.”
Bicycling the Colorado National Monument, Grand Valley in the distance via Colorado.com
As summer temperatures soar across the United States and Europe, cities are being forced to confront the difficult reality that they’re getting dangerously hot.
One way to help cool buildings is to install green roofs – living rooftops covered by plants that can transform heat-absorbing rooftops into cooling solutions.
Chicago offers zoning incentives to encourage developers to build green roofs, like this one on City Hall. Patrick L. Pyszka, City of Chicago
Green roofs have long been promoted as a method to help cities stay cool. Often cities offer developers incentives to install them. But just building a green roof isn’t enough.
My research with colleagues shows that what happens after a green roof is built is as important as the decision to install a green roof in the first place. We found that many green roofs fall into neglect and don’t survive beyond a few years, likely due to the cost of maintenance. When buildings’ operational budgets are cut, landscape elements – including green roofs – are often altered or maintenance is scaled back to save money.
Unlike a traditional roof made of asphalt, metal or tiles, a green roof is made up of layers, including insulation, water proofing and drainage, that allow plants to grow atop the building.
Depending on their design, these roofs can support everything from low-growing sedums to shrubs and trees. Rockefeller Center’s rooftop terrace gardens in New York City were designed in the 1930s to hold trees, grass, shrubs and seating areas to double as parklike respites far above the traffic. The roof of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco is fully covered by 2.5 acres of wildflowers, succulents and other native coastal flowers.
The California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco features a green roof with hatches that open to an atrium below. Anna Fox via Flickr, CC BY
Plants absorb sunlight that would otherwise heat up the building below. They also cool the surrounding air through a process called evapotranspiration, in which they release water vapor. Additionally, they can reduce the amount of energy needed for heating and cooling buildings by acting as insulation. Green roofs also capture rainfall and prevent it from reaching storm drains, reducing flood risks and improving water quality in the community.
Because of these benefits, organizations like the European Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have promoted green roofs in recent years as a way to reduce urban heat islands, make cities more resilient to extreme weather and improve biodiversity by supporting birds, butterflies and other insects.
The public Transbay Joint Powers Authority built an extensive park and walking path covering the roof of a four-block-long bus terminal in San Francisco. It’s known as Salesforce Park because the company Salesforce, headquartered next door, bought the naming rights. When it opened in 2019, developers estimated it would save $6,500 annually in energy costs. Fullmetal2887 via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
These programs recognize the public benefits that green roofs can give, but they tend to focus on getting the roofs built rather than on keeping them functioning long term.
Without maintenance, all the work and money invested by builders and the communities can quickly be lost.
What happens to green roofs in the long term?
Most green roof conversations focus on their design: How deep should the soil be? What plants should be used? How much can they cool a building? Less attention is given to what happens to the roof five, 10, or 20 years down the road.
To better understand the long-term fate of green roofs, we studied 46 green roofs across the southeastern United States. Rather than asking how well a newly installed roof performed, we asked whether it was still functioning and being kept up years after construction. The results surprised us.
Nearly half of the roofs were no longer functioning as intended. Nine had been abandoned, with vegetation loss and no maintenance. Twelve roofs had been removed completely. https://www.youtube.com/embed/x037anb3vEY?wmode=transparent&start=0 Even a small, do-it-yourself green roof requires many layers to protect the structure from roots and provide drainage.
Even more interesting was what predicted a green roof’s success, or lack of it.
It didn’t matter whether the green roof had received LEED certification, formally recognizing it as sustainable design, or whether it was owned by a private corporation or a nonprofit. What mattered was whether building ownership had changed.
Every time buildings changed hands, green roofs either ended up abandoned or removed altogether, possibly due to a loss of knowledge about the roof. There is also the issue of cost; people who buy buildings with green roofs may have different budgets or priorities and do not necessarily want to spend the time or money to pay for them.
Larger-scale implication
Green infrastructure requires ongoing monitoring and care.
Plants need to be watered, fertilized and sometimes replaced. Irrigation systems need repairs. Invasive species need to be managed. Drainage layers need inspecting to prevent disastrous leaks that damage the building below. Maintenance on green roofs can cost anywhere from a few cents to over $3 a square foot per year and can be time-consuming depending on whether a roof needs to be weeded and watered by hand.
Without that care, many of the benefits used to justify the original investment can disappear.
The University of Tennessee-Knoxville’s Agriculture and Natural Resources Building has a lush, living roof where students and staff can enjoy nature. Mike McKinney/University of Tennessee
Imagine planting thousands of street trees, then never watering them again. That would be a poor investment. Yet people often assume green roofs will continue working indefinitely after installation without stopping to consider the work involved in keeping them alive.
Our research suggests that this assumption deserves a closer look.
Walter Reed Community Center in Arlington, Va., outside Washington, D.C., features a green roof that helps insulate the building. Arlington County, Va., CC BY-SA
But for green roofs to keep delivering environmental benefits decades after installation, communities may need to think beyond incentives for construction.
Long-term maintenance plans, clear ownership responsibilities and funding for stewardship may prove as important as the installation. Climate adaptation isn’t just about building new infrastructure, but also about making sure that infrastructure can continue to thrive years into the future.
Denver Water is throwing its weight behind and spreading the word about a proposed ballot initiative that would ask voters to redirect a portion of state sales tax revenue on sleeping bags, hiking boots and skis to help fight wildfires, reduce risk of additional blazes, and restore mountain watersheds already damaged by fire.
It’s a rare move for the state’s largest water provider, which serves 1.5 million customers in the metro area, and has been hard hit by major blazes, with thousands of acres of land scorched and reservoirs filled with debris. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent restoring land in the South Platte River Basin, where major events, such as the Hayman Fire in 2002, devastated key mountain lands and the streams that feed its collection system.
“For us it is a major infrastructure need,” said Alan Salazar, Denver Water’s general manager.
Proposition 308 is not yet on the ballot. Signatures were submitted to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office July 27. The office has until Sept. 2 to review the signatures.
For the past 20 years, as deep droughts have periodically gripped the state, wildfires have emerged as a major threat to the mountain watersheds that deliver fresh water across the state, from Durango, to Aurora, Denver and Fort Collins.
Denver Water operates a special fire mitigation project each year in partnership with other state and federal agencies, known as Forests to Faucets. But even with this collaborative approach, there isn’t enough money or labor to do all the work on the ground, Salazar said.
Proposition 308 would provide about $175 million annually that would go toward water and land conservation, according to Aaron Citron, The Nature Conservancy’s Natural Resources Policy Adviser in Colorado. The Nature Conservancy is one of the backers of 308, alongside Conservation Colorado, the Trust for Public Land and Western Resource Advocates.
The money would be taken from state coffers in years when there is a budget surplus. Though the proposal is not a new tax, it could reduce the size of refunds taxpayers normally receive in years when there is a surplus.
“Four of the largest wildfires have ignited in the last six years, burning 1.5 million acres. That has brought these issues more into the public consciousness … We know we have to act now if we want to protect resources and wildlife,” Citron said.
The money would be controlled mostly by GOCO and the state Natural Resources department
If approved, Proposition 308 would give about half of the sales tax revenue generated, $83 million, to Great Outdoors Colorado and another $83 million to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, to expand land and water conservation programs these agencies already operate. Another $4.3 million would go to promoting outdoor recreation and the remaining $4.3 million would be spent to increase families’ access to the outdoors.
The ballot measure would exempt taxes collected on some sporting goods from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, in a process known as de-Brucing, which is named after Douglas Bruce, the architect of the 1990 TABOR amendment.
Aurora Water staff has recommended that the city also endorse the measure but no formal action has been taken by city council, according to spokeswoman Shonnie Cline.
Budget hawks, such as Jon Caldara, president of Denver’s Independence Institute, said the citizen initiative is likely a reflection of voter frustration with state lawmakers, who he says haven’t done enough to fund the state’s basic need for water infrastructure, public safety and roads.
“Whether it is water or transportation infrastructure, we’re seeing that people are getting tired of the legislature not budgeting for basic needs. We shouldn’t be surprised people are taking their funding back,” Caldara said.
Unlike Denver and Aurora, Northern Water has not endorsed Proposition 308, General Manager Brad Wind said. Its board will likely receive a briefing on the topic in September.
Northern, too, has been hard-hit by wildfires. It has spent upwards of $100 million to restore and better protect its sprawling watershed west of Rocky Mountain National Park, which was scorched by the East Troublesome and Cameron Peak fires in 2020. Still, Wind said, that cash has allowed them to do only the bare minimum.
“We’re just touching the higher risk areas,” Wind said, “The cost is immense. I can’t imagine any utility has the money to make the investments needed.”
How voters will respond to Proposition 308 in November isn’t clear. Salazar said he isn’t aware of any organized opposition yet, but several other initiatives are also headed for the ballot, making a long list of things for voters to consider.
“It appears to be a crowded ballot,” Salazar said. “We want to make sure that when people get to this they are not exhausted.”
No, Lake Powell’s not that close to actual dead pool — or the level at which water can no longer be released downstream. At least not yet. But it is now within 20 feet of de facto deadpool, or 3,500 feet, which is the surface elevation the feds have said they will “defend” to keep Glen Canyon Dam viable. Besides, in this case I’m using “deadpool” somewhat metaphorically to describe the current state of water on the Colorado River and the rest of the West, which is about as dire as “deadpool” sounds.
It’s normal for streamflows to drop in August as the last remnants of high-country snow disappear in the dog-days sun. But since most of the snow was gone by late June, and the monsoon has thus far dropped in only for brief, violent, and occasional visits, almost every creek and river in the West is flowing far below median levels for this time of year. The water is also unusually warm, which is bad for fish. The Animas River in Durango, for example has climbed up into the 70° F territory every day for the last several weeks.
In the Upper Colorado River Basin, irrigation ditches with junior water rights are getting shut down right and left, weeks earlier than normal and just ahead of the big harvesting season. It’s already been a tough summer for most farmers; if reliable rains don’t arrive soon it could get much worse.
Paonia Reservoir in western Colorado has become a run-of-the-river operation, leaving downstream irrigation ditches in the North Fork Valley virtually dry — though those with senior rights continue to flow, for now.
One of the scariest dry-time indicators of the summer so far was the Colorado River near Palisade, Colorado, which fell to 43 cubic feet per second in early August. To put that in context, McElmo Creek, which is basically a desert arroyo fed by irrigation runoff, has been running around 30 cfs for the last few weeks.
It’s important to note, however, that it’s not only drought, but also diversions, that are depleting the Colorado River. The river below Glenwood Springs, which is upstream of Palisade, has been running around 1,700 cfs. And major ditches — Cameco, Orchard Mesa, and Grand Valley canals — that pull water from the Colorado just upstream from the Palisade gage are together carrying some 2,000 cfs, meaning they are taking nearly all of the river’s water. Runoff from those ditches eventually runs back into the Colorado, bringing its flows back up somewhat before the river crosses the state line into Utah.
The Government Highline canal is pulling over 1,200 cfs from the Colorado River upstream of Palisade, and two other canals are drawing more than 500 cfs each, leaving the river almost dry for a segment in the Grand Valley. Source: Colorado Division of Water Resources.
The good news is that rains have started up again in southern Arizona (the National Weather Service’s Tucson office has issued a flash flood watch for tomorrow), and forecasters are predicting thunderstorms will be returning to the rest of the region soon. Hopefully they’ll bring nice, gentle, soaking moisture, and not just lightning and torrential flooding.
But let’s get back to our Lake Powell August update and some numbers:
3,520.8 feet: Surface elevation of Lake Powell on Aug. 10, 2026. This is still about 9 inches higher than the previous all-time low of 3,519.9 in April of 2023. But that was April and there was already a bunch of snow in the high-country that would soon boost reservoir levels. The reservoir has been declining at a rate of about 2 inches per day, but that’s likely to speed up unless there is significant upstream precipitation in the coming weeks. So it’s not far-fetched to think it will drop to 3,500 feet as soon as this October.
2,505 cubic feet per second: Lake Powell’s inflow on Aug. 10, 2026.
-387 cfs: Lake Powell’s unregulated inflow on Aug. 8, 2026. Yes, that is a negative number, which may seem impossible. But unregulated inflow is an estimate of what the inflows would be without supplemental releases from upstream dams. Which means that valuable water is being released from upstream dams to slow Lake Powell’s decline.
7,710 cfs: Total average daily release from Glen Canyon Dam on Aug. 10, 2026.
281,267 acre-feet: Total inflows in July 2026.
83,824 acre-feet: Total unregulated inflows in July 2026 (meaning nearly 200,000 acre-feet was released from upstream dams to supplement the flows).
24,164 acre-feet: Estimated evaporation from Lake Powell in July 2026.
482,092 acre-feet: Total releases from Glen Canyon Dam in July 2026.
-224,989 acre-feet: Lake Powell’s water deficit in July 2026 (inflows – evaporation – releases = deficit)
-422,432 acre-feet: Lake Powell’s water deficit using unregulated inflow (or what it would be without supplemental water from upstream reservoirs).
3.72 million acre-feet: Total Lake Powell inflows so far this water year. At this pace, the 2026 water year’s total inflows will be around 4.2 MAF.
159 acre-feet: Total cool mix releases from Glen Canyon Dam in July 2026. This is where cooler water is released through the river outlet tubes — bypassing the hydropower turbines — to stifle smallmouth bass reproduction downstream of the dam. These releases have become necessary because during low reservoir levels, the warm-water loving bass are more likely to get sucked through the dam into the river, where they compete with and prey on native fish and stocked trout. But the Associated Press reports that the Bureau of Reclamation will not be doing any cool water mixing this year, since it would further reduce already diminished hydropower production from the dam (I’ll dig deep into the hydropower issue in this Friday’s Land Desk dispatch).
It’s not just Lake Powell that’s being drained, of course. During July, Flaming Gorge Reservoir ran an 87,000-acre-feet deficit; Blue Mesa Reservoir ran a 55,000 acre-feet deficit (and it received supplemental inflows from Taylor Park Reservoir); and Navajo Reservoir ran a 77,000-acre-feet deficit. Meanwhile, downstream, Lake Mead’s surface level fell to 1,040.2 feet, which is an all-time low. Deadpool watch, indeed.
The Western wildfire view this morning as seen through the Watch Duty app. It’s a great tool, by the way, and even better if you fork out $25/year to become a member (which gives you weather radar and flight tracker powers). Source: Watch Duty
🔥 Wildfire Lookout 🔥
The wildfire situation in the West is just insane right now. It seems that every time one big blaze starts to die down and reaches containment, another one pops up and grows even larger. Under the Trump administration’s full-suppression regime — which seeks to extinguish every fire, even those in wilderness that don’t threaten homes or lives — it all becomes a giant and deadly game of whack-a-mole.
In Utah, for instance, the Cottonwood Fire reached 95% containment after burning through more than 97,000 acres; the Babylon Fire in Bears Ears National Monument then grew to 107,000 acres before being contained; and now the Widemouth 2 Fire has exploded to 121,226 acres, and has taken the lives of two firefighters aboard a helicopter that crashed this past weekend.
The Northwest is especially scary, with over 2 million acres burned so far this year. Current fires include the Big Grass Fire straddling the southern Oregon-Idaho border that had burned through more than 541,000 acres as of Monday morning; the Rowe Creek Complex northeast of Bend, Oregon, at 368,000 acres; the Grasshopper Fire, on the east slopes of Mt. Hood; and the Little Giant and Sinlahekin Fires in Washington, at 111,000 and 143,000 acres, respectively.
A small sampling of other active fires in the West:
The Bug Fire and Fred Mtn. Fire are burning along the California-Nevada border just north of Reno, and are forcing evacuations.
The Gold Mountain Fire in the San Juan Mountains north of Ouray, Colorado, is at 90% containment after burning nearly 40,000 acres. But to the east of it, the Elk Fire jumped in size to over 7,000 acres, and is forcing evacuations in Hinsdale County.
The Frijoles Fire in northern New Mexico east of Pojoaque blew up to 4,158 acres over the weekend, and is at 0% containment. It is burning in the Pecos Wilderness Area.
📸 Parting Shot 🎞️
Mexican Hat rock in southeastern Utah with Raplee Ridge in the background. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
The DRI Cloud Seeding Research Program uses ground-based generators, which are designed and built by DRI and can be operated remotely. Most cloud seeding operations, including those run by DRI, use a compound called silver iodide (AgI) to aid in the formation of ice crystals. Silver iodide exists naturally in the environment at low concentrations, and is not known to be harmful to humans or wildlife. When storm systems move through one of our cloud seeding project areas, a solution containing a small amount of silver iodide is burned from ground-based generators or released from aircraft. Upon reaching the cloud, the silver iodide acts as an ice forming nuclei to aid in the production of snowflakes. Credit: Desert Research Institute
Click the link to read the article on the KJZZ website (Alex Hager). Here’s an excerpt:
August 7, 2026
The Central Arizona Project runs a 336-mile-long canal system that carries water from the Colorado River across the desert and into the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Since 2007, it has been part of a collaborative effort to run cloud seeding equipment in the Rocky Mountains. The program brings together water users that benefit from faraway snowmelt — like CAP, water agencies in Las Vegas and Los Angeles and major farming districts in Southern California — and agencies that manage water near the snowy mountains themselves. Now, the future of CAP’s participation in that collaboration is in question. At a meeting of the CAP board of directors on Thursday, the cloud seeding program got caught in the middle of bigger water politics.
“I know we’ve been funding this for almost 20 years, and now everybody’s trying to cut us off,” said Barbara Seago, a CAP board member representing Maricopa County. “So my take is, why would we keep funding anything that benefits Colorado if they’re willing to cut us off?”
[…]
In recent years, water agencies in Arizona, California and Nevada have sent about $1.5 million per year to upstream cloud seeding work. Those agencies say it is a small part of the solution to the complicated, politically fraught issue of supply-demand imbalance along the Colorado River, but it is still worthwhile. Technical experts on CAP’s staff explained the program to the board as a way to benefit the Colorado River system overall, even if it is difficult to draw a straight line between dollars spent on cloud seeding and water that physically flows into Arizona’s reservoirs and canals.
“If we have more water on the ground in the watershed,” said Nolie Templeton, CAP’s Colorado River policy and analysis manager, “Then I think everybody in the watershed is going to benefit because more of that water will make it into our rivers and streams.”
Central Arizona Project map via Mountain Town News
Denver Water’s 1.5 million customers are using less water than usual, but it’s still not enough to meet the utility’s goal of reducing water consumption by 20% amid this year’s drought.
“We’d need to be at 10,300 acre-feet of savings. Instead, we are at 1,300 acre-feet of savings, so behind where we want to be,” said utility spokesperson Todd Hartman.
That means the utility, which serves residents in Denver and many surrounding communities, has achieved barely a tenth of its target.
In Aurora, water officials said locals have made progress toward that utility’s 20% goal, but did not provide exact statistics.
While the utilities aren’t hitting their goals, they’re not ringing alarms yet. Both utilities have implemented Stage I water restrictions, and neither plans to move to the more severe restrictions of Stage II.
But that could change depending on how water levels look for the rest of the year — and Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman said it could be soon. In a Facebook post, Coffman wrote that the city is “now teetering on having to move to Stage II drought restrictions that, if enacted, will reduce all outdoor irrigation from two waterings a week down to one, killing off most lawns completely. According to [Kirby] Shedlowski, however, Stage II restrictions are not yet on the table. She said Aurora Water staff would have to recommend that shift to the Aurora City Council, which hasn’t happened yet.
From Tishana ‘Tish’ Cano at the Greeley Water & Sewer Department:
“Here is a land where life is written in water.” Thomas Hornsby Ferril, named Colorado’s poet laureate in 1979, could not have composed a better description of the agricultural community founded at the confluence of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers. In April 1870, a group of far-seeking settlers after a long four-day train ride from New York City and other points back East. Their goal was to create a new way of life on the dry and desolate plains of northern Colorado. Water was the key – and in 1874, a conflict with upstream irrigators of the agricultural community of Fort Collins created a flashpoint in Colorado water law and the American West. Both sides met “half-way” near present-day Windsor and launched an iconic, heated debate over western water rights. With guns used in the Civil War at the ready, the parley led to the birth of western water law – the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation.
Authors Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. and Michael Welsh describe the triumphs and challenges of Greeley’s water history, from its 1884 artesian well in City Park to its 1907 mountain water system. The book chronicles the Colorado-Big Thompson Project of the 1930s and the Milton Seaman Dam and Reservoir construction in the 1940s. Hobbs and Welsh describe the foresight and tenacity of creative men – David Boyd, Henry C. Watson, Delph Carpenter, W.D. Farr, Harold Evans, and others – who shouldered the work and pointed the way to identify, acquire, and deliver affordable water to Greeley for more than a century. “Plan for others as they have planned for you” guides and unites the actions of our story of Greeley Water.
From the Rocky Mountain American Water Works Association:
Public works agencies rarely have time to reflect on their accomplishments and lessons learned, as they pursue on a daily basis their operations, maintenance, and plans for future growth. Yet that retrospective is what the City of Greeley Water Utilities Department, with its century and one-half of service to the community, decided to engage with the research and publication of Confluence: The Story of Greeley Water (2020).
Harold Evans, chairman of the Greeley Water and Sewer Board for the past two decades, believed that those whom the utility served would benefit from a comprehensive analysis of the origins and development of an organization that began before Colorado statehood, and one that has grown over time by addressing the cycles of abundance and scarcity of water that define the Headwaters State.
Joining the team of researchers and writers in 2015 were Gregory J. Hobbs, Junior, a retired associate justice of the Colorado State Supreme Court, often considered the most knowledgeable member of the high court in matters of water law and policy, and Michael Welsh, a professor of history at the University of Northern Colorado, whose decades of teaching and scholarship included studies of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Southwest and on the West Coast.
This team explored the range of issues and tasks of a municipal water system that began in the summer of 1870 with a single irrigation ditch on the Cache la Poudre River that conveyed water to the fledgling Union Colony (later to become the town of Greeley). As the population increased and the economy evolved, the Greeley water utility added a community artesian well (1884); a mountain water treatment facility above Fort Collins at Bellvue (1907); and a storage facility on the North Fork of the
Poudre River known as Milton Seaman Reservoir (1945); the latter two remaining operational over a century later. Residents of the Colony, and their policies and regulations, also played an important role in the development of statewide and interstate water law. One example would be the enshrining in Colorado’s 1876 constitution of the “prior-appropriation doctrine.” In addition, a Greeley native, Delph Carpenter, who had been employed as a youth inspecting the community’s ditch system to guard against violation of its rules, became an authority on the collaborative features of western water law. Carpenter would be tasked by the U.S. Commerce Secretary, Herbert Clark Hoover, with a key role in the drafting of the Colorado River Compact.
That agreement would permit a group of Greeley and Colorado water professionals a decade later to approach the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to confront the severity of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl by means of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project; a multipurpose facility that secured the future for farmers and ranchers of the South Platte River basin, and later the urban growth of the Front Range.
The Greeley Water & Sewer Board, originating in 1958 from the idea that local decisions in water belong with the people, and guided by those who understood and appreciated what water meant to Greeley, established the nonpartisan principles that inform the acquisition and development of water facilities. From the leadership of water pioneer W.D. Farr to today, with Harold Evans, who has a background in Civil Engineering, the Board has possessed expertise and foresight that contributes to Greeley’s good fortune with its most precious resource.
What began with that first ditch has now become a network of multiple reservoirs in four river basins, and prize-winning water pollution-control facilities. The City of Greeley also has taken the lead in water efficiency & quality, working with state and federal partners to replace aging lead pipes, and to institute an advanced metering system and residential and commercial “water budgets” that keep utility customers informed of their use patterns and the value of conservation in times of drought. Once the first volume on the story of Greeley water appeared, the water utility continued to provide domestic water and wastewater treatment to its network of communities. The City also pursued regional cooperation with the municipalities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor, and Evans. Greeley maintained its partnership with the Northern Water district, in particular its Chimney Hollow Reservoir, which will store additional supplies for a dozen water organizations that own water rights in the CBT system that are not reliably accessible in times of need.
From that recognition in 2020 that the story of Greeley water had not ended came a new edition in the summer of 2026, written to incorporate the purchase of water rights to the vast underground aquifer in far northern Colorado known as the Terry Ranch Project. Other dimensions of the utility’s operations addressed in the second edition of Confluence are the expansion of the “non-potable” water system for use in public and private spaces; the application of sophisticated information technology; and the advanced-planning functions of the “Integrated Water Resources Program,” which identifies scenarios and options for a wide variety of challenges and opportunities in water-resource management decades into the future.
It is our hope that this new look at an old story helps residents and businesses of Greeley and surrounding communities realize how important their water supplies are to their security and prosperity. In 1941, in the midst of a world at war, and as the decade of the Dust Bowl neared an end, Greeley’s leaders embraced a simple but compelling idea: “To plan for others as others have planned for you.” Wise words for their time, and wise words for ours now.
On July 13th, the Colorado River District, in partnership with the Colorado Water Trust and the Yampa River Fund, began releasing water from Elkhead Reservoir to mitigate the impacts of extreme drought and critically low streamflows in the Yampa River Valley. Beginning with a release of 10 cubic feet per second, the releases are part of the Yampa River Reservoir Release Program, a 2,000-acre-foot pool first established in 2021 with funding from the Colorado River District’s Community Funding Partnership. The program is designed to reduce drought-related pressure on agricultural producers while supporting river health and aquatic habitat.
“While we’re experiencing exceptionally difficult drought conditions, the story of 2026 is neighbors and water users working together. No single reservoir, organization or water user can solve this alone,” said Hunter Causey, Chief Engineer for the Colorado River District. “By coordinating releases, operations and water use across the basin, we can stretch a limited supply further and provide meaningful benefits for agricultural producers, local communities and the river.”
Below-average snowfall and persistent summer drought have reduced streamflows and increased water temperatures throughout the Yampa River Basin. Releases through the Yampa River Reservoir Release Program are intended to support agricultural water users, help delay or prevent a call on the river during periods of critically low flow, and benefit designated critical habitat for four endangered fish species. Releases are expected to increase in the coming weeks and continue through July.
“The Colorado Water Trust is an environmental nonprofit, and our work is keeping water in rivers,” said Blake Mamich, Programs Director for the Colorado Water Trust. “In a drought this deep, that same mission means showing up for agriculture. Coordinating closely with the River District and the Division of Water Resources, we can time these releases so a single pool of water helps irrigators extend a tough season and keeps water in Yampa for habitat and fish.”
“This is a difficult year for producers throughout the Yampa Valley, and we wanted to be part of a practical solution that helps the broader community,” said Yampa Basin rancher Matt Boeddeker of Lily Park Land & Cattle. “Water users across Colorado are making hard choices and working together to stretch limited supplies, and like them, we hope to help our neighbors complete critical irrigation and reduce the immediate impacts of drought.”
The Yampa River is primarily supplied by snowmelt from the Flat Tops and Gore Range and flows through agricultural areas of northwest Colorado before joining the Green River in Dinosaur National Monument. During dry years, coordinated releases from Stagecoach and Elkhead reservoirs supplement streamflows for agricultural water users, river habitat and endangered fish. The Colorado River District and its partners will continue to monitor streamflow, water temperature, irrigation demand, and habitat needs, and will adjust releases as conditions warrant.
This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.
Water users in the American Southwest confronted on Friday the strong possibility that cities and farms in the region must reduce Colorado River use by hundreds of billions of gallons after the Trump administration released a new management plan for the coming decade.
The document, published by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, outlines a 10-year management approach that could adjust to changing hydrological conditions that affect the river’s flow, with operations updatable every two years. The agency proposed cuts in water allotments originally suggested by Arizona, California and Nevada, which make up the river’s Lower Basin. Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, the region’s Upper Basin, could make voluntary conservation measures.
Interim guidelines and drought contingency plans agreed upon by the basin states in 2007 and 2019 are set to expire in 2027 and negotiations for a new agreement due this year have stalled, with the states missing repeated deadlines to come to a consensus.
But the Bureau of Reclamation operates much of the river’s infrastructure, including the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams, which form Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the nation’s two largest reservoirs. A federal record of decision finalizing operations on the river for the next two years will follow the final environmental impact statement Reclamation released Friday.
“This plan strikes a balance between flexibility and predictability for the Colorado River system that is vital to the 40 million people who rely on it given unprecedented hydrologic conditions and the potential for considerable impacts on water users,” said Andrea Travnicek, Interior’s assistant secretary for water and science, in a statement accompanying the plan’s release. “It also allows a new flexibility to respond to changing conditions and potential consensus.”
The agency is considering releases from Lake Powell, the reservoir near the border of Utah and Arizona that delineates the upper and lower basins, ranging from 5 million to 12 million acre feet to the downstream states (one acre foot can supply about two to four households for a year). The Lower Basin, including Mexico, could take steep cuts in their water allocations, potentially losing 1.5 million acre feet in both 2027 and 2028.
Under such a scenario, Arizona would lose 760,000 acre feet of its allotment from the river, California 440,000 acre feet and Nevada 50,000, following a proposal submitted by the Lower Basin.
But beyond 2028, Lower Basin cuts could reach up to 3 million acre feet.
The Arizona Department of Water Resources called that figure “unacceptable” in a statement published online. “Such reductions would devastate Arizona’s water users and its economy,” the agency said.
Reclamation appears to be seeking voluntary Upper Basin reductions of up to 200,000 acre feet, and discussed moving water from federally managed dams in the basin downstream, as hydrology allowed.
“The proposal responds to a fundamental reality: the Colorado River no longer reliably produces enough water to support all the uses and expectations built around it,” said JB Hamby, California’s Colorado River Commissioner, in a statement. “That challenge is shared across the Basin, and addressing it requires specific, measurable reductions in water use by every state.”
A spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources said the state is “analyzing” the document.
Upper Basin governors said in a statement that they were “encouraged that new operating guidelines will better reflect existing water supply, which must underpin any practicable plan going forward.”
The Colorado River is perhaps the most climate-stressed waterway in the U.S. It provides water to between 35 and 40 million people across seven Western states, 30 tribes and two Mexican states as it wends its way through the Southwest, home to some of the country’s most arid and drought-stricken landscapes. Millions of Westerners also rely on the electricity the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams generate.
The 1922 compact between the river’s users assumed roughly 17.5 million acre feet of water was available to the two basins and Mexico, but the historical average of its natural flow has only been roughly 14.7 million acre feet. That number plummeted to an average of 11.2 million acre feet between 2020 and 2024, according to provisional data from Reclamation.
In that same time period, the agency calculated average use and evaporative loss across the basin at just over 13 million acre feet.
“The operational ranges that Reclamation put forward, they’re the right things that we need to be doing in order to fix the supply and demand imbalance,” said John Berggren, regional policy manager at Western Resource Advocates. “But it is just a range, and what they actually do over the next two years or within any given year, that will matter if they’re actually gonna be able to bring the system back into balance.”
Berggren hopes the short-term certainty this plan provides can unstick negotiations between the states.
“I hope [the basin commissioners] don’t just keep doing what they’ve been doing for the last two or three years, ’cause that clearly hasn’t worked,” he said. “I hope they try and take this opportunity to change things up. Let’s try something new and hopefully get to a seven-state agreement.”
Reclamation’s final environmental impact statement was initially supposed to codify the management plan the basin states have yet to agree on. Though deadlines for those negotiations have come and gone, Reclamation is still holding the door open for a deal, which is widely regarded as the most productive path to a durable long-term operating agreement for the river.
“Let’s try something new and hopefully get to a seven-state agreement.”
Negotiations are stalled over whether cuts should be mandatory across the entire basin. After overdrawing from the river for decades, the Lower Basin now uses less water than it is apportioned, according to federal accounting; it wants to see future cuts shared across the seven states. The Upper Basin, which has never used the full amount of water it is legally entitled to, has fiercely contested demands for it to make mandatory cuts, offering voluntary conservation measures instead. The states that make up that basin contend that variable environmental conditions, such as this year’s record-low snowpack, already limit how much water they use.
Even with some idea of federal management options in place, the absence of a seven-state agreement further increases the prospect of states dependent on the Colorado River suing one another in cases that would be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
Still, proposing to manage the river in a way that is adaptive to hydrological conditions is “the kind of agreement that we are going to need to really think about long-term how do we live in this basin with much less water moving forward,” said Celene Hawkins, Colorado River program director at The Nature Conservancy.
Hawkins hopes this spurs a seven state agreement “so that, ultimately, we can do really good work for communities and for the river itself.”
A map being shown around El Paso County by suburban water agencies traces the path of the Loop, a complex $134 million pipeline and pumping project that would allow northern and eastern communities in the county to reuse aquifer water returning to Fountain Creek, and pipe along water rights they have bought up on the southern side of the county. (Provided by Woodmoor Water and Sanitation District)
On Monday evening [August 3, 2026], the Monument town council voted unanimously to begin exiting the multidistrict authority. The Loop is left with just two water district members of the original four after the decision…Proposed in 2022, the Loop would divert water flowing down Fountain Creek, pumping it northward and east around Colorado Springs to districts along the way. Billed as a way to break the reliance of communities on the nonreplenishing groundwater of the Denver Basin, the Loop was first estimated to cost between $160 and $190 million to construct…Town staff recommended the action after hearing that Donala Water & Sanitation District, one of the remaining partners, would also be voting to remove itself from the agreement soon…Cherokee Metro District pulled out of the project in 2024. Interim General Manager Kevin Brown previously told The Gazette the district had to divert resources to remove forever chemicals in its supply before a compliance deadline. Instead of the Loop, Cherokee was going to focus its efforts on securing access to water rights in the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Basin.
Water stored in Colorado’s Denver Basin aquifers, which extend from Greeley to Colorado Springs, and from Golden to the Eastern Plains near Limon, does not naturally recharge from rain and snow and is therefore carefully regulated. Courtesy U.S. Geological Survey.
Lake Powell and Wahweap Marina back in August 2021, when the surface level was at about 3,549 feet. It’s now at 3,522 feet, just above the all-time low reached in April 2022. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
The feds stepped in after the seven Colorado River states failed to agree on a new plan to replace the 2007 Interim Guidelines and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans, both of which expire at the end of September. The states will continue to negotiate, and a seven-state consensus deal would take precedence over the federal plan.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Those plans were aimed at bringing overall demand back into balance with supply, which is not easy given that a warmer and drier climate is continually diminishing the already over-allocated river. While the document appears to have been completely scrubbed of any references to “climate change” or “global warming,” it does obliquely acknowledge that the cause of the current woes is a heating planet with passages like this one: “Imbalance between water supply and demand will be exacerbated by increasingly likely low-runoff conditions: The Basin is experiencing increased aridity due to climate variability, and long-term drought and low-runoff conditions are expected in the future.”
The natural flow flow at Lees Ferry, which is a calculation of what the Colorado River’s flow would be without any upstream dams, diversions, or human consumption. Land Desk graph using Bureau of Reclamation data.
While the supply-demand balance is the central objective, a secondary one is to “protect critical elevations” at Lake Powell, which is to say they will take significant measures to keep the surface level from dropping below 3,500 feet, which provides a 10-foot buffer above minimum power pool. This not only preserves hydropower output, but it also avoids relying on the river outlet works for sustained releases. Meanwhile, the feds didn’t even consider proposals to drain Lake Powell or to build bypass tunnels around Glen Canyon Dam to allow for low-level water releases. [ed. Note that the USBR EIS is constrained by the “Law of the River”, the suite of agreements and legislation that details what the agency can do to operate the river.]
I should be posting articles here about the huge news Friday. But it wasn’t huge, it was boring and predictable. So is all the coverage. So are most of the people, the same people who get quoted over and over and over. Nothing but conventional wisdom, no ideas. Not a quotable… pic.twitter.com/A00bYHYhJH
Sorry, Ed. I’d like to help, but there’s not a whole lot of interesting things to say about this!
The release was met with much pomp and circumstance, along with a lot of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing, though it didn’t contain any major surprises or changes from the draft EIS released earlier this year. The big takeaway, or at least the most talked-about one, is that the Upper Basin states will not be subjected to mandatory water use cuts, though they are being asked to cut about 200,000 acre-feet annually on a voluntary basis. The Lower Basin states, meanwhile, will be required to cut their consumption, perhaps by as much as 3.6 million acre-feet per year, depending on reservoir levels. That’s nearly half of those states’ Colorado River Compact allotment.
The cuts would be distributed based on water right priority, which would hit Arizona the hardest. That’s not because Arizona’s rights are junior to everyone else’s, but because their biggest straw — the Central Arizona Project — has junior rights, which the state accepted in exchange for federal funds to help build the thing and to help power its energy-sucking pumps.
Lower Basin leaders are, generally, livid. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs said the feds’ plan “still contains unacceptable options that include the federal government forcing Arizona to take the majority of draconian water cutbacks.” Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo said the plan “seeks to impose unrealistic reductions on Nevada and our water users … {that} could have devastating economic and environmental impacts … .”
The response from the Upper Basin has been a more measured and mixed, but is predominantly one of relief at being spared mandatory cuts. But any celebration is tempered by the fact that nature is forcing its own cuts in the Upper Basin; irrigation canals are shutting down all over the place, long before the growing season is over, and some irrigators have received only a fraction of their usual allotment this year. Plus, the plan leaves open the possibility of draining Upper Basin reservoirs such as Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo to buoy levels at Lake Powell. That will affect recreation and leave less water for irrigators and other users in the Upper Basin.
Meanwhile, advocacy groups are generally unhappy about the plan’s short-term approach, its focus on saving dams rather than the river, its willful ignorance of climate science, and its failure to force cuts on all river users. Even more dismaying is the fact that it doesn’t even cap Upper Basin consumption at current levels, implicitly allowing new diversions and water projects that would throw supply and demand further out of balance. “The Colorado River needs consequential and systemic change that confronts the ecological, political, and legal chaos caused by climate change and Glen Canyon Dam, but Reclamation’s plan is just ‘lather, rinse, repeat’ of past failed policies,” said Gary Wockner, of Save The Colorado, in a written statement.
This sentiment reveals a sort of paradox on the Colorado River: All of the water that flows to the Lower Basin and the industrial-scale alfalfa farms in the Imperial Valley also runs through the Grand Canyon, keeping that ecosystem healthier. Meanwhile, any water that the Upper Basin consumes or that is held back in Lake Powell to protect the dam’s integrity is water that doesn’t flow through the canyon.
There’s no indication that the Trump administration is punishing the Lower Basin states, however. It’s far simpler logistically to distribute and enforce mandatory consumption cuts in the Lower Basin because there are fewer diversion points, each of which is far larger than in the Upper Basin. Also, the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act made the Interior Secretary the “water master” on the Lower Colorado River, giving the feds greater authority to order shortages.
One question that remains unanswered is how reduced releases from Glen Canyon Dam would play out in the context of the Colorado River Compact, which dictates that the Upper Basin “not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feet” for any 10-year period. There’s a high likelihood that the 10-year aggregate flow will drop below 75 maf in the next year, giving Arizona possible grounds to sue and putting the interpretation of the clause into the hands of the Supreme Court.
Here are a few more details from the final EIS:
Glen Canyon Dam annual releases, which will be determined on Oct. 1, will range from 6 maf to 12 maf. This could drop as low as 5 maf if necessary to defend the “de facto deadpool” Lake Powell surface level of 3,500 feet. That would reduce flows in the Grand Canyon to below 7,000 cubic feet per second, and cause Lake Mead to drop further.
The maximum shortages/cuts for the Lower Basin would be 3.6 maf distributed as such:
Arizona: 1.96 maf
California: .9 maf
Nevada .21 maf
Estimated shortage impacts by water user type under various shortage conditions:
Acreage range of Indian Trust lands in the Lower Basin that would be fallowed under various shortage conditions:
AZ: 6,535 to 67,375 CA: 0 NV: 0
An alarming quote about how junior water rights holders are going to face shortages no matter what: Under the preferred alternative, “… for all Arizona, California, and Nevada junior entitlements (AZ CAP NIA-A and NIA-B; AZ CAP Indian, M&I, and 4(I); CA P4; and NV P8 priority groups) there are no potential futures in which >80% of normal domestic water delivery occurs.”
Lower Basin Tribal water users with present perfected rights would receive at least 80% of normal water deliveries in at least 90% of years across 2027-2039.
Glen Canyon Institute Executive Director Eric Balken observing the Cathedral. Photo credit: Glen Canyon Institute
During 75% of years under preferred alternative, Lake Powell’s level would be below 3,550 feet during at least 90% of months, meaning Cathedral in the Desert would be visible and accessible.
The EIS’s authors summed up the challenges with all of this — and the perils that may lie ahead — in one paragraph, writing:
Aurora Water doesn’t much care which two days in a week you water your lawn, amid this historic drought.
But if your irrigation system starts up on a third day in the same week, the water world equivalent of a Flock camera is watching. The “smart” meters on every Aurora property automatically sense a spike in water use, and alert Aurora Water to confirm the violation and send out a warning or fine.
With updates at 15-minute intervals, the meters also detect irrigation watering during hot daytime hours when that’s against the rules.
The water surveillance, which Aurora Water officials acknowledge many of their customers might not realize exists, is one key to Colorado’s third-largest city so far achieving its water-saving goals in a year with record-low snowpack and abysmal streamflows into mountain reservoirs. Aurora says its 400,000 residents are using 27% less lawn water than in 2025, and managed a 9% cut from combined indoor and outdoor use.
Maintaining or even improving those savings is crucial as Aurora Water’s reservoir system sits at 49% full at a time when it should be above 80%.
Denver Water, meanwhile, has seen only about a 5% cut of water use compared with its previous five-year average among 1.5 million city and suburban customers. When Denver Water enacted twice-a-week watering restrictions in the spring, it set a target of a 20% cut from five-year average use.
Denver’s customers are doing better when using Aurora’s comparison with 2025 only, Denver officials said.
“Versus 2025, total water use is currently down about 7% and outdoor use is down about 16%,” said Travis Thompson, Denver Water communications manager.
The state’s largest water agency says it is encouraged by other statistics showing customers are using 21% less lawn water than they would have expected in the run of 95- to 100-degree days the Front Range experienced in July. In a summer that sits in the top 1% hottest and driest on record, the agency says, that’s a laudable savings mark.
One difference: Aurora Water spent millions of dollars in capital getting smart meters on every customer tap, while Denver Water chose to spend more of its capital speeding up replacement of aging, dangerous lead water delivery lines. Denver’s enforcement of drought restrictions to date has relied on thousands of neighbor complaints about properties watering more than twice a week, during restricted daytime hours or other violations.
“We have a far bigger tool than they have for being able to detect when people are using water irrigation water when they’re not supposed to,” said Shonnie Cline, Aurora Water’s deputy director of water internal and external relations.
Watchdog groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union in the past have raised questions about privacy invasions from smart home devices, including electric and water meters monitored by utilities. Especially by combining information from multiple meters, hackers or other bad actors could watch patterns and learn when people are home or away, are cooking, taking showers or other personal habits.
Cline said a better analogy than a controversial Flock camera is to see a smart water meter as a personal fitness tracker. “It gives you data and you are able to identify patterns that can improve your overall health if you make changes,” Cline said.
Aurora points out the smart meters for every customer work both ways, as a protection from leaks and potential property damage. Customers are able to log on and track their own use at the same time the city sees it, and could recognize a home leak while away on vacation, for example. During droughts, the meters will be one key to helping maintain reservoir storage for the benefit of the whole community, Cline said.
“There is a definite footprint that goes along with the data that indicates irrigation is taking place,” Cline said. “We have that pretty locked in where we can see when somebody’s irrigating, and so that’s why it’s interesting, because even when we send a warning, people are like, ‘But I didn’t!’ And then we’ll show them the data, and they’re like, ‘OK, I can’t argue with you, right?’ “
Denver Water, while enjoying higher water storage rates at its mountain reservoirs that have seen better snowpack, is not satisfied with customer savings rates and is now shifting somewhat from “education” to “enforcement” mode.
Denver had sent out nearly 3,600 warning letters but only five fines by the beginning of August. Fines will ramp up now that customers know what the rules are and Denver Water knows more about where the problem customers are, officials said.
Aurora Water, by contrast, has issued 234 fines after sending out more than 2,500 warning letters, including 10 of the highest $2,000 fines to businesses and large irrigation consumers. Only three customers were issued a second fine at the $250 residential level, Aurora Water said, and none had been issued a third fine. Aurora’s fines total more than $70,000.
Now that Denver Water has weeks of data on actual water use during drought restrictions, the agency can focus its communications on suburban areas with bigger lawns that haven’t cut back, said Greg Fisher, the utility’s manager of demand planning. Some of those suburban customers have no idea it’s Denver Water that collects their mountain runoff and delivers it to their local water utilities.
With only 5,000 advanced meters installed for 250,000 taps, Fisher said, word of mouth enforcement confirmed by onsite visits from Denver Water employees will continue to be the standard for warnings and fines.
“We continue to rely on, and I think it’s a pretty inventive idea, of letting our customers report water waste violations,” he said. “Even with the water people out on the street, we can’t be everywhere. So giving our customers the ability to report has been pretty powerful and I think effective for us.”
Denver Water officials do not anticipate asking their board this season to approve the next drought stage that would take lawn watering down to one day a week and add other restrictions. Denver Water would have to change its rate structure again to charge more for lawn watering that does occur to make up for loss of revenue from restrictions.
Plus, the utility thinks it’s a longer-term challenge to convince customers to change habits and stay “on board” with drought restrictions in the middle of what could be a multiyear crisis, Fisher said.
“We have a long game,” Fisher said. “This thing’s going to last a minimum of 12 more months, in my opinion, save for some sort of record-breaking snowfall this winter. So we’re in it for the long haul. I think we need to continue to up the message as we see conditions change. But at the same time, we really need to support our customers and have them stick with us for that extended period.”
People are capable of change, Denver Water officials said. The last drought this severe for Front Range customers was 2002.
“Our customers are using 100 million gallons less per day this year than they did in 2002, which is just stunning,” Fisher said. “And that translates to being actually 14% higher in our reservoir storage now than we were in 2002, because of our customers’ efficiency efforts over the last quarter century. We’re feeling really good about that. And that’s with significantly more population … 200 to 250,000 more people.”
Valley cities have spent years preparing for Colorado River shortages and say they are prepared to keep water flowing even under major federal cutbacks. Photo credit: Ted Wood/The Water Desk
Click the link to read the article on the KJZZ website (Alex Hager):
August 4, 2026
Colorado River shortages are no surprise. Climate change and drought have been steadily cutting into water supplies for about 26 years. Various plans to rein in demand have emerged throughout that time, and new cutbacks have been in the works for more than a year. The amount of water that each Valley city gets from the Colorado River varies significantly from city to city, but the majority receive at least some. Some cities are more prepared than others to weather today’s drier conditions, but most have at least some plan to deal with new Colorado River reductions. The Interior Department set the table for new cuts on Friday [July 31, 2026], laying out the framework of a plan that would allow the federal government to cut the Colorado River supply for Arizona, California and Nevada by up to 40%…A second announcement, which may come in the next few days, will deliver specifics about the size of cuts to the Phoenix area in 2027 and 2028.
Regardless of their scale, city leaders say they will be able to keep taps running.Like any good investor, most utility managers have focused on diversifying their portfolios. Essentially, the more different sources of water that flow to a city, the more it can tolerate cuts to one of those sources. In the Valley, that primarily means getting water from underground aquifers and the Salt River. Underground stores of water, pulled up by a system of wells, are carefully managed under state law and can give cities a backup in times of shortage on the surface. In some cases, water agencies have been taking excess water from the Colorado River for years and adding it to the underground stash, with the idea that it could be retrieved in times like these…In July, the Arizona Water Banking Authority announced that it will use its stored waterto make utilities whole in the event of cutbacks to their supplies from the Colorado River…Older, larger cities also tend to have more money for the kind of expensive engineering that can help diversify a water portfolio. For example, Phoenix is building a massive, high-tech water treatment plant that can safely recycle sewage back into purified drinking water. Major cities around the West are betting big on the technology to help withstand drought and climate change in the long term. Phoenix aims to send water from the $350 million facility into city pipes in early 2029. Cities that use water from the Salt River system are contributing to a multibillion-dollar expansion of Bartlett Dam, which holds back Bartlett Lake. In recent years, after particularly snowy winters, the river has provided more water than the reservoir can hold. A larger dam, cities say, would help them capture, store and use more water from the Salt River system in the future. For cities that lack diverse water portfolios and the kind of money needed for massive engineering projects, there’s a way for them to benefit from the cities that do. In April, as Colorado River cuts were becoming imminent, the city of Phoenix announced a new water transfer program called the “Secure Water Arizona Program”, or SWAP. Details are still emerging about how it would work, but it promises to connect cities that have water to cities that need water…Other water transfers, both in Arizona and across state lines, may be a big part of the long-term plan for cities and towns in the Valley. For example, farms may find it lucrative to sell some of their supplies to fast-growing cities in the metro that are willing to pay top dollar. Native American tribes, which often hold large, powerful legal rights to access the Colorado River, may also be willing to sell. A $5 billion settlement deal is currently in the works to give three Arizona tribes more access to their Colorado River water. If it passes, they could also gain the ability to lease their water to cities far from their reservations. Desalination, a high-tech process that can turn salty ocean water into pure, drinkable fresh water, has long been a tempting proposition for water-short cities. High costs and major logistical challenges mean that Arizona is unlikely to build its own desalination plant anytime soon, but a transfer program could allow it to benefit from an already-operational desalination facility. The Central Arizona Project and a handful of other water agencies around the region are exploring a deal to exchange water rights with a desalination facility in Carlsbad, California.
The attackers did not try to infiltrate the computers that utility offices use. Instead, they tried to seize control of small computers in equipment like pumps and valves that deliver drinking water to millions of people.
The utilities countered the attacks by shutting down the control computers and sending personnel out into the field to operate equipment manually. Utility officials have said that water remained safe to drink.
How can someone from far away seize control of a water system and possibly shut off the flow or taint the water?
Controlling the water machinery
There are about 152,000 public drinking water systems in the United States, according to the federal government. A municipality gets its water from lakes, reservoirs, rivers or underground aquifers.
Pumps move water through pipes to a treatment plant that filters and disinfects it. More pumps push the treated water into storage tanks, then through distribution pipes to homes and businesses. The entire system can span many square miles.
Small computers control numerous pumps and other equipment involved in moving and treating drinking water, from source to consumer. Taloma et al, CC BY
The hackers accessed small computers called programmable logic controllers at the water systems that operate all sorts of industrial equipment. The programmable logic controllers read sensors that measure conditions such as water pressure, water chemistry, tank levels and equipment status, and automatically operate pumps, valves and alarms. A household thermostat is a useful comparison: It reads the temperature and tells the heating or cooling system what to do.
The programmable logic controllers also transmit operational data to a utility’s central computer system. Workers use dashboards to monitor the information and send commands back to the controllers. The two-way communications can travel through wired networks, over radio or cellular links, or through internet connections.
Many utilities operate with small staffs, so remote connections allow an employee to monitor a distant pump or tank, receive an alarm after hours or let a vendor diagnose equipment without traveling to every site.
Controllers that use the internet may access it directly, or go through protective firewalls, secure gateways or virtual private networks. Direct access is more vulnerable because there are fewer defensive barriers. A hacker can find a controller by scanning the internet and finding its Internet Protocol, or IP, address, then try a weak or stolen password or exploit a known security flaw.
To reach a controller through a secure gateway or encrypted service, a hacker would have to steal remote-access credentials, or break into the gateway or private network, or get control of an operator’s workstation. The hacker could then use that foothold to reach the controller.
Attempted access can also be part of an intruder’s longer-term strategy to collect information, test defenses or establish entry for a later date. https://www.youtube.com/embed/tqi0eRN_244?wmode=transparent&start=0 A cybersecurity consultant explains how hackers gain access to the small computers that control industrial and utility equipment like those used in drinking water systems.
How an attack works
Attacks on industrial control systems often follow a familiar sequence. Infiltration often begins with a quiet search for access. Attackers scan internet addresses for controllers, dashboards and outside companies that provide remote access services, looking for targets that are linked directly to the internet.
Next, the attacker looks for a default or stolen password to log in, an unpatched vulnerability or a misconfigured remote-access service. Sophisticated malware is not always necessary: In 2023, U.S. officials reported that Iranian-linked hackers targeted internet-connected Unitronics programmable logic controllers used by water utilities. Some utilities were still using the manufacturer’s default password, according to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Finally, the attacker exploits the access they have gained. This could mean changing a password, issuing commands or attempting to alter the controller’s software. Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology note that an intruder could replace legitimate control instructions with malicious commands. An attacker could also sneak into an office computer through phishing, then access the controller network.
Industrial equipment in service for decades is extremely vulnerable because it may not support modern security features, and utilities may delay updates because they want to avoid interrupting operations.
Reports thus far indicate that hackers accessed the Minnesota water systems through controllers that communicate over the internet directly. A July 30 FBI and Environmental Protection Agency advisory stated that attackers remotely accessed Rockwell Automation MicroLogix programmable logic controllers that were connected directly to the internet, and changed their IP addresses and passwords.
Defensive moves that utilities can take
The most immediate step that utilities can take to protect themselves is to remove controllers and human dashboards from direct connection to the internet. Following the Minnesota attacks, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency urged water utilities to place this equipment behind properly configured firewalls and other safeguards.
When remote access is necessary, utilities should route communications through a secure gateway or VPN, require multiple levels of authentication, and limit how much access each user has. Utilities should change default passwords, disable unused remote-access services and install vendor-approved updates to connected equipment.
In their guidance on internet-exposed dashboards, the cybersecurity agency also recommends separating operational networks from email and other business systems. This measure makes it harder for attackers to move between the two systems.
Finally, utilities should back up controller programs, log remote-access activity and practice restoring systems and operating manually.
A matter of resources
Rural water utilities with limited resources are a significant vulnerability in the United States’ critical infrastructure.
A group of volunteer cybersecurity experts is providing guidance to water utilities, but their reach is limited. Smaller utilities may need government funding or shared cybersecurity services to be able to defend themselves.
Colorado could impose new fees on data centers and renewable energy companies, tax sod grass, or fund a special trust to raise the $20 billion it needs over the next 30 years to ensure it has enough water, as climate change saps streams and shrinks snowpack.
That’s according to a new report issued by a special task force created by Colorado lawmakers last year. Most of the measures the report examined would require action by lawmakers and potentially voters.
Until now, the state has relied largely on severance taxes collected on oil and gas, mining and coal production to help fund water projects, including shoring up old pipelines and dams, funding water-saving initiatives and buying new supplies.
But those severance tax revenues vary dramatically from year to year and are often diverted by lawmakers to help cope with budget shortfalls. That is a problem that needs to be solved, according to state Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Democrat from Frisco who co-sponsored the legislation creating the task force.
“This report makes clear that Colorado needs a long-term strategy for funding water infrastructure that doesn’t depend almost exclusively on the ups and downs of severance tax revenue,” Roberts said.
Task force members were charged with finding permanent, stable sources of funding that can’t be tapped for other purposes by lawmakers.
“If we could just maintain the funding we have, that would be a start,” said Jim Yahn, a water policy veteran and Logan County commissioner appointed to the task force by Gov. Jared Polis.
The report, produced by the Colorado Water Center at Colorado State University, said the state would likely need several mechanisms to generate the revenue needed, and it cited the success of a 2019 sports betting initiative approved by voters that has generated millions of dollars in tax revenues annually for water projects.
Still, it said, “The gap between the identified need and available funding is a current challenge visible in oversubscribed grant and loan programs, aging infrastructure, and the growing difficulty local governments face in accessing capital for large projects.”
The report cites programs by New Mexico and Wyoming that protect severance tax revenues by placing them in special trust funds that cannot be tapped for other purposes.
Karen Schlatter, director of the Colorado Water Center who led work on the report, said she is hopeful the findings will provide lawmakers with a set of options they can use in combination to stabilize water funding in the future.
Roberts said it was likely that lawmakers would work on new legislation next year to begin to address long-term funding solutions.
That’s something Yahn, who is the past manager of North Sterling and Prewitt reservoirs in northeastern Colorado, would like to see as well.
“A long time ago the state did something right by creating the revolving loan fund,” Yahn said, referring to a loan pool run by the Colorado Water Conservation Board that water districts can borrow from and whose loan interest payments help finance subsequent loans for other water districts.
“We got loans for our spillways and diversion structures and now we are paying it back in a steady stream that other people can use. But when you sweep it out, we don’t have it,” he said, referring to cash diversions by lawmakers. “The next step would be finding some legislators that would be willing to keep the money where it is. If we could get the ball rolling on that, that would be the next step I would like to see.”
Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam. Photo credit: Western Resource Advocates
Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Politics website (Marianne Goodland). Here’s an excerpt:
July 31, 2026
Calling it a balanced approach that offers flexibility and predictability, the plan released by the U.S. Department of the Interior cuts the allocation of Arizona, California and Nevada, while sparing Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming for now…Under the plan, the Lower Basin states could face collective cuts up to 3 million acre-feet through 2036, “subject to hydrology,” according to a news release by the Department of the Interior. That’s enough water to serve more than 25 million people a year. The plan would also allow annual releases between 5 and 12 million acre-feet from Lake Powell, the basin’s second-largest reservoir. Under the 10-year federal framework, water management decisions will be made every two years…
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Andrea Travnicek said in a statement Friday that the plan, known as a final environmental impact statement, “strikes a balance between flexibility and predictability for the Colorado River system that is vital to the 40 million people who rely on it, given unprecedented hydrologic conditions and the potential for considerable impacts on water users.”
Between 2020 and 2024, the average consumptive use in the Colorado River Basin was 13.1 million acre-feet. That is broken down by:
Upper Basin: 3.8 million acre-feet (29%)
Lower Basin: 6.5 million acre-feet (49%)
Mexico use: 1.4 million acre-feet (11%)
Evaporation: 1.4 million acre-feet (11%)
At the time the 1922 compact was signed, the seven states had a combined population of about six million — roughly the size of Colorado’s population today…
She said last month that she “has no idea what that process would look like, constantly negotiating every two years.”
“The basin is experiencing increased aridity due to climate variability, and long-term drought and low-runoff conditions are expected in the future,” wrote the Bureau of Reclamation in the summary. “These conditions will exacerbate the now widely recognized imbalance between water supply and demand in the basin. Robust and flexible guidelines are needed to manage the Colorado River system and its resources under a broad range of potential future hydrologic conditions.”
[…]
The two reservoirs are currently governed by guidelines established in 2007 that are set to expire this year, and many agree the plan has failed to protect the Colorado River system…The final proposal does not provide specifics for how water will be distributed across the basin, with the Bureau of Reclamation describing it as a “framework” that identifies key triggers and ranges for developing future operating guidelines at Lake Powell and Lake Mead. It sets up a plan to negotiate 2-year operating plans for the reservoirs through 2036…The final statement provides a range of alternatives, including the Bureau of Reclamation’s “preferred” option. Each alternative sets guidelines for how it will reduce or increase annual consumptive water use allocations from Lake Mead to the Lower Basin states; store and deliver water saved through conservation efforts; manage and deliver surplus water; manage activities and make cuts above Lake Powell; and more.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
After Utah and six other states along the Colorado River failed to reach a deal on how to share its dwindling water supply, the federal government on Friday released its own 10-year outline.
Colorado River Collaborative
This article is published through the Colorado River Collaborative, a solutions journalism initiative supported by the Janet Quinney Lawson Institute for Land, Water, and Air at Utah State University. See all of our stories about how Utahns are impacted by the Colorado River atgreatsaltlakenews.org/coloradoriver
Under the proposal from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada would share in cuts of up to 3 million acre-feet per year. The framework doesn’t mandate cuts for Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
Instead, it identifies a conservation goal for the Upper Basin — 200,000 acre-feet per year — about as much as Utah’s Deer Creek and East Canyon reservoirs together can hold. The plan would also allow for smaller annual releases from Lake Powell of down to 5 million acre-feet, compared to the current 6 million acre-feet, with new operating guidelines every two years.
Utah’s chief Colorado River negotiator, Gene Shawcroft, praised the proposal on Friday, telling reporters it recognizes the reality of the water available, not just the demand. But he emphasized it provides a broad framework, with the details to follow in coming days.
“I would just simply say, this is a bridge, not a destination,” Shawcroft said in a virtual news conference. “It certainly could be a bridge over troubled waters, but perhaps a bridge over no waters. We just aren’t quite sure.”
He and Amy Haas, executive director of the Colorado River Authority of Utah, were still reading through the 2,600 pages contained in the bureau’s environmental impact statement released Friday.
Haas said the state will know more about what it’s contending with when it gets a copy of a two-year operations plan for 2027 and 2028 in coming days, though the exact timeline wasn’t clear.
The Colorado River is pictured where if flows near Hite, just beyond the upper reaches of Lake Powell, on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
The Colorado River provides water to 40 million people across the U.S. and Mexico, contributing 27% of Utah’s water supply. It’s shrinking because of drought, overuse and hotter temperatures linked to climate change.
This year’s record-high temperatures and lowest snowpack on record aren’t helping. Normally, Colorado River runoff is about 13 million acre-feet, Shawcroft said. Now it’s 3.5 million acre-feet.
He told reporters: “We’re in a dire situation.”
On Friday, Arizona’s Department of Water Resources called the proposal’s cuts for the Lower Basin “unacceptable,” saying such reductions would devastate Arizona’s water users and its economy.”
The agency described negotiations over many months as “an exercise in lowering expectations, particularly for a long-term, seven-state agreement on operating this vital river system.”
The disagreement could find its way into a courtroom soon. Arizona and Utah have both taken steps this year to build up litigation funds.
“For Utah, litigation is never our plan A,” Haas told reporters Friday. “Whether it’s a plan B, depending on the context of this document, that remains to be seen. But litigation is not going to get us anywhere on this river. It’s not going to get us more water.”
At issue in the negotiations is who absorbs necessary cuts. Upper Basin states argue they use less water than Lower Basin states, don’t have huge reservoirs to store water in dry years, and lack legal authority to place significant restrictions on water users.
Lake Powell and the Wahweap Marina are pictured near Page, Arizona on Sunday, Feb. 2, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
The proposal out Friday is adaptable and allows the states to keep negotiating, said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.
“This framework provides the flexibility to respond to changing hydrologic conditions while preserving the opportunity for the Basin States to continue working toward durable, consensus-based solutions,” Burgum said in a statement.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, in a joint statement with his counterparts in the other upstream states, said they’re encouraged that incoming operating guidelines “will better reflect existing water supply, which must underpin any practicable plan going forward.”
They went on to say that both the upper and lower divisions of the basin “are feeling the pain of severe drought. This is a reality that all states, and the federal government, will need to address practically, which is why a seven-state agreement will provide the best outcome for all water users in the Colorado River Basin.”
Water use is outpacing the river’s flows, and that overconsumption adds up. The combined amount of water in Lake Powell and Lake Mead is at its lowest point since before Glen Canyon Dam began to fill up in 1963, the bureau said in its Friday news release.
If water levels dip to critical lows, as forecasts suggest they could by late this year, the nation’s two largest reservoirs could fail to produce power. If their depths continue to slide, they’ll fail to send water downstream.
Conservation and recreation groups have called for an end to the gridlock, saying it’s dragging on in the background while hotter and drier conditions are driving up wildfire risks, air quality concerns and restrictions on the water supply.
Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@utahnewsdispatch.com.
The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)
The federal government on Friday formalized a set of guidelines for managing water use in the Colorado River Basin over the next decade, if Colorado and six other Western states can’t come to an agreement on how to deal with declining flows caused in large part by climate change.
“The Department has a responsibility to ensure the Colorado River system remains reliable and resilient for the millions of Americans, communities and industries that depend on it,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a press release. “This framework provides the flexibility to respond to changing hydrologic conditions while preserving the opportunity for the Basin States to continue working toward durable, consensus-based solutions.”
Under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s “preferred alternative” for the management of the river’s reservoir system, outlined in a extensive environmental impact statement, the burden of the most severe cuts would continue to fall on the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada, which could face mandatory cuts of up to 3 million acre-feet of water. The Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming would face only voluntary conservation targets totaling 200,000 acre-feet.
All seven states were parties to the Colorado River Compact, a 1922 agreement governing the use of water from the vital Western watershed. Today, the Colorado River provides water to an area inhabited by 40 million people across the Southwest, though agricultural uses account for the vast majority of consumption.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Since 2000, a megadrought caused largely by global warming — the region’s worst dry spell in at least 1,200 years — has stressed water supplies across the basin and pushed the Colorado River Compact to a breaking point. The last set of federal guidelines to address shortages, issued nearly 20 years ago, will expire Jan. 1, and the seven Colorado River Compact states failed to reach a new agreement before a federally imposed deadline in February.
The combined amount of water stored in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the Colorado River system’s two key reservoirs, fell this month to its lowest level since May 1957 — before Lake Powell, created by the Glen Canyon Dam, had even begun to fill.
Without a major turnaround in hydrologic conditions in the near future, water levels in Lake Powell are expected to fall by next spring to below “minimum power pool,” at which point the Glen Canyon Dam’s hydroelectric turbines would be unable to operate.
Negotiations over a comprehensive new agreement have led to an increasingly bitter dispute between the Upper Basin states — led by Colorado, the river’s headwaters state and by far the Upper Basin’s largest water user — and the Lower Basin states, especially Arizona, which has borne the brunt of the cuts imposed in recent years. Arizona is widely expected to launch a high-stakes legal challenge as soon as this summer, alleging Colorado and other Upper Basin states are failing to meet an obligation under the original Colorado River Compact to allow enough water to flow downstream.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis issued a joint statement Friday with the governors of the other three Upper Basin states, saying that “both the Upper and Lower divisions of the basin are feeling the pain of severe drought,” and that they were “committed to continued good-faith discussions with our counterparts.”
“Many hours of meetings and negotiations took place between the Colorado River Basin states and these discussions will continue,” the statement said. “Today’s framework does not represent a final solution, but enables the River to be managed in the short-term while the seven states and (the Interior Department) continue to negotiate a consensus solution.”
In the absence of a new agreement among the states, the Bureau of Reclamation says it will continue to update its new guidelines every two years until 2036.
Andrea Travnicek, the Interior Department’s assistant secretary for water and science, said the plan “strikes a balance between flexibility and predictability … given unprecedented hydrologic conditions and the potential for considerable impacts on water users.”
In a statement, Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado said he was “disappointed” by the failure to reach a new long-term agreement among the seven Colorado River Compact states.
“While a two-year operating plan is the bare minimum needed to operate the river, a long-term, consensus agreement that recognizes real hydrologic conditions is the only durable solution to bring certainty to the Colorado River,” Bennet said.
Colorado Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
You know the Colorado River crisis is serious when the Trump administration is willing to use hundreds of millions of dollars from President Biden’s climate law to help to solve it.
As of Wednesday night, federal officials had yet to release their plan for mandatory water cutbacks along the Colorado — a crucial water source for tens of millions of people and millions of acres of farmland across the American West. But with a plan expected later this week, details were starting to trickle out.
The L.A. Times’ Ian James reported that Trump’s Interior Department would accept a proposal submitted by California, Arizona and Nevada — the Lower Basin states — to slash their water use by 12%, 31% and 28%, respectively, through 2028. They’ll receive $350 million from Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act to support water conservation.
The Upper Basin states — Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming — will get $100 million in conservation funding. But unlike their downstream neighbors, they won’t face mandatory water cuts. However much water they end up saving, that will be good enough.
It’s always possible the plan will change. I’m eager to see the final details.
While we wait, let’s hear from one of the West’s most thoughtful and well-informed Colorado River chroniclers.
That would be Zak Podmore, author of “Life After Dead Pool: Lake Powell’s Last Days and the Rebirth of the Colorado River.” Earlier this week, he and I talked for an hour and took audience questions on Zoom; it was a great time. Thank you to everyone who joined us. Paid subscribers to Climate-Colored Goggles can scroll up to watch the full video.
Here are five lessons that stood out to me from our conversation — all of which are relevant to the high-stakes conflict playing out among the states.
1. We’re not doomed. Earth is resilient
My favorite thing about “Life After Dead Pool” is its hopeful message.
Most headlines about the Colorado River these days are gloomy. For instance, the last time Lake Mead and Lake Powell held as little water as they do right now was 1956 — before Lake Powell existed, meaning all the water was in Mead. Powell is currently 23% full; Mead is 27% full. These are the largest reservoirs in the United States.
A river returns. Almost 50 miles of the San Juan, once inundated by Powell Reservoir, are flowing free. Photo credit: Morgan Sjogren
But Podmore’s book flips the script, offering a firsthand look the amazing ecological recovery taking place as Lake Powell shrinks.
In and around the reservoir, which was flooded by Glen Canyon Dam more than 60 years ago, native vegetation is returning much faster than scientists thought possible — especially in narrow side canyons inundated by Powell. Exploring these remote, newly accessible places inspired Podmore to write his book.
“Instead of hearing the story that I grew up hearing — which was that Glen Canyon Dam had all these negative environmental consequences, it drowned this beautiful place — I was hearing these conversations from these researchers who were talking about the landscape that was coming back, and how excited they were about the way the ecology was recovering, and the way the endangered fish were expanding their habitat,” Podmore said.
“Instead of a story about being too late, it was a story about realizing that I was right on time, as we all are, to see the rebirth of Glen Canyon,” he added.
The Colorado River flows through Glen Canyon in 1958, before the dam was built. (Photo via Wikimedia Commons)
2. Those who don’t learn from history…
Podmore starts the book by imagining what Indigenous life might have been like in and around Glen Canyon nearly 1,000 years ago — when the region had a far larger population than it does today.
He wanted to show that the Colorado River Basin’s human history began long before white settlement — and that even environmentalists have often ignored the watershed’s Indigenous past.
“I was definitely indoctrinated into the mainstream environmental school of thought as I was growing up,” he said. “I had a copy of the really famous book about Glen Canyon called, ‘The Place No One Knew,’ which was published by the Sierra Club in the ’60s and talked about how nobody cared enough about Glen Canyon to protect it. And then I realized later on that [the] title was very offensive, and [in fact] there were people who knew Glen Canyon very well and lived there for thousands of years, and who were displaced as the waters of Lake Powell started to fill, in the case of many Navajo families.”
Podmore’s opening scene describes a 10,000-gallon stone water tank built by Ancestral Pueblo farmers, the ruins of which were eventually buried by Lake Powell. The tank’s key feature: a drain at the bottom, so that irrigation could continue no matter how low water levels got.
Diagram showing critical reservoir levels at Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell. Land Desk diagram with data from the Bureau of Reclamation.
Lake Powell doesn’t have a drain at the bottom. It could certainly use one.
3. The Upper Basin states aren’t doing enough
If Powell’s water levels sink much lower, water won’t be able to pass through the dam’s hydropower turbines, which generate cheap electricity for communities across the West. That wouldn’t be a “dead pool” situation; water could still flow downstream to the Grand Canyon and Lake Mead through bypass tubes lower in the dam. But the bypass tubes are surprisingly frail and could break with sustained use.
Translation: We are frighteningly close to “de facto dead pool.” That’s why the Trump administration is ordering everyone to use less water.
Well, not everyone. California, Arizona and Nevada are willing to cut back dramatically, and federal officials seem happy to make them do it. The Upper Basin states — the ones upstream of Lake Powell — say they shouldn’t have to commit to mandatory reductions, in part because they already consume a lot less.
[ed. It is not possible to measure or marshall water to Lake Powell (lack of infrastructure, gaining and losing reaches, priority, no way to color water in the river). Inflows are calculated values, or the height of the column at the dam. The Upper Basin consumes a lot less than their allocation under the compact, so yes, much less than the Lower Basin. Here’s an AI recap of inflows to Lake Powell.]
In a New York Times opinion piece earlier this year, I argued that the Upper Basin states need to do more. Podmore agreed.
“It’s a tricky situation, because the Lower Basin has always used more water, and that’s a convenient argument for the Upper Basin,” he said. “But also, there’s more people in the Lower Basin. And the most productive agricultural land that’s irrigated with Colorado River water is located in the Lower Basin.”
“Even with the cuts that the Lower Basin has offered, we still have a long way to go to balance the water budget,” he added. “Everyone needs to pitch in.”
Farmland in California’s Imperial Valley, irrigated with Colorado River water. (Photo by Sammy Roth)
4. Alfalfa isn’t (always) the enemy
Farmers are often vilified for sucking up copious amounts of water — and with good reason. Irrigated agriculture consumes more than half the water in the Colorado River Basin, with alfalfa and other cattle feed accounting for a stunning 32% of overall water use. (This is one of several good reasons to eat fewer hamburgers.)
The Colorado River’s largest water user, by far, is California’s Imperial Valley, where farmers grow vegetables, alfalfa and other crops. There’s no sustainable future for the American West that doesn’t involve Imperial using less water.
But easy as it is to hate on Imperial, Podmore pointed out that when the Lower Basin uses water, that water stays in the river for a long time, supporting healthy ecosystems along the way. And because Imperial is very far downstream, water flowing to alfalfa farmers there carries huge environmental benefits.
“The way that water gets from the Rocky Mountains to the Imperial Valley — or to Los Angeles or Las Vegas or Phoenix — is through the Grand Canyon. It’s through Glen Canyon. It’s through Canyonlands National Park,” Podmore said. “It’s through all these important and beautiful places.”
“If the Lower Basin agrees to a bunch of cuts — if L.A. builds tons of desalination plants — that would in theory be good, because you have to divert less water from the river,” he added. But at the same time, “that means less water in the river.”
Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
The Bureau of Reclamation has released the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which designates a preferred course of action for future management of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The preferred alternative establishes an adaptive decision framework to be used to develop operating guidelines designed to ensure reliable operations in the Colorado River Basin while maintaining the flexibility to respond to changing conditions over a 10-year period through 2036. The framework also preserves the opportunity for the Basin to continue working towards consensus agreements, and if successful, be incorporated into future operations.
The framework will be used to develop operating guidelines for operations at Lake Powell and Lake Mead that can be adjusted for shorter and longer term periods.
“The Department has a responsibility to ensure the Colorado River system remains reliable and resilient for the millions of Americans, communities and industries that depend on it,” saidSecretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “This framework provides the flexibility to respond to changing hydrologic conditions while preserving the opportunity for the Basin States to continue working toward durable, consensus-based solutions.”
The framework establishes the operational principles, sideboards—key thresholds and ranges for operational elements—and a process that will govern development and issuance of operating guidelines through 2036. Operational sideboards were chosen to ensure that the Department would have flexibility and environmental compliance to operate the system in a way that is responsive to actual hydrologic conditions and allows for the incorporation of Basin-wide innovative water management solutions. The sideboards, which are analyzed in the Final EIS, provide for annual releases from Lake Powell between 5.0 maf and 12.0 maf, Lower Basin shortages of up to 3.0 maf, the ability to store up to 8.0 maf and 3.0 maf of conserved water in Lake Powell and Lake Mead for future use, respectively, and the opportunity for voluntary Upper Basin conservation up to 200 kaf, subject to hydrology.
The Department would issue operating guidelines, within these sideboards, at anticipated 2-year periods, unless consensus-based agreements provide for a longer duration. It also establishes a structure under which operating guidelines will be developed, reviewed and periodically updated. This approach provides certainty regarding a decision process over the next 10 years while preserving the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions.
“This plan strikes a balance between flexibility and predictability for the Colorado River system that is vital to the 40 million people who rely on it given unprecedented hydrologic conditions and the potential for considerable impacts on water users,” saidAssistant Secretary for Water and Science Andrea Travnicek. “It also allows a new flexibility to respond to changing conditions and potential consensus.”
The Colorado River provides water for more than 40 million people and fuels hydropower resources in seven states. It serves as a vital resource for 30 tribes and two Mexican states, sustaining 5.5 million acres of farmland and agricultural communities throughout the West, while also supporting critical ecosystems and protecting endangered species.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Drought conditions over the past 25 years, combined with expectations of continued dry conditions, have made development of future operating guidelines for the Colorado River particularly challenging. The combined contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead have not been this low since before Glen Canyon Dam began filling in 1963, and since 2000 water use has exceeded total system inflow in most years. The Colorado River Compact apportioned 7.5 million acre-feet to both the Upper and Lower Basins based on the estimated pre-compact average inflow (1906-1921) of approximately 18 million acre-feet. However, inflows from 2000 to 2024 have only averaged 12.9 million acre-feet and the unregulated inflow into Lake Powell this year as of July is estimated to be only 3.5 maf.
Between 2020 and 2024, the average consumptive use in the Colorado River Basin was 13.1 million acre-feet. That is broken down by:
Upper Basin Use: 3.8 million acre-feet (29%).
Lower Basin Use: 6.5 million acre-feet (49%).
Mexico Use: 1.4 million acre-feet (11%).
Evaporation: 1.4 million acre-feet (11%).
This Final EIS is the culmination of a NEPA process that was initiated in June 2023. Over this three-year period Reclamation engaged extensively with Basin stakeholders and that input is reflected in the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS and the Preferred Alternative.
Reclamation received more than 18,000 comments, including 785 unique submissions from the public, tribes, states, federal agencies and others after releasing the draft EIS in January 2026. Reclamation evaluated substantive comments and updated the final EIS, with public input helping to shape the preferred alternative.
The Final EIS is available on Reclamation’s website.
The final EIS addresses only domestic river operations. A separate binational process addressing water deliveries to Mexico is nearing completion and the Department is committed to continued collaboration with Mexico. The Department will conduct all necessary and appropriate discussions regarding post-2026 operations and implementation of the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico through the International Boundary and Water Commission in consultation with the Department of State.
Click the link to access the EIS on the Reclamation website. Here’s the abstract:
July 31, 2026
The Secretary of the Department of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, proposes the adoption of new guidelines and coordinated management strategies to address Lake Powell and Lake Mead through their full operating range to take effect when the current agreements expire in 2026. Management strategies will primarily focus on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam, but may include actions upstream and downstream of these facilities to protect critical reservoir elevations.
This Final EIS has been prepared to inform the Secretary’s timely adoption of a new set of guidelines that would be sufficiently robust and provide improved predictability to all water users and managers in the Colorado River Basin. This Final EIS has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to address the formulation and evaluation of specific interim criteria and to identify the potential environmental impacts of implementing such criteria.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
To bolster the Colorado River’s flow downvalley through historic drought, water authorities will be increasing the flow out of the Ruedi Reservoir through August. That water will flow into the Fryingpan River…Water will then flow into the Roaring Fork River, then down the Western Slope, where populations in Grand Valley are in “dire need,” he said…
Green Mountain Reservoir (back in the day) is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and located in Summit County north of Silverthorne along the Blue River. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Traditionally, the Western Slope relies heavily on the Green Mountain Reservoir — about 17 miles south of Kremmling — to sustain a steady Colorado River flow. But due to the state’s dry, warm winter, that reservoir struggled to fill over the spring. The administrators of Green Mountain Reservoir found that low water levels and fast releases were exacerbating a slow-moving landslide on its banks, so they limited how much water could be released out of the reservoir to half a foot a day…
Tim Miller, a hydrologist with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that manages the levels at Ruedi Reservoir, said the reservoir played a similar supplemental role in 2002, when Colorado saw another historic drought. This year’s use of the reservoir is about 10 days ahead of then, he said.
L to R: Allen Best, Alan Salazar, Siri Roman, Pat Mulroy during the panel discussion “Liquid Courage” at the Museum of Nature & Science, July 21, 2026. Photo credit: Big Pivots
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
July 27, 2026
“We know climate change is real. We know we’re living it, but no one expected it to move this quickly.”
As moderator at last week’s water forum held at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, I posed the question to our three panelists about this hot and dry summer after last winter’s exceptional warmth and dearth of snow.
“From where you sit now, is this any different from what we’ve been through before?”
Pat Mulroy, a senior fellow at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Boyd School of Law and the former longtime general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, is an advocate for extensively rethinking how the Colorado River is managed. (Image: University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Boyd School of Law)
Pat Mulroy was quick to answer. She calls herself a “recovering CEO.” For 23 years she oversaw the Southern Nevada Water Authority‘s operations in Las Vegas and its suburbs. Early in her watch, the population of Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, exceeded the population of Manhattan. It now has a population of 2.5 million people.
The metro area there gets 90% of its water from the Colorado River via tunnels into three levels of Lake Mead. The newest — one she championed, despite a cost of $1 billion — comes up from underneath the reservoir. Even when Hoover Dam backs up too little water to be released downstream, Las Vegas will have access to water.
“I always love coming to Denver, now that I no longer come to Denver as the protagonist from the evil lower basin,” she said.
Footnote here: Many who had never heard Mulroy speak before were astonished at her liveliness.
“This summer is different only because the cumulative effect of all the summers that went before has come home to roost,” she continued.
“All the cushion we have (had) is gone. I mean, it’s one thing to have 2002 when you had a bad winter and Lake Powell started going down rapidly, but Lake Mead still had (water to an elevation of) over 1,200 feet. We’re now seeing the very real possibility that Lake Mead is going to go to 900 feet by next year. That would be 10 feet above deadpool.”
Deadpool is the water level that is so low that water can no longer be released from a dam. The level at which electricity can no longer be produced is higher.
Mulroy went on to say that while the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is taking steps to “replenish” Mead — by taking less water than allotted — the problem continues to worsen. That indicates the depth of this problem.
“It’s never ending, and the rate of change is so much faster than any of us expected,” added Mulroy. ” We know climate change is real. We know we’re living it, but no one expected it to move this quickly.”
Siri Roman via her Facebook page.
Siri Roman was next. She manages the Vail-based Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. “I think that 2002 changed water in Colorado, and 2026 is going to change it completely again. A lot of our planning and assumptions are being challenged this year,” she said.
“I mean, it was 80 degrees for two weeks in March. Watching our very little snowpack — the lowest snowpack we had on record — nearly melt out in March was quite alarming to us.”
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District has several small reservoirs. Among them is the reservoir at Vail Pass, another near Camp Hale, and a third near Minturn.
“They weren’t able to fill because the stream flows were so low. There are a lot of things we rely on that we’re not going to be able to rely on moving forward. How do we get creative, looking at demand and other solutions about how to prepare for a drier year?” Roman continued.
“Statistically, they always say you won’t get two years like this in a row. I don’t think we can say that anymore. We can’t rely on the statistics because we’re seeing such abnormal patterns.” [ed. emphasis mine]
Denver Board of Water Commissioners/Courtesy photo.
Alan Salazar, the third panelist, is CEO of Denver Water. The water agency delivers water to about 25% of the 6 million Coloradans. “We use just 2% of the state’s water, and that has been pretty steady going back through the 1970s. That didn’t happen by accident, because we took measures. My predecessor and Denver water employees in the last 20 years use water more efficiently and with conservation in mind.”
Salazar had high-level positions as policy advisor to several elected officials, mostly in Colorado. One of them was the former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, an advocate of protecting natural resources and an early advocate of public awareness around climate change. He recalled what his boss had told him: “Alan, no matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many regulations we implement, Mother Nature bats last. And boy, is she batting.”
As compared to 2002, he said, this year is more extreme. “We had a heat dome that made the spring more difficult, and it’s partly why the response from our customers has lagged, because even though there are water restrictions, the extremes in temperatures have put greater pressure on water use. So, it’s quite a bit different.”
These remarks were delivered early in the 90-minute sessions devoted to water and urban uses in Colorado and somewhat beyond.
The museum’s Institute for Science and Policy will hold another session on Aug. 27 in its two-part Liquid Courage series. This next session will have four panelists:
Robert Sakata, a farmer from Brighton and now a senior adviser at the Colorado Department of Agriculture;
Anne Castle, a former Interior Department undersecretary for water in the Obama administration now affiliated with the Getches-Wilkinson Center at the University of Colorado Law School;
Nathan Coombs, a San Luis Valley farmer and a member of the Colorado Water Conservation Board; and
Sarah Jones, co-founder of Rye Resurgence and co-owner of Jones Farm Organics near Hooper, in the San Luis Valley.
A few miles north of Mt. Sopris, down another dirt road that leads to the Roaring Fork River, Wenning stopped his car at a small brick building near the riverbank: The Roaring Fork Well House. Nearby are three wells that draw from the Roaring Fork River, providing another source of municipal water. After the call on the Crystal in 2018, Carbondale water managers decided to reduce the town’s reliance on Nettle Creek by leaning more heavily on the Roaring Fork River, where the town also has water rights. Carbondale currently has installed three wells — each of which produces roughly the same amount of water as the Nettle Creek plant (around 300 gallons per minute). But, the town has permits for seven more wells. Shifting Carbondale’s focus to the Roaring Fork River makes sense, said Wenning. Since the Roaring Fork is a bigger river, it’s less affected by a low-snow year. The wells are also 40 feet deep, allowing them to access groundwater…
The Roaring Fork Treatment Plant lies at the edge of the Carbondale Nature Park. Inside the barn-like building, a loud whirring sound echoes through the cavernous interior. The town recently installed new cartridge filter technology at the plant, expanding its capacity to treat water from 0.5 million gallons to 1.4 million gallons per day. According to Wenning, the town plans to expand the plant’s capacity further to treat up to 2.3 million gallons per day from the Roaring Fork River alone — more than enough to meet Carbondale’s peak summer demand, even when some of the water treatment equipment needs repair or servicing…
Beyond the shift to a more resilient water source, water experts see more opportunity to boost capacity through conservation. Maggie McHugh, an engineer with Roaring Fork Engineering, helps communities in the Roaring Fork Valley adapt to climate change.
“We can’t put any more water into the system, but we can take less out,” she said. “That will be the ultimate goal, especially in years like this.”
Farmer Randy Friend grows corn in the Olathe area. He left the debris from last year’s crop on the ground as a form of mulch to try to retain moisture in this exceptionally dry year. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Fourth-generation Olathe farmer Randy Friend stopped his pickup truck next to a row of corn whose green leaves were limp and curling, with a gray tinge. Friend’s corn was stressed as the valley endured a July heat wave with temperatures nudging close to 100 degrees.
“I hate to see it looking like that with our water situation,” Friend said.
Next was a field of onions, a thirsty crop with a long growing season. The furrows between the dark-green sprouts were still damp, an indication the field was just irrigated that morning.
“Onions are our most expensive crop to grow and the most reward on a good year,” Friend said. “But they can also bankrupt you because they take so much more water.”
Friend farms corn, onions and forage crops for livestock as part of the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, a vast expanse of farmland that extends from just south of Montrose to Delta, on Colorado’s Western Slope. Water from the Gunnison and Uncompahgre rivers, along with miles of tunnels, canals and ditches, transforms about 76,000 acres of high desert into lush green fields of corn, pinto beans, onions and alfalfa.
But this year, Uncompahgre Valley farmers are making tough decisions and developing new tools as they try to adapt to one of the hottest, driest years on record in the Upper Colorado River basin. Many are leaving fields dry, culling their cattle herds, switching to crops that use less water and relying on crop insurance payouts as the association faces a 50% cut to its irrigation water supply.
“I’ve been farming 30 years now, and this is by far the most extreme, biggest cut of water that I’ve ever had to deal with,” Friend said.
Some producers in the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users association have left some fields unplanted due to drought. The association has only about half its normal water supply this year. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
The Uncompahgre water users get about half of their water supply from Taylor Park Reservoir, at the headwaters of the Gunnison River, via the Gunnison Tunnel, a six-mile-long aqueduct that can bring up to about 1,175 cubic feet per second to the valley. The other half comes from the Uncompahgre River, a much smaller river basin that saw an abysmal end-of-season snowpack with just 14% of median April 1. That means the association has only about half its normal water supply for irrigation season.
“We’re limping along right now, but it’s going to be a challenging year,” said association manager Steve Pope. “We got to get our producers through Labor Day; we’re going to need the water then. It’s just a physical supply issue; the water just wasn’t there.”
With its water cut by half, many producers in the Uncompahgre Valley have chosen to irrigate only some of their fields, leaving others unplanted for the season. The district’s northwest area, which is where much of the valley’s row crops are grown, has been the hardest hit. Pope estimates those farmers are fallowing between 30% and 60% of their ground. Driving around the district revealed many fields that were brown and dry.
“There’s just a tremendous amount of land out there that’s just barren, and there’s nothing you can do about it,” he said.
This field in the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association district has been fallowed this season due to a lack of water. The state of Colorado announced Wednesday that it will set up a conservation program using federal dollars, which means more fields on the Western Slope could soon look like this. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Friend, an association board member, said he is fallowing about one-fourth of the land he farms and using about 30% to 40% of his acres to grow forage crops that use less water, such as sorghum-Sudangrass. But switching to drought-resistant plants is a strategy that doesn’t work for every grower. Friend also owns a feedlot so he can mix these drought-tolerant crops with higher-quality feed to make it work. Although some growers on the Western Slope are experimenting with alternative forage crops, such crops have yet to be grown on a large scale. Water-intensive alfalfa, with its high protein content, remains dominant.
Daris Jutten, a fifth-generation rancher in Ouray and Montrose counties, said the lack of water has prompted him to cut his herd back to the fewest cows he has ever had on his ranch. He has also left some of his alfalfa fields fallow.
West Drought Monitor map July 30, 2002.
West Drought Monitor map July 31, 2012.
West Drought Monitor July 31. 2018
West Drought Monitor map July 21, 2026.
“I’ve seen it bad before, but I’ve never seen it this bad,” Jutten said. “2002 was bad. 2018, 2012 were all bad. But they don’t even come close to what this thing is.”
The Uncompahgre River in Olathe was nearly dried up in July due to agricultural diversions and drought. The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association is the biggest agricultural water user in the Upper Colorado River Basin. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Colorado’s new conservation program adds pressure to cut water use
This year’s lack of water and a management crisis have brought the Colorado River system to the brink of collapse.
As the nation’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, plummet to new lows, water managers are taking emergency steps to keep Lake Powell levels high enough to produce hydropower at Glen Canyon Dam. At the same time, federal officials are crafting a plan for how the seven states that share the Colorado River will share shortages and how the reservoirs will be operated for the next two years.
Colorado’s new conservation program adds pressure to cut water use
This year’s lack of water and a management crisis have brought the Colorado River system to the brink of collapse.
As the nation’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, plummet to new lows, water managers are taking emergency steps to keep Lake Powell levels high enough to produce hydropower at Glen Canyon Dam. At the same time, federal officials are crafting a plan for how the seven states that share the Colorado River will share shortages and how the reservoirs will be operated for the next two years.
Upper Basin water managers have focused on the fact that their farmers and ranchers are affected first by a warming climate and are already experiencing shortages because the water simply isn’t there. The Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) suffer because there aren’t major reservoirs from which they can draw in dry years the way that the Lower Basin states (Arizona, California and Nevada) do. Both basins are increasingly expected to reduce consumption because supplies are shrinking and the Colorado River system as a whole must be managed within these new limits.
Onions are one of the water-intensive row crops grown in the Uncompahgre Valley. Farmers in the region are adapting to drought by fallowing fields and planting crops that use less water. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
On July 15, state officials announced the creation of a “near-term contribution program” that will pay water users to voluntarily cut back in 2027 and 2028, using $100 million in promised funding from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Upper Basin states have a goal of saving 100,000 acre-feet by the end of September 2028, which marks the end of water year 2028. The saved water will need to have a home in Upper Basin storage buckets — Lake Powell, Navajo, Blue Mesa or Flaming Gorge reservoirs — but precisely how it will be used and how it will fit into broader Colorado River management are still unknown.
The program has been a long time coming, and the concept is not new to Colorado. Officials said they are incorporating the lessons learned from previous demand-management studies beginning in 2019, stakeholder input and recent pilot programs.
As the biggest agricultural user in the Upper Basin, the Uncompahgre Valley — drought-stricken as it is — is ideally located for these types of programs and is considered one of the lowest-hanging fruits when it comes to finding places to save water.
When Colorado’s contribution program is implemented next year, the association will be ready. Knowing that a program was inevitable, Western Slope water managers have been proactive, developing a data-mapping tool that can help the association adapt to drought.
UVWUA Manager Steve Pope stands at the spot where water from the South Canal dumps water from the Gunnison River into the Uncompahgre River. It’s then diverted to the west side of the valley where it irrigates fields and row crops. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Mapping tool helps plan conservation
With 550 miles of interconnected canals and laterals snaking through the valley, downstream irrigators often depend on reusing the water that runs off an upstream neighbor’s fields, and leaving a field dry could have unintended downstream consequences.
Developed by the Colorado River Water Conservation District and The Freshwater Trust, the tool can pinpoint where the greatest opportunities for water savings are, as well as how to avoid the worst consequences of fallowing ground. It can show what happens when efficiency improvements are made to the association’s century-old infrastructure and can show which ditches should be lined to provide the most bang for the buck to reduce seepage loss.
“From our perspective, it’s a great management tool because it allows us to track water through our system,” Pope said. “Let’s say there’s [a conservation] program, well, what would be the best farms to go to a deficit irrigation or fallow that would create the most (water savings), and you can target that.”
The tool is aimed at helping producers adapt to drought and can show which projects would result in the most water savings. Although the River District does not endorse a large-scale conservation program, it has long recognized that one was inevitable and has sought to mitigate the worst impacts to rural agricultural communities.
The intent of the tool is to help create a program that can maximize economic and environmental benefits as well as water conservation, said Raquel Flinker, director of interstate and regional water resources with the River District.
“It was always to provide data and analytics that would make whatever entity [is] creating a program design it in a way that seemed the most sensible,” Flinker said.
Some Uncompahgre Valley producers have participated in experimental programs that pay them to cut their water use, including the federally funded System Conservation Pilot Program, which took place in 2023 and 2024. Friend and a few others in the association enrolled in 2024 and were paid to reduce their water use. The association’s board has allowed their members to participate in conservation programs, but they remain somewhat controversial. An irrigation district in the Western Slope’s other big agricultural area, the Grand Valley, does not allow its members to participate.
Pope said instead of programs that pay farmers not to irrigate, he would rather see federal money pay for more efficiency upgrades to water-delivery systems such as lining ditches and improving headgates. The recently announced state program is meant to include a broad range of water-saving actions, but pilot conservation programs in the Upper Basin have always defaulted to paying irrigators to temporarily stop using water.
“The problem I see with it is if somebody enrolls and they sign off the year before, and then we don’t get any water and they are 50% fallowed anyway, did the program really generate any water?” Pope said. “It’s very difficult to measure the benefits of these types of programs when you have such an unreliable supply to begin with.”
Pope brings up an inherent contradiction about Upper Basin conservation: How can agricultural water users cut back when they already don’t have enough in drought years like this?
Despite the 100,000-acre-foot goal for the Upper Basin, Colorado leaders have long said they can’t commit to saving a specific amount of water. They said that figure can be reached only if sufficient federal funding is available and hydrologic conditions allow. And for now, the program remains short-term, while the effects of a warmer and drier climate appear likely to continue for the long-term.
“If this is the new normal, it’s going to get way more difficult,” Friend said. “If we have another winter like this last one, a lot of people are pretty worried about it.”
REMINDER: There’s just [2 days] left to comment on the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind ban on new oil and gas leases and mining claims within a 10-mile radius of Chaco Culture National Historical Park. The BLM is accepting public comment until July 29 on three alternatives: 1. keeping the ban in place; 2. shrinking the 10-mile buffer zone to just five miles; 3. eliminating the ban altogether. To comment, click on this link and then click on the “Participate Now” button at the top of the page.
🐓 Regulatory Capture Chronicles 🦊
Wall at the Twin Angel site, a Chacoan outlier that lies along the Great North Road. Note the oil and gas facility in the background. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
President Donald Trump’s proclamations virtually eliminating Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments this month listed several arguments purportedly justifying the shrinkage. One of those was that national monument protections aren’t necessary, because the land and antiquities in question are already protected by various federal laws. The same argument is used to justify revoking the mining-claim and mineral-leasing ban around Chaco Culture National Historical Park.
There is some truth in this: There is a suite of federal laws, from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to the Endangered Species Act, that are intended to protect environmental and cultural resources on all federal land, whether it’s in a national monument or not. But those laws aren’t always adequate, and now the administration is actually working to weaken Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which would be key to protecting the cultural sites in the former national monuments and the Chaco “buffer zone.”
When a mining or drilling company proposes a project on a mining claim or mineral lease on public land, the National Historic Preservation Act requires the jurisdictional agency to determine whether the proposed development might affect historic properties. If so, it triggers Section 106 of the law, which requires the agency to consult with tribal nations or other potential stakeholders, to identify potentially affected properties, and to work to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on those properties.
Section 106, commonly referred to as “identify and avoid,” requires oil companies or other developers to conduct a cultural inventory of all land in the path of development. If the surveyors happen upon a “significant” site, the well pad, road, or pipeline must be relocated. This can prevent direct impacts to larger sites; you’re not likely to see a Chacoan great house bulldozed for a well pad, for example. But archaeological surveys can miss more subtle cultural features such as stone shrines, Chacoan “road” segments, or ancient cornfields. And the agencies aren’t likely to let a cultural landscape get in the way of the drill rigs or their “multiple use” mandate. Section 106 has not prevented gasfield roads from cutting across Chaco’s Great North Road in several places, nor has it kept several oil and gas wells from being drilled within a half mile of Pierre’s Site, a Chaco outlier within the 10-mile buffer zone.
Ruth Van Dyke, a professor of anthropology at Binghamton University cataloged the impacts of oil and gas development on the sound- and view-scapes at Pierre’s. “I found that, despite the due diligence agencies have exercised to protect the ground footprint of Pierre’s, there have been significant impacts,” she wrote. Twelve pumpjacks are visible from the Acropolis, and it’s likely that . When I visited a few years back, the whir-pop-pop-whir of the machines was irritatingly audible, affirming Van Dyke’s observation: “Rather than a sacred landscape and part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Pierre’s community had the feeling of an industrial park.” (While many people have pointed out that there’s scant recoverable oil within the buffer zone, there is plenty of natural gas, which could be targeted if and when commodity prices increase).
Given the inadequacies of Section 106 now, it has stunned historic preservation advocates to learn that the Trump administration’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is proposing to weaken the law even further by giving the agencies more power, while taking input away from the public and other stakeholders, including tribal nations.
That last clause is especially important when it comes to the lands cut out of the two Utah national monuments and the Chaco “buffer zone,” if it were to be rescinded as the administration proposes. We have seen that this for this administration, the quixotic quest for “energy dominance” outweighs nearly every other consideration, at least when it comes to public lands. That means that if the changes to Section 106 go through, we can no longer rely on that law to even partially protect the vast, numerous, and cultural sites and landscapes within Bears Ears, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and the Greater Chacoan Landscape. It makes the mineral withdrawals more important than ever.
Several years back, when writing about the Greater Chacoan Landscape, I spoke with Theresa Pasqual, former director of Acoma Pueblo’s Historic Preservation Office, about Chaco, the landscape, and how federal laws weren’t enough. I’ll leave you with a sagacious quote from her:
⛈️ Wacky Weather Watch⚡️
It’s feeling downright apocalyptic lately. We’ve had crippling drought, hellish temperatures, locust plagues, cataclysmic fires,pestilence, and all that was just prelude to an especially sporadic and violent monsoon, so far, which helped some firefighting efforts, but also unleashed flash flooding in Arizona, Utah, and Colorado.
The most severe flooding generally occurred on burn scars left by this season’s wildfires, but the intensity of the downpours also wreaked havoc in unburned areas, including Telluride and, most tragically, outside Bicknell, Utah, where a family of five was killed by a flash flood.
Here’s a rundown of some of the most notable flooding:
In Telluride, a downpour kicked off flash floods and debris flows that shut down the Tomboy Road (it remained closed as of Monday morning), temporarily closed Hwy 145, and inundated the Telluride Middle/High School, where three to four feet of mud and water blasted and oozed into the Palm Theatre.
The Cottonwood Fire burned through more than 97,000 acres in southwestern Utah before being mostly contained. Over the past several days, it has been the recipient of heavy rainfall, which have turned area streams, including the Beaver River, into raging, slate-gray-colored, debris-clogged torrents. The flooding closed down I-15 for a period of time, and forced the evacuation of parts of Beaver City. I should make some crack here about semiaquatic rodents that build dams, but I will refrain.
A cloudburst let loose on a year-old burn scar near the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, spurring major debris flows that covered roads with rocky detritus and forced the evacuation of about 20 people from a campground.
I-70 in western Colorado was shut down when water and mud washed onto the highway between New Castle and, appropriately, Silt, on Monday evening.
Flash flooding in the Prescott Valley in central Arizona was big enough to turn at least one large shipping container into, well, a ship floating down the road. The Prescott area remained under a flood watch on Tuesday and Tuesday night, while the Phoenix area was facing an extreme heat watch later this week.
Any amount of moisture is welcome on the drought-desiccated earth, but if the videos of raging rivers in what usually are nearly dry arroyos give you the idea that the water woes are alleviated, think again. So far these cloudbursts are just that: Short, intense, and isolated bursts of precipitation that get arroyos and debris flows running, but only cause quick spikes in nearby river streamflows. Yes, that’s better than nothing, but no, it’s not going to halt Lake Powell’s precipitous decline.
All of those Telluride-area storms, for example, only pushed the San Miguel River near Placerville to about 160 cubic feet per second for a few hours. That’s about double what it had been running at, but just over half of the median flow for this time of year.
We’re also seeing a lot of precipitation inequality. While Telluride and the surrounding mountains were hammered, locales to the southwest of there remained relatively dry. The Dolores River gage at Slick Rock (downstream from the burn area) remained at a steady and unblinking zero cfs, although just a little ways downstream the gage at Bedrock registered 100 cfs, which is pretty good for the Lower Dolores in July.
Still, this does appear to be only the beginning of the monsoon. If the past is any indication, then the storms are likely to become more frequent and more widespread, and hopefully a little less intense, in the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, in the Northwest, lightning has sparked dozens of blazes that are growing together into massive complexes. The Hay Creek Complex in Gilliam, Wasco, and Sherman counties in Oregon is up to 92,000 acres and the Rowe Creek Complex to the south of there is at about 143,000 acres with 0% containment as of Monday night. Further east, the Powder River Fire in Baker County near the Idaho border was up to 20,500 acres.
Razorback sucker. Credit: The Land Desk
🦫 Wildlife Watch 🦅
The Trump administration’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last week quietly downgraded Environmental Species Protections for the razorback sucker, a fish native only to the Colorado River Basin, from endangered to threatened.
“This remarkable fish is very abundant in the river channels of the Colorado Basin,” wrote David Starr Jordan in his 1889 report on the fish of Colorado and Utah. “It reaches a weight of 8 to 10 pounds and is largely used for food.” The razorback sucker, or Xyrauchen cypho, once thrived in the mid- and lower-elevation portions of the Colorado River and its tributaries. But human activities such as dumping mine waste into streams, irrigation diversions, dams, and stocking of non-native fish that prey on the sucker’s eggs and young diminished the population of razorback sucker and other native fish.
So in 1991, the USFWS listed the fish as endangered under the ESA, bringing it extra protections and resources toward its recovery. A propagation and stocking effort helped bring the population back, and fish stocked in the Colorado and Green Rivers have been found to be reproducing, according to Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. As a result, the USFWS determined that the species is “not currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and in 2021 proposed “downlisting” it to “threatened” status. That action was finalized last week.
Advocates understandably question the timing of the move. One of the main threats to the sucker is low streamflows, and we’re seeing some of the lowest streamflows on record throughout the Colorado River Basin right now, and climate change is likely to make them worse. The non-native fish that prey on the sucker tend to thrive in warmer water, also a result of climate change (Colorado wildlife officials have enacted voluntary fishing closures on several rivers in the state due to high water temperatures).
“The razorback sucker’s outlook is no better today than when the fish was originally protected under the Endangered Species Act in 1991, so this move makes no sense,” said Taylor McKinnon, Southwest director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a written statement. “It’s still in danger of extinction throughout its range, which should preclude this downlisting.”
If you happen to be anywhere near Mancos, Colorado, from mid-August to the end of September, I urge you to visit the Sundog Gallery to see the “Portal” exhibit, featuring oil paintings by the late Stanton Englehart. I consider Englehart to be thepainter of the Four Corners Country — no one captures the light, and darkness, of the Great Sage Plain, the mesas, the canyons, and even the waters of Lake Powell quite like Englehart did.
The show opens Aug. 14 with a reception from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Sundog Gallery on Grand Avenue in downtown Mancos and runs until Sept. 30.
Denver Water’s Gross Reservoir Expansion Project reached a milestone in June as workers completed major construction on raising the dam.
On June 3, 2026, workers placed the final load of roller-compacted concrete on the top of the dam, bringing Gross Dam to a height of 470 feet. Roller-compacted concrete is the type of concrete put in place to raise, thicken and lengthen the dam over the past three years.
The project is designed to nearly triple the capacity of Gross Reservoir, increase Denver Water’s reservoir storage capacity by 11%, and provide balance, resiliency and flexibility to the utility’s water collection system.
Additional work to complete the dam will take place over the next year, including adding one more foot of conventional, protective concrete to the top of the dam, which will bring it to its final height of 471 feet above the valley floor below.
At this point, dam is taller and also has a new shape.
“We have fundamentally changed how this dam works. The old Gross Dam was a gravity dam that held back the water by its sheer weight. We’ve now transformed this into an arch dam which holds the water back by its weight and also transfers the loads laterally like a Roman arch. This is the first time that we know that this dam transformation has ever been done in the world.”
Gross Dam on June 2, 2026, on the final day of roller-compacted concrete placement work. Photo credit: Denver Water.
In the video above, you can see new images of the dam and hear from Jeff Martin, Denver Water’s program manager for the project.
“We’re excited and proud of this accomplishment,” Martin said.
“Hundreds of people helped us reach this milestone, which will provide a secure water future to Denver and the surrounding communities.”
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 different sides each presented closing arguments, but it was the reflections of Division 3 Water Court Judge Michael Gonzales that had the courtroom thinking as he brought to a close the water trial dealing with the Subdistrict 1 Fourth Amended Plan of Water Management.
At times it was a bruising trial Gonzales noted Thursday in his closing remarks, as he encouraged all the parties to move on and to not let the four-week trial wear on them and their own personal relationships.
“We all know that there’s no way this court can fashion an order or an opinion that’s going to satisfy everybody. It’s just not going to happen,” the judge said. “I mean, it can’t because we know that we have mutually exclusive and competing interests. We know that this petition when it was created recognized that, but we still said ‘cooperation’ and all those nice things. And in reality, I think we all knew at some point that was going to come to a head. And I think we’re there, but that doesn’t mean we still don’t move forward.”
San Luis Valley Groundwater
This was the big water trial because it dealt with a plan to recover the unconfined aquifer of the Upper Rio Grande Basin, Gonzales noted. He pointed to testimony of Mosca-area farmer Lyle Nissen as one he enjoyed the most.
“I just loved his testimony. Someone who’s made some recognition, someone who’s made some changes, someone who didn’t come in here and complain and just said, ‘This is how it is. I recognize it and I move forward.’ And that was great to hear,” Gonzales said.
He also referenced a term he learned during the course of the trial, “deep percolation,” and used it to provide further insight into his thinking.
“I sat in my back yard and I watched the rain come down,” he said of the week’s weather. “I watched puddles form and I thought about my second favorite term from this trial, ‘deep percolation’ and I said, ‘Aha.’ And then I came back 10 minutes later and that puddle was completely gone. I said, ‘Wow.’
“I also sat there and I thought about the testimony I think was from this current state engineer when he said that we need rainstorms of biblical proportion to get us where we need to be, and that hit home. And no matter how wonderful that rain was, there needs to be things that happen.”
The state Division of Water Resources and the Rio Grande Water Conservation District are asking Gonzales to reject the protestors’ arguments and approve the plan. Without it, they argued, the unconfined aquifer won’t recover and broad groundwater well curtailment in the subdistrict becomes inevitable.
The cornerstone of the new plan is the “one-for-one” feature, which limits groundwater pumping to the amount of natural surface water that flows into the subdistrict over a five-year running average. The intent is to put more water into the unconfined aquifer system than is taken out and one-for-one pumping guarantees that, according to the state and subdistrict.
Gonzales noted “the monstrosity of an equation” within the Fourth Amended Plan when he was quizzing Rio Grande Water Conservation District attorney Pete Ampe during his closing remarks.
The one-for-one pumping feature, the equation to determine success, and a new “depletion fee” that sets the value of water in the subdistrict at $500 per acre-foot were all argued over, discussed and debated throughout the month-long trial.
Attorney Mirko Kruse, representing his family’s farming interest, and attorney Andy Jones, representing L Cross Ranch, want Gonzales to refer the plan back to the subdistrict for adjustments they’re requesting but are otherwise good with the plan.
Two other protesting groups, Northeast Water Users Association and Sustainable Water Augmentation Group, want the plan tossed entirely on grounds it isn’t legal; they asked Gonzales to order the subdistrict to only make changes to the existing third plan of water management.
Gonzales told all the attorneys to address Rule 8.7 of the state groundwater rules governing the Upper Rio Grande Basin. That rule determines how “proportional responsibility for maintaining a sustainable water supply is divided among all the well users within the Response Area.”
It gets to one of the key arguments made by SWAG and its belief that groundwater irrigators like their clients are being illegally targeted and asked to share a disproportionate share of the burden in the unconfined aquifer recovery efforts.
Gonzales provided a timeline that leads to this Thanksgiving for when all the case documents and filings will be completed and he can begin his deliberations.
“I guess if there’s one message that we all need to take to heart is that we need to change the things we’ve been doing,” Gonzales said in completing his comments. “We can’t continue down the path we’ve been because if we think that’s the only way we can go, we’re dooming our children, our children’s children. And I don’t want to be a part of that time.”
As of July 12, Blue Mesa Reservoir near Gunnison sat only 32% full at 266,000 acre feet of storage water — about 35,000 acre feet less than the historic minimum for that date, down 35%…Severe drought conditions at the reservoir have resulted in critically low storage levels, a limitation on water allocation to the Uncompahgre Valley and its agricultural water users, limited flows for releasing endangered fish species, decreased recreational opportunities on the water that go hand-in-hand with a downturn in the regional recreational economy, and uncertainty over power generation and water usage in the near future. Colorado River District spokeswoman Lindsay DeFrates called it a “crisis”, as the reservoir and the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit — which stores water and generates hydroelectric power through the reservoir as well as the Morrow Point and Crystal Reservoir dams — is one of the upper units that feeds the crucial Lake Powell downstream.
“Everyone’s looking downstream at Lake Powell while we have this happening in our backyard right now,” DeFrates said…
Black Canyon July 2020. Photo credit: Cari Bischoff
When he was the Division 4 assistant engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR), Jason Ullmann would have never entertained the notion that the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park’s portion of the river could ever dry up. Now, as the DWR director and Colorado state engineer, he said it’s unlikely to happen this year or next — but it’s “not an impossibility.”
“The actual inflow from April to July this year was the lowest on record. Barring a change in the climate conditions that produce this monsoon everybody’s waiting for, it doesn’t seem like we’re going to have a significant increase in inflow. We’re going to have one of the lowest inflow seasons — if not the lowest — on record at Blue Mesa,” Ullmann said. “Blue Mesa started the year approximately 20 feet below the normal level it would start the year on. The water levels are very low and will continue to drop.”
Colorado River District Senior Water Resources Engineer Caleb Foy compared 2026 to some of the region’s driest years — 1977, 2002, 2012 and 2018 — and said 2026 “takes the gold medal in terms of poor hydrological conditions”, impacting water storage at Blue Mesa Reservoir which, in turn, has multiple impacts downstream…
Foy noted that the reservoir’s storage could drop below the power pool level, which is the minimum amount of water needed to produce hydropower from the dam. According to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s June 2026 24-month study, this drop could happen as soon as February 2027. According to other forecasts, this drop could happen as soon as the end of this summer if the region sees no monsoon conditions and current operations aren’t modified to preserve storage at the reservoir…A reduction in downstream flow would negatively affect downstream diversions, Colorado River flow, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison, and endangered fish species in both the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. The BOR has worked with Fish and Wildlife to temporarily reduce flow targets while trying to minimize negative impacts to endangered fish species. Ullmann said the minimal target flow for the Endangered Fish Recovery Rights is, in a typical year, no lower than 750 cubic feet per second. This year, the target is at 750 cfs — and last week, the flow was as low as 700 cfs. This has been alarming enough to spark conversations between the state and the BOR.
This field in the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association district has been fallowed this season (2026) due to a lack of water. The state of Colorado announced Wednesday that it will set up a conservation program using federal dollars, which means more fields on the Western Slope could soon look like this. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
In the culmination of a process that has been years in the making, Colorado officials Wednesday announced the creation of a state-run water conservation program.
In what officials are calling a “near-term contribution program,” the Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) will pay water users to voluntarily cut back in 2027 and 2028, using $100 million in promised funding from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado will now join Utah and Wyoming in setting up a conservation program within their respective states.
The noteworthy, long-expected announcement came at the regular July meeting of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, where board members considered the criteria for the program. A draft list says the program must, among other criteria, avoid negative community impacts; encourage contributions from across the state and water-use sectors; incentivize environmental benefits; encourage tribal participation; and build local drought resiliency. The board is scheduled to finalize the program criteria at its September meeting.
These types of conservation programs have traditionally targeted agricultural water users, often seen as the low-hanging fruit for water savings because they use the majority of Colorado River water. But officials are hoping this program will have participation across all water-use sectors, including municipal and industrial.
“I love that it is called a contribution program because that kind of imagines broader participation and engagement,” said board member Taylor Hawes. “So I think that is good. I think the more flexibility we can have, the better in a program like this.”
But details were scant on exactly how much water Colorado will contribute to the program and how the saved water would be used. And although some experts have begun calling for permanent reductions in water use, it remains — for now — a temporary, short-term program.
“We cannot guarantee a certain amount of water will be conserved in a given year because we don’t know how much water our water users are going to get,” said Amy Ostdiek, interstate section chief at the CWCB. “We have been clear that we just can’t do that.”
In a May letter to federal officials, the Upper Colorado River Commission said it has a goal of saving 100,000 acre-feet by the end of September 2028, which marks the end of water year 2028, but only if sufficient federal funding is available and hydrologic conditions allow. Colorado’s share of the Upper Basin’s allocation is 51.75%, meaning Colorado could be on the hook for 51,750 acre-feet over the next two years.
But Ostdiek said they are not at this time discussing a specific target that Colorado or the Upper Basin would have to contribute in exchange for the $100 million from the Bureau of Reclamation.
“We have felt confident that we can generate up to 100,000 acre-feet by 2028,” Ostdiek said in a Q&A session with the media after her presentation to the CWCB. “But really, what we’re going to be focused on is getting robust participation.”
It’s also unclear exactly how the saved water will be used. Officials said it’s not meant for use by the Lower Basin (California, Arizona and Nevada); it will be for the benefit of the Upper Basin. The water will need to have a home in Upper Basin storage buckets — Lake Powell, Navajo, Blue Mesa or Flaming Gorge reservoirs — but how it will fit into broader reservoir operations is unknown. [ed. emphasis mine]
“I think that is going to be the subject of ongoing discussion, exactly how this water is used and characterized,” Ostdiek said. “I think what we know is that it needs to be credited to or subject to the discretion of the Upper Division states in some way.”
Missouri Heights resident Cassie Cerise pets her dog Dinah on her ranch outside of Carbondale in summer 2023. Cerise enrolled the field behind her in the Upper Colorado River Commission’s System Conservation Program, getting paid to not irrigate it. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Conservation concept is not new
These types of programs that pay water users to cut back are not new to Colorado, and officials said they are incorporating the lessons learned from previous demand-management studies beginning in 2019, stakeholder input and pilot programs. The state participated in the 2023 and 2024 System Conservation Pilot Program, as well as an earlier version that ran from 2015 to 2018.
But conservation programs remain controversial. The Grand Valley Water Users Association, one of the largest irrigation districts on the mainstem of the Colorado River, did not allow its members to participate in SCPP for fear of negative impacts to other water users in the district.
All of the projects enrolled in SCPP involved agricultural water users on the Western Slope, a potentially risky situation, according to the Colorado River Water Conservation District. The Glenwood Springs-based agency, which represents 15 counties across the Western Slope, had tried to influence the creation of criteria for participation in SCPP to avoid negative impacts to rural agricultural communities.
Ultimately, only the Upper Colorado River Commission determined who got to participate in SCPP. Now, it seems state officials are taking to heart the River District’s recommendations. River District General Counsel Peter Fleming thanked Ostdiek for including some of the criteria that the district had set forth in its principles about how to create a conservation program.
Fleming encouraged the board members to adopt variable pricing to account for the difference in the value of relatively cheap water on the Western Slope versus more-expensive water on the Front Range. Pueblo Water had wanted to participate in SCPP, but the $509 per acre-foot offered in 2024 to Colorado participants was too far below market value.
“You can see the variable economic values of the water assigned there and the need to have variable pricing in order to encourage widespread participation,” Fleming said.
The River District’s position is that the entire burden of a conservation program shouldn’t be borne by the Western Slope, but must also be shouldered by Front Range water providers, who collectively deplete the Colorado River basin by about 500,000 acre-feet a year.
He added that a program should also have a strong element of local control.
“The River District obviously would like to stay involved in this process,” he said.
The creation of a conservation program for Colorado comes at a critical time for the basin, which remains locked in the grip of a historic drought, with combined storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead at an all-time low since the reservoirs began filling. Although the Upper Basin has argued that it has never used its entire allocation granted by the 1922 Colorado River Compact (and therefore shouldn’t have to cut back), in the face of dwindling flows and calls for conservation from its downstream neighbors, the four states can no longer avoid reducing their water demand.
The Colorado River basin is also in the midst of a management crisis, with the seven states that share the river still unable to find agreement on a new framework after more than two years of failed negotiations. The current guidelines for how shortages are shared and how reservoirs are operated expire this year, and the feds are poised to step in with their own management plan, expected later this month.
The Upper Basin would need separate parallel agreements with Reclamation alongside the federal management plan to account for and get credit for water saved through the contribution program.
In her presentation, Ostdiek gave a preview of Reclamation’s expected plan, which could allow for a pool in Lake Powell to store up to 3 million acre-feet conserved by Upper Basin states. But board chair Barbara Vasquez worried about overestimating the amount of water that could be contributed given the recent historically dry conditions. Farmers and ranchers across Colorado are now experiencing the fallout from the worst snowpack on record in the form of shortages and fallowed fields.
“So prior programs, we spent a lot of money for very little water conserved. I worry that next year may be even worse than this year, and it’s not willingness, but ability,” Vasquez said. Given the water that’s available, she said, “that might disappoint expectations on the part of the negotiators at the table for the Colorado River.”
Aspen Journalism is a nonprofit, investigative news organization covering water, environment, social justice and more. Visit aspenjournalism.org.
Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
On July 13th, the Colorado River District, in partnership with the Colorado Water Trust and the Yampa River Fund, began releasing water from Elkhead Reservoir to mitigate the impacts of extreme drought and critically low streamflows in the Yampa River Valley. Beginning with a release of 10 cubic feet per second, the releases are part of the Yampa River Reservoir Release Program, a 2,000-acre-foot pool first established in 2021 with funding from the Colorado River District’s Community Funding Partnership. The program is designed to reduce drought-related pressure on agricultural producers while supporting river health and aquatic habitat.
“While we’re experiencing exceptionally difficult drought conditions, the story of 2026 is neighbors and water users working together. No single reservoir, organization or water user can solve this alone,” said Hunter Causey, Chief Engineer for the Colorado River District. “By coordinating releases, operations and water use across the basin, we can stretch a limited supply further and provide meaningful benefits for agricultural producers, local communities and the river.”
Below-average snowfall and persistent summer drought have reduced streamflows and increased water temperatures throughout the Yampa River Basin. Releases through the Yampa River Reservoir Release Program are intended to support agricultural water users, help delay or prevent a call on the river during periods of critically low flow, and benefit designated critical habitat for four endangered fish species. Releases are expected to increase in the coming weeks and continue through July.
“The Colorado Water Trust is an environmental nonprofit, and our work is keeping water in rivers,” said Blake Mamich, Programs Director for the Colorado Water Trust. “In a drought this deep, that same mission means showing up for agriculture. Coordinating closely with the River District and the Division of Water Resources, we can time these releases so a single pool of water helps irrigators extend a tough season and keeps water in Yampa for habitat and fish.”
“This is a difficult year for producers throughout the Yampa Valley, and we wanted to be part of a practical solution that helps the broader community,” said Yampa Basin rancher Matt Boeddeker of Lily Park Land & Cattle. “Water users across Colorado are making hard choices and working together to stretch limited supplies, and like them, we hope to help our neighbors complete critical irrigation and reduce the immediate impacts of drought.”
The Yampa River is primarily supplied by snowmelt from the Flat Tops and Gore Range and flows through agricultural areas of northwest Colorado before joining the Green River in Dinosaur National Monument. During dry years, coordinated releases from Stagecoach and Elkhead reservoirs supplement streamflows for agricultural water users, river habitat and endangered fish. The Colorado River District and its partners will continue to monitor streamflow, water temperature, irrigation demand, and habitat needs, and will adjust releases as conditions warrant.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
July 15, 2026
Even in the driest of years — like this one — powerful Western Slope water rights on the mainstem of the Colorado River draw water downstream, making boating on the state’s major water artery possible.
“For mainstem floating, we should still have pretty darn good flows for the rest of the season for as long as people want to be boating,” said Sam Calahan, a water resources specialist for the Colorado River District. The taxpayer-funded agency is based in Glenwood Springs and works to protect Western Slope water…
On Wednesday, Browns Canyon — a popular section of the Arkansas River near Buena Vista — was flowing at the lowest level in 55 years of data and at 16% of its median flow for that date. Clear Creek near Idaho Springs was flowing at 61 cubic feet per second on Wednesday, also a record low for the date in 72 years of data. The median flow for the date is 347 cfs, or more than five times as much water…But flows on much of the Colorado River were high enough for rafts and kayaks this week. Flows on a popular section near Kremmling were near normal, as were water levels farther downstream in Glenwood Canyon. Two major factors keep water flowing down the Colorado River during drought: large senior water rights owned by farmers in Mesa County’s Grand Valley and the water rights connected to the Shoshone Power Plant, a hydroelectric facility in Glenwood Canyon owned by Xcel Energy. Irrigators and power plant operators can call water to their facilities from upstream reservoirs, like Green Mountain Reservoir, which is on the Blue River — a tributary of the Colorado River — north of Silverthorne. This year, the irrigators began calling down water on July 1, boosting flows in the Colorado River.
Colorado Division 3 Water Court Judge Michael Gonzales said from the bench Friday that he wants to hear from former State Engineer Kevin Rein and without his testimony it will be “very hard for this court” and its decision on whether to allow the Fourth Amended Plan of Water Management in Subdistrict 1 to go into effect.
And that’s how Week 3 of the most important water trial in the past 25 years affecting the Upper Rio Grande Basin ended in Alamosa water court – the judge telling the state Division of Water Resources as it defends the plan that he would like to hear from the state engineer who approved the plan.
“Without hearing from Mr. Rein, it’s a concern,” Gonzales said.
Earlier during Friday’s afternoon session, he cautioned attorneys on their tone and their questioning of witnesses in a week when emotions inside the courtroom ran high.
“Let’s everybody cool their jets,” the judge said before he added an extra 10 minutes to the afternoon courtroom break.
The week opened with State Engineer Jason Ullman telling Gonzales that without the Fourth Amended Plan in action, Subdistrict 1 faces widespread curtailment since it will not meet the “sustainable” level of the unconfined aquifer by 2031 when the current plan of water management expires.
In 2018 Rein first alerted the Rio Grande Water Conservation District that broad curtailment could be on the table given the lack of progress in restoring the unconfined aquifer. It was then the subdistrict began working on a fourth amendment to its water management plan, which was ultimately adopted by the Subdistrict 1 board and then the Rio Grande Water Conservation District before Rein gave his sign off.
Ullman, who succeeded Rein as state engineer, told the court as he wrapped up his testimony that in his view the Fourth Amended Plan of Water Management, which features a one-for-one pumping mechanism, is the “most reasonable I can think of that would be likely to cause the aquifer to increase in level.”
The one-for-one features means the subdistrict would offset its groundwater withdrawals by returning an acre-foot of water for every acre-foot pumped during the irrigation season. The new plan also contains an overpumping fee of $500 per acre-foot which groundwater irrigators would pay if they cannot offset their groundwater withdrawals with their own surface water or surface water credits.
“Like I said, I understand that that decision has consequences, but there’s pretty significant consequences to doing something. And at some point as the policy decision makers, we have to make a decision to do something to meet these goals the General Assembly has set out. And I feel like that’s what we’ve done here. The consequences of doing nothing are much more drastic and draconian than the consequences of this plan,” Ullman told the court.
It was Rein’s review and sign off on the Fourth Amended Plan that has come under scrutiny by opponents to the plan. Rein retired at the end of 2023 after approving the plan and conducted this exit interview with Alamosa Citizen. During the conversation for an episode of The Valley Pod, he was reluctant to dive into the details of the plan because it was headed to water court and Judge Gonzales for a legal review.
“Without saying too much about that and the groundwater management plan for the subdistrict, from my perspective as a state engineer, there’s one critical aspect of that for both cases and that is the sustainability of the unconfined aquifer. As we know, that’s a difficult component of groundwater management in the Valley because we have a statutorily required sustainability objective. And that has found its way into the rules and into the groundwater management plan for the subdistrict,” he said at the time.
He added that under the existing plan of water management for Subdistrict 1, “it’s going to be very difficult to meet that sustainability objective … And I know that the subdistrict has worked hard toward an alternative in this current plan that I approved and is before the court, and the way that plays out is going to be so important to the irrigators in the Valley.”
Ken Knox, a former employee of state Division of Water Resources who at one point served as acting state engineer for approximately 18 months, criticized Rein during his testimony Friday for not conducting a thorough review and that the plan in sections was “devoid of necessary information” to approve the plan by the state engineer.
Rein’s review was a “dramatic step backwards for professionalism of agency standards,” Knox told the court. He was the final expert witness for the Northeast Water Users Association and Sustainable Water Augmentation Group, who are asking Gonzales to throw the plan out on legal grounds.
Rein’s review was a “dramatic step backwards for professionalism of agency standards,” Knox told the court. He was the final expert witness for the Northeast Water Users Association and Sustainable Water Augmentation Group, who are asking Gonzales to throw the plan out on legal grounds.
The farmers opposing the plan are trying to thread a few legal arguments to persuade Judge Gonzales to reject the plan. Their contention is the Northeast Water Users Association and Sustainable Water Augmentation Group are being asked to bear a disproportionate share of the burden in the aquifer recovery efforts because they are groundwater irrigators. They contend Rein didn’t conduct a full legal review of the sustainability and proportionality rules contained in state statutes governing recovery of the unconfined aquifer and the $500 fee makes the plan beyond the economic means of all the irrigators who hold water rights in the subdistrict.
“My land would have no value,” groundwater farmer Asier Artaechevarria testified, acknowledging that his operations rely 100 percent on groundwater withdrawals.
Ernie Myers, another farmer opposing the plan and who served on the Subdistrict 1 board for a several years, said it was after 2002, when the Upper Rio Grande Basin first experienced historic low flows from a lack of snow runoff, that he first began to feel targeted as a groundwater irrigator and had the feeling that surface water farmers were trying to put him out of business.
“I was pumping their water. I had no right to pump their water. I had a few farmers telling me, ‘I’m third, fourth generation. You’re a newcomer. You came in ’73 with your father. You have no right to do what you’re doing,’” Myers testified.
“And were there actually people saying that they intended to put you out of business?” a SWAG attorney asked.
“Yes, yes,” testified Myers.
Myers was the first to testify on behalf of SWAG and the Northeast Water Users Association. Knox was their final witness, and it was after his testimony that Gonzales made his interest in Rein testifying known.
“Common sense means a great deal to me,” the judge said.
Common sense tells the judge he should hear from the person who approved the plan he’s being asked to give legal approval to.
The trial resumes Monday with the L Cross Ranch, another legal opponent to the plan, making its arguments before Gonzales.
Rio Grande and Pecos River basins. Map credit: By Kmusser – Own work, Elevation data from SRTM, drainage basin from GTOPO [1], U.S. stream from the National Atlas [2], all other features from Vector Map., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11218868
This week, rain returned to Pagosa Country, bringing some relief from the dry heat that dominated June and early July and heralding the start of the summer monsoon season. Weather modeling by the National Integrated Drought Information Center (NIDIS) suggests that the summer monsoon season is likely to bring average or above average precipitation to the region — a bounty compared to the approximately 25 to 50 percent of average precipitation Archuleta County received in last month. The National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center forecasts that drought conditions in the area will improve by Sept. 30, although it suggests that current severe and extreme drought levels calculated by the U.S. Drought Monitor will persist through July.
The Pagosa Area Water & Sanitation District is currently in drought stage two, which includes a number of restrictions on outdoor irrigation, as well as additional fees for high water use. In stage two, irrigation is allowed only between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. every other weekday, with even-numbered addresses able to irrigate on even-numbered days and odd-numbered addresses on odd-numbered days. Weekend irrigation is prohibited. However, drip irrigation and hand watering edible or ornamental gardens is allowed at all times. Residential water use above 4,000 gallons per month is subject to a two times rate multiplier. PAWSD District Manager Andrew Connor explained that, while the rains associated with the monsoons might eventually impact the district’s drought restrictions, changes would require a large amount of rain and would not be immediate. In the summer, the drought stage is primarily driven by the water level in Hatcher Reservoir, flows in the San Juan River and the date…
PAWSD District Engineer Justin Ramsey explained that the district’s drought management plan focuses on irrigation since it composes a large portion of the district’s water use in the summer and because losing green lawn grass or other plants has a smaller impact on people’s lives than restrictions on showering, dish washing or other indoor water uses…The drought stages in the district’s drought management plan align with this goal, imposing progressively tightening restrictions on when irrigation can occur while placing no restrictions on indoor water use except increasing fees for high water consumption. However, for all but the most severe drought stage, these restrictions only cover irrigation done with sprinklers and other automated devices, with the use of drip irrigation devices and hand watering allowed at all times…Manual and drip irrigation encourage people to be more conscious about how they use water by involving them more deeply in the process and requiring more hands-on time, he added. Another way to increase the water available for gardens and landscaping without paying more fees is to reduce water waste in your home, Connor and Ramsey highlighted.
Looking down at the Colorado River, Lees Ferry, and the Paria River. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
Click the link to read the article on the KJZZ website (Alex Hager). Here’s an excerpt:
July 16, 2026
Sara Porterfield, Colorado River program director with the conservation nonprofit Trout Unlimited, stood on a narrow, rocky river beach, about as close to Glen Canyon Dam as a boat can go.
“This is not a zero sum game,” she said. “Investing in watershed health is not an either-or. We need the system to be healthy from an ecological perspective in order for the rest of it to function.”
The river, Porterfield said, cannot deliver big volumes of clean water if it does not, at least partially, function like a normal, healthy river. For example, if the river’s upper reaches are dried out, they’ll be susceptible to wildfires and wetland degradation, which make it harder for them to hold on to water and release it slowly into the streams where humans have been able to reliably divert and collect it for generations.
“It’s not just plumbing, but it’s also not just water in a river,” Porterfield said as the dam’s hydroelectric generators emitted a whining hum in the background. “We’re not separate from the natural world, we’re part of it. When we recognize that, and we take help to take care of it, we get a lot further than when we’re just thinking about a plumbing system.”
Glen Canyon downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Porterfield, who has a Ph.D. in Colorado River history, said calling the river a “plumbing system” is a useful way to think about one of its jobs, but not the whole picture. Environmental advocates say the river can be protected while still flowing through the dams and canals that keep the West wet for humans. Those protections can even be part of the wonky and rigid legal policies that dictate where water goes. John Berggren, a water policy manager at the conservation nonprofit Western Resource Advocates, had some recommendations for the next set of river-sharing rules. An important one, he said, is to get the river out of “crisis mode.”
[…]
“You can be much more proactive and thoughtful and careful and intentional about how you manage the river and include river health,” he said.
Another way to help protect the river’s ecosystems, creatures and flows, Berggren said, is by carefully timing the release of water from reservoirs. For example, policymakers can write flexible rules about where and when water is stored, so water that is flowing downstream to cities and farms can also help make life better for native fish. The water can be used to help the environment without being taken away from humans downstream.
“They’re going to move the water anyway,” he said. “Let’s do it in a way that actually benefits ecological conditions.”
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Rumors of data centers have local government agencies in the San Luis Valley preparing for the inevitable – an application for a data center.
Costilla County and the town of South Fork are the latest local governments to place moratoriums on artificial intelligence data centers. Though no applications or projects are being proposed, local governments want to give themselves time to create land use codes to address data centers.
A packed room and a packed Zoom at the Costilla County Planning Commission meeting Wednesday morning saw tensions high as the public continues to express opposition to data centers. The commission approved a year-long moratorium. The moratorium will now go to county commissioners for approval.
The town of South Fork’s planning and zoning board is poised to do the same thing during a public hearing Wednesday night’s planning and zoning commission meeting as the town does not have specific zoning regulations that address data centers. The board will use the public hearing for feedback as members begin their work over the next year to devise specific codes.
At Wednesday morning’s Costilla County meeting, planning commissioner Joseph Quintana dispelled rumors and reassured the public that a data center application has not been submitted to the county and that “nobody’s approved anything.”
He said that when the planning commission was first formed the commission came up with a mission plan with a set of goals that were aimed at protecting the environment and the way of life.
“A data center is the antithesis, the complete opposite of what we would want in this community,” he said.
He went on to say, “Our job here is to follow that mission that was established 30 years ago with public comment. So I just want to make sure everybody understands, nobody’s approved a data center that I’m aware of. Nobody’s even applied for a data center here. There’s nobody that’s asked to build one or tried to get a permit or anything like that.”
In June, the Costilla County Commissioners asked the planning commission to address data centers “and get ahead before a problem develops,” Quintana said.
Commissioner Frank Vigil said they wanted the year to create a “thoughtful” ordinance that “reflects the feelings of the general public.”
“Our code doesn’t even have the two words ‘data center’ in it anywhere at all,” said county attorney Carle Turnetzer-Decker. “We were just concerned, I think, the board of county commissioners and the commission here, that if someone did approach us we have absolutely no way to handle it, restrict it, regulate it, do any of that.”
South Fork made a public statement on Tuesday that said, “To dispel rumors that are circulating within the community. The Town instituted a moratorium on Data Centers within the Town of South Fork last month which will last one year. The Town has not had any companies approach the town about data centers. We are simply trying to get ahead of any that may approach the Town. Obviously, there are concerns with them and rest assured your Board of Trustees share your concerns. Please come share your thoughts so we know how best to represent the community in making policy on this.”
Saguache County was the first local government in the Valley to place a moratorium on data centers while it figures out how its land use codes would address any data center application.
Earlier in June, the Rio Grande Basin Roundtable heard from Lindsay Rogers of Western Resources Advocates, who noted how rural markets are becoming targets for data center applications because of the assumption of “less red tape.”
Western Resources Advocates, Rogers said, has a particular interest working in the San Luis Valley as part of a grant process for local policy decision-making around large water users.
“One concern that we have which we’ve seen playing out in other states in our region, is that developers may target rural communities where they feel there may be less red tape to developing these data centers. Our communities may not have the time or resources needed to ensure the proposal fits within their own goals and their own resource availability. So we think it’s really important to think about these policy options proactively before developers come to town instead of responding to them once they’ve arrived.”
Solar panels San Luis Valley. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Richard Hubler, planning director for Alamosa County, said at the roundtable, “There’s a very real possibility, as we move forward, that because of our fiber networks here and our broadband capacity, our cheap land and what may end up being a glut of solar production that we could be a target in the Valley for somebody who says, ‘Hey, there’s more power than the Valley could use there.
“I could take a circle next to that 600 megawatt project and use the other 400 megawatts they may have.’ And we don’t know how to handle that now as a county or as a Valley. I think that this is timely because we really do want to get ahead of it before we have to deal with an application.”
In May, SLV Rural Electric Cooperative CEO Eric Eriksen said the Valley has underutilized energy capacity and that “rural data centers” are the “most relevant for us.” Rural data centers are described as smaller, more efficient facilities that are often housed within buildings no larger than small commercial buildings and operate anywhere from 50 kilowatts up to 50 megawatts.
These centers commonly use air-cooling or closed-loop refrigeration instead of consuming water.
In May, SLV Rural Electric Cooperative CEO Eric Eriksen said the Valley has underutilized energy capacity and that “rural data centers” are the “most relevant for us.” Rural data centers are described as smaller, more efficient facilities that are often housed within buildings no larger than small commercial buildings and operate anywhere from 50 kilowatts up to 50 megawatts.
These centers commonly use air-cooling or closed-loop refrigeration instead of consuming water.
In SLVREC’s position, the agriculture’s energy demand is declining and that company sees “the underutilized capacity” as an opportunity “to serve five, 10, 20, 50 megawatts or more of rural data centers.”
According to SLVREC, there are seven long-haul fiber routes into and out of the Valley, “with terabytes of unused capacity that is ideal for data centers.”
Rio Grande and Pecos River basins. Map credit: By Kmusser – Own work, Elevation data from SRTM, drainage basin from GTOPO [1], U.S. stream from the National Atlas [2], all other features from Vector Map., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11218868
Black Canyon National Park July 2020. Photo credit: Claire Codling/The Department of Interior
From email from Reclamation (Andrew Limbach):
July 14, 2026
Aspinall Unit Operations Update – Release scheduled change to 1,390 cfs on Wednesday, July 15th.
On Wednesday, July 15th, the adjusted scheduled releases from Crystal Dam will decrease to 1,390 cfs from 1,465 cfs.
Gunnison River flows in the Black Canyon/Gunnison Gorge will decrease to 360 cfs.
On Thursday, July 16th, the adjusted scheduled releases from Crystal Dam will decrease to 1,315 cfs from 1,390 cfs.
Gunnison River flows in the Black Canyon/Gunnison Gorge will decrease to 290 cfs.
Reclamation will continue to monitor flows in the Gunnison River, and on Friday, July 17th, the scheduled releases from Crystal Dam may decrease to 1,265 cfs from 1,315 cfs.
Gunnison River flows in the Black Canyon/Gunnison Gorge would decrease to 250 cfs. An additional notification will be sent out confirming any change after Wednesday.
In response to the extreme drought conditions, the BOR has collaborated with US Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service to reduce the target flows to 500 cfs at Whitewater and 200 cfs through the Black Canyon of the Gunnison until further notice. These releases are made for the authorized purposes of the Aspinall Unit, and to attempt to maintain a target base flow through the endangered fish critical habitat reach of the Gunnison while preserving critical storage in Blue Mesa Reservoir.
Contact Andrew Limbach (alimbach@usbr.gov or 970-248-0644) for more information regarding Aspinall operations or the Operation Group meeting.
Attorney: ‘In order to evaluate the current state of the aquifer in context, you would need to know how much the aquifer holds, wouldn’t you?’
Engineer: ‘I don’t believe so’
How much water is in the storage area of the unconfined aquifer? That was a question SWAG attorney Brad Grasmick posed to state Division 3 Water Engineer Craig Cotten and left the Alamosa water court hanging on at the conclusion of Wednesday’s day in water court.
In his first full day of cross examining Cotten, Grasmick covered a variety of territory from surface water credits to the one-to-one pumping feature of the new plan to Cotten’s responsibility to administer the plan. At times he got so deep into the proverbial weeds in grilling Cotten that Gonzales spoke of his own frustration in trying to follow along.
“You’re losing me on focus,” Gonzales told Grasmick as he called for a lunch break.
The question Grasmick posed at the end of his nearly six hours of cross examination offered a unique exchange. Grasmick started by saying he hasn’t seen a figure on how much water the unconfined storage area can hold. It’s been well-established in the testimony of Cotten and HRS hydrologist Matt Seitz that the unconfined aquifer functions as an underground reservoir and was built up initially through early subirrigation practices and then canal diversions.
Storage readings of the unconfined aquifer that go back to 1976 show it responsive to strong spring runoff seasons but now transitioning through the process of aridification to the San Luis Valley floor as it adapts to 25 years of drought and the lack of consistent snow melt.
“Nor have I seen how much water is presently in storage in the unconfined aquifer. Do you agree with that?” Grasmick asked.
Cotten: “Well, we have the Davis Engineering service change in storage, so we know the change in storage from 1976. The total amount of water in storage at the present time, I’m not aware of that number.”
Grasmick: “OK. In order to evaluate the current state of the aquifer in context, you would need to know how much the aquifer holds, wouldn’t you?”
Cotten: “I don’t believe so.”
Grasmick: “Well, and you would also need to know how much is in the aquifer in order to evaluate this decline in context, correct?”
Cotten: “No, I don’t believe so.”
Grasmick: “Well, as an example, if there was a one million acre-foot decline in storage, that’s very different if the reservoir holds one and a half million acre-feet than if it holds say four million acre-feet, isn’t it?”
Cotten: “There again, I don’t believe so if you’re shooting for an actual storage amount, change in storage amount as your goal.”
In the Fourth Amended Plan of Water Management under consideration, Subdistrict 1 is charged with recovering the unconfined aquifer to a “sustainable” level of negative-200,000 to negative-400,000 acre-feet of water storage.
Grasmick continued his questioning: “So you disagree that contextual analysis of data is necessary to ensure that it’s not misinterpreted?”
Cotten: “I don’t agree that we need to know the total storage or the actual storage right now in developing this plan.”
The exchange continued for about another three minutes before Grasmick began to shift to another subject and Gonzales intervened.
“I apologize. I think it’s been a long day, so I think it’s probably a good place to stop,” the judge said.
The water trial on the Subdistrict 1 Fourth Amended Plan of Water Management resumes Thursday [July 9. 2026].
