Water officials and Colorado’s congressional reps are scrambling to find an affordable path forward for communities in the Lower Arkansas Valley who had hoped the federal government would help them lower their costs for a critical clean water pipeline.
President Trump vetoed the bipartisan Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act on New Year’s Eve, and despite Colorado’s efforts, Congress failed to override the veto last week.
Construction on the $1.39 billion pipeline began in 2023. There’s enough money left from the $500 million appropriated by Congress to continue building for another three to five years, according to Bill Long, president of the board for the Pueblo-based Southeastern Water Conservancy District. The district operates the federal Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and is overseeing pipeline construction for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
That means the pipeline should eventually reach Rocky Ford, a point roughly halfway between its start east of Pueblo Reservoir and its endpoint farther east, near Lamar. “It’s when we get to the second half of the project where it will be challenging to build and repay our portion of the debt,” Long said. “Without this legislation, there will be a point where we will have to stop.”
What comes next isn’t clear yet, though members of Colorado’s congressional delegation and water officials in the Lower Arkansas Valley said they are evaluating their options for taking another run at the issue in Congress.
“Obviously things are up in the air,” Long said.
“Sooner rather than later we may be looking at a new piece of legislation, but the question is, would this administration be amenable to a new piece of legislation. If we can’t find something, we may have to wait this administration out,” he said.
Pueblo Dam. Photo courtesy of Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Waiting for clean water in the Lower Arkansas Valley is nothing new.
First envisioned as part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in 1962, the pipeline languished on paper for decades because of high costs. The 130-mile pipeline serves 39 communities.
The need for clean water in the Lower Arkansas Valley became apparent in the 1950s and earlier, by some accounts, when wells drilled near the Arkansas River were showing a range of toxic elements, including naturally occurring radium and selenium. Both can cause severe health problems, including bone cancer and lung issues if high amounts are consumed.
Without safe drinking water, towns in the region have either had to haul water or install expensive reverse osmosis plants to purify their contaminated well water.
Things changed on the stalled project in 2023, when Congress directed some $500 million toward the pipeline.
The legislation would have gone further, allowing the repayment terms on the loans from the federal government to be extended to 75 years, up from 50 years, and to cut interest rates in half, from 3.046% to 1.523%. The legislation also would have allowed the project to be classified as one of hardship, a move that may have allowed the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to forgive some loan payments if a case for economic hardship could have been made.
The conduit project is also partially funded with grants and loans from state agencies, including the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority.
“The act was an important step in making this project affordable,” said Keith McLaughlin, executive director of the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, one of the agencies helping fund the work.
“Obviously we’re disappointed,” he said.
Colorado politicos say they’re still working to push legislation through. The bipartisan act was sponsored by Colorado Republican U.S. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Jeff Hurd in the U.S. House and Democratic U.S. Sens. John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet in the U.S. Senate.
Trump’s veto of the measure is widely seen as being the result of ongoing conflicts between his administration and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, including a request to pardon former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who is serving a nine-year prison term for orchestrating a data breach of the county’s elections equipment violating state elections. Polis so far has declined to intervene in that case, although he did describe the sentence as “harsh,” leading some to speculate that he might commute it. In a statement, Polis said he was hopeful that Congress would ultimately succeed in approving some form of aid to help complete the conduit.
Neither Boebert nor Hurd responded to a request for comment. But Hickenlooper said that all the congressional reps continue to work on a new path forward.
“The people of southeastern Colorado have waited 60 years for clean, safe drinking water. We’re continuing to work with our partners in the delegation to complete the Arkansas Valley Conduit and deliver on the federal government’s promise,” Hickenlooper said via email.
Lake Powell is seen from the air in October 2022. Three of the management options released by the feds have the option for an Upper Basin conservation pool in Lake Powell. CREDIT: ALEXANDER HEILNER/THE WATER DESK
Federal officials have released detailed options for how the Colorado River could be managed in the future, pushing forward the planning process in the absence of a seven-state deal. But some Colorado River experts and water managers say cuts don’t go deep enough under some scenarios and flow estimates don’t accommodate future water scarcity driven by climate change.
On Jan. 9, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released a draft of its environmental impact statement, a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act, which lays out five alternatives for how to manage the river after the current guidelines expire at the end of the year. This move by the feds pushes the process forward even as the seven states that share the river continue negotiating how cuts would be shared and reservoirs operated in the future. If the states do make a deal, it would become the “preferred alternative” and plugged into the NEPA process.
“Given the importance of a consensus-based approach to operations for the stability of the system, Reclamation has not yet identified a preferred alternative,” Scott Cameron, the acting Reclamation commissioner, said in a press release. “However, Reclamation anticipates that when an agreement is reached, it will incorporate elements or variations of these five alternatives and will be fully analyzed in the final EIS, enabling the sustainable and effective management of the Colorado River.”
For more than two years, the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and the Lower Basin (California, Arizona and Nevada) have been negotiating, with little progress, how to manage a dwindling resource in the face of an increasingly dry future. The 2007 guidelines that set annual Lake Powell and Lake Mead releases based on reservoir levels do not go far enough to prevent them from being drawn down during consecutive dry years, putting the water supply for 40 million people in the Southwest at risk.
The crisis has deepened in recent years, and in 2022, Lake Powell flirted with falling below a critical elevation to make hydropower. Recent projections from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation show that it could be headed there again this year and in 2027.
John Berggren, regional policy manager with Western Resource Advocates, helped craft elements of one of the alternatives, Maximum Operational Flexibility, formerly called Cooperative Conservation.
“My initial takeaway is there’s a lot of good stuff in there,” Berggren said of the 1,600-page document, which includes 33 supporting and technical appendices. “Their goal was to have a wide range of alternatives to make sure they had EIS coverage for whatever decision they ended up with, and I think that there are a lot of innovative tools and policies and programs in some of them.”
The infamous bathtub ring could be seen near the Hoover Dam in December 2021. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has released a draft Environmental Impact Statement for post-2026 management of the river. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Alternatives
The first alternative is “no action,” meaning river operations would revert to pre-2007 guidance; officials have said this option must be included as a requirement of NEPA, but doesn’t meet the current needs.
The second alternative, Basic Coordination, can be implemented without an agreement from the states and represents what the feds can do under their existing authority. It would include Lower Basin cuts of up to 1.48 million acre-feet based on Lake Mead elevations; Lake Powell releases would be primarily 8.23 million acre-feet and could go as low as 7 million acre-feet. It would also include releases from upstream reservoirs Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa and Navajo to feed Powell. But experts say this alternative does not go far enough to keep the system from crashing.
“It was pretty well known that the existing authorities that Reclamation has are probably not enough to protect the system,” Berggren said. “Especially given some of the hydrologies we expect to see, the Basic Coordination does not go far enough.”
The Enhanced Coordination Alternative would impose Lower Basin cuts of between 1.3 million and 3 million acre-feet that would be distributed pro-rata, based on each state’s existing water allocation. It would also include an Upper Basin conservation pool in Lake Powell that starts at up to 200,000 acre-feet a year and could increase up to 350,000 acre-feet after the first decade.
Under the Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative, Lake Powell releases range from 5 million acre-feet to 11 million acre-feet, based on total system storage and recent hydrology, with Lower Basin cuts of up to 4 million acre-feet. It would also include an Upper Basin conservation pool of an average of 200,000 acre-feet a year.
These two alternatives perform the best at keeping Lake Powell above critical elevations in dry years, according to an analysis contained in the draft EIS.
“There are really only two of these scenarios that I think meet the definition of dealing with a very dry future: Enhanced Coordination and the Max Flexibility,” said Brad Udall, a senior water and climate research scientist at Colorado State University. “Those two kind of jump out at me as being different than the other ones in that they actually seem to have the least harmful outcomes, but the price for that are these really big shortages.”
The final scenario is the Supply Driven Alternative, which calls for maximum shortages of 2.1 million acre-feet and Lake Powell releases based on 65% of three-year natural flows at Lees Ferry. It also includes an Upper Basin conservation pool of up to 200,000 acre-feet a year. This option offers two different approaches to Lower Basin cuts: one based on priority where the oldest water rights get first use of the river, putting Arizona’s junior users on the chopping block, and one where cuts are distributed proportionally according to existing water allocations, meaning California could take the biggest hit.
This alternative is based on proposals submitted by each basin and discussions among the states and federal officials last spring. Udall said the cuts are not deep enough in this option.
“You can take the supply-driven one and change the max shortages from 2.1 million acre-feet up to 3 or 4 and it’s going to perform a lot like those other two,” he said. “I think what hinders it is just the fact that the shortages are not big enough to keep the basin in balance when push comes to shove.”
Reclamation’s Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron speaks at the Colorado River Water Users conference in Las Vegas in December 2025. The agency has released a draft Environmental Impact Statement, which outlines options for managing the river after this year. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Pivotal moment
In a prepared statement, Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District officials expressed concern that the projected future river flows are too optimistic.
“We are concerned that the proposed alternatives do not accommodate the probable hydrological future identified by reliable climate science, which anticipates a river flowing at an average of 9-10 [million acre feet] a year,” the statement reads. “The Colorado River Basin has a history of ignoring likely hydrology, our policymakers should not carry this mistake forward in the next set of guidelines.”
The River District was also skeptical of the Upper Basin conservation pool in Lake Powell, which is included in three of the alternatives. Despite dabbling in experimental programs that pay farmers and ranchers to voluntarily cut back on their water use in recent years, conservation remains a contentious issue in the Upper Basin. Upper Basin water managers have said their states can’t conserve large volumes of water and that any program must be voluntary.
Over the course of 2023 and 2024, the System Conservation Pilot Program, which paid water users in the Upper Basin to cut back, saved about 101,000 acre-feet at a cost of $45 million.
The likeliest place to find water savings in Colorado is the 15-county Western Slope area represented by the River District. But if conservation programs are focused solely on this region, they could have negative impacts on rural agricultural communities, River District officials have said.
“Additionally, several alternatives include annual conservation contributions from the Upper Basin between [200,000 acre-feet] and [350,000 acre feet],” the River District’s statement reads. “We do not see how that is a realistic alternative given the natural availability of water in the Upper Basin, especially in dry years.”
In a prepared statement, Colorado officials said they were looking forward to reviewing the draft EIS.
“Colorado is committed to protecting our state’s significant rights and interests in the Colorado River and continues to work towards a consensus-based, supply-driven solution for the post-2026 operations of Lake Powell and Mead,” Colorado’s commissioner, Becky Mitchell, said in the statement.
The release of the draft EIS comes at a pivotal moment for the Colorado River Basin. The seven state representatives are under the gun to come up with a deal and have less than a month to present details of a plan by the feds’ Feb. 14 deadline. Federal officials have said they need a new plan in place by Oct. 1, the start of the next water year. This winter’s dismal snowpack and dire projections about spring runoff underscore the urgency for the states to come up with an agreement for a new management paradigm.
Over a string of recent dry years, periodic wet winters in 2019 and 2023 have bailed out the basin and offered a last-minute reprieve from the worst consequences of drought and climate change. But this year is different, Udall said.
“We’re now at the point where we’ve removed basically all resiliency from the system,” he said. “Between the EIS and this awful winter, some really tough decisions are going to be made. … Once we finally get to a consensus agreement, the river is going to look very, very different than it ever has.”
The draft EIS will be published in the Federal Register on Jan.16, initiating a 45-day comment period that will end March 2.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Just over a month before the deadline for the Colorado River states to agree on a plan for sharing the river’s diminishing waters, the feds released their options, one of which could be implemented if the states don’t reach a deal. The Bureau of Reclamation’s “Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead” offers five alternative scenarios for how to run the river, all of which are aimed at keeping the two reservoirs viable through different methods of divvying up the burden of inevitable shortages in supply.
The document, and the need to deal with present and future shortages, is necessary because human-caused climate change-exacerbated aridification has diminished the Colorado River’s flow, throwing the supply-demand equation out of balance. So it is somewhat surreal to peruse the voluminous report that was published by an administration whose leader has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job.”
My cursory search of the document turned up only one occurrence of the term “climate change.”1 Yet the authors do acknowledge, if obliquely, that global warming is shrinking the river. “The Basin is experiencing increased aridity due to climate variability,” they write, “and long-term drought and low runoff conditions are expected in the future.” This tidbit also evaded the censors: “Since 2000, the Basin has experienced persistent drought conditions, exacerbated by a warming climate, resulting in increased evapotranspiration, reduced soil moisture, and ultimately reduced runoff.”
All of the alternatives put most of the burden of cutting consumptive use on the Lower Basin states, while directing the Upper Basin to take unspecified conservation measures. I’ll summarize the alternatives below, but first, it seems telling to see which which proposed alternatives the Bureau considered, but ultimately eliminated from detailed analysis.
The “boating alternative,” which would prioritize maintaining Lake Powell’s surface level at or above 3,588 feet to serve recreational boating needs. This proposal was put forward in the “Path to 3,588” plan by motorized recreation lobbying group BlueRibbon Coalition. It was dismissed because, basically, it would sacrifice downstream farms and cities for the sake of boating.
The ecosystem alternative, which would prioritize the Colorado River’s ecosystem health by focusing management and reducing consumptive human use to protect wildlife, vegetation, habitats, and wetlands.
One-dam alternative, a.k.a. Fill Mead First. This proposal would entail either bypassing or decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam with the aim of filling Lake Mead. The Bureau said they rejected the plan because it would be inconsistent with the Law of the River and might be unacceptable to stakeholders (even though some Lower Basin farmers got a little Hayduke-fever a couple of years back, suggesting that ridding Glen Canyon of the dam might be the best way to manage the river).
Okay, so that’s what’s NOT going to happen. So what might happen if the feds feel the need to intervene? Here’s a very short summary of each alternative:
No Action: This is always offered in these things, and it just means that they would revert back to the pre-2007 interim guidelines era, when releases from Lake Powell were fixed at an average of 8.23 million acre-feet per year and shortages were determined based on Lake Mead levels and would be distributed based on priority.
Basic Coordination Alternative: Lake Powell releases would range from 7 to 9.5 maf annually, based on the reservoir’s surface level, and releases from upper basin reservoirs would be implemented to protect Glen Canyon Dam’s infrastructure. Lower Basin shortages (and cuts) would be based on Lake Mead elevations and would be distributed based on water right priority (meaning Arizona gets cut before California).
Enhanced Coordination Alternative: Lake Powell annual releases would range from 4.7 maf to 10.8 maf, based on: a combination of Powell and Mead elevations; the 1-year running average hydrology; and Lower Basin deliveries. The Upper Basin would implement conservation measures to bolster Lake Powell levels if needed, and the Lower Basin shortages would range from 1.3 maf (when Mead and Powell, combined, are 60% full) to 3.0 maf (when Mead and Powell are 30% full or lower) annually. The Lower Basin shortages would be distributed proportionally, meaning that California — which has the largest allocation — would take 49% of the cuts, Arizona 31%, Nevada 3.3%, and Mexico 17%.
Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative: Lake Powell annual releases would range from 5 maf to 11 maf, based on total Upper Basin system storage and recent hydrology. But when Lake Powell’s surface level drops to 3,510 feet, Glen Canyon Dam would be operated as a “run of the river” facility, meaning that it would release only as much as what it running into the reservoir minus evaporation and seepage to keep the elevation from dropping further. Lower Basin shortages would be on a sliding scale, starting when Powell and Mead drop below 80% full, reaching 1 maf when the two reservoirs are 60% full. When the reservoirs drop below 60%, then shortages would be determined by the previous 3-year flows at Lee Ferry, topping out at a maximum shortage of 4 maf. Shortages would be distributed according to priority and proportionally.
Supply Driven Alternative: This one is based on the amount of water that is actually in the river (go figure!). Lake Powell releases would range from 4.7 maf annually to 12 maf, or about 65% of the 3-year natural flows at Lees Ferry. Lower Basin shortages would kick in when Lake Mead’s surface elevation drops below 1,145 feet, reaching a maximum of 2.1 maf at 1,000 feet and lower. (As of Jan. 12, Mead’s level was 1,063 feet). Shortages would be distributed according to priority and proportionally.
The estimated “natural flow” at Lee Ferry. Some of the alternatives would base Lake Powell releases on recent average natural flows at Lee Ferry. If the recent past is an indicator of what’s to come, we could expect a relatively minuscule amount of water running through the Grand Canyon to the Lower Basin states. Source: Bureau of Reclamation.
The Lower Basin states reportedly aren’t too happy about any of the alternatives, because they put most of the onus for cutting consumption on the Lower Basin. Under the Maximum Flexibility option, for example, Lower Basin shortages could go as high as 4 million acre-feet, or about half of those states’ total annual consumptive use. And under another, California alone could have to cut up to 1.5 million acre-feet of water use, which could trigger litigation, since California users have some of the most senior rights on the river. Some of the alternatives would potentially nullify the Colorado Compact’s clause ordering the Upper Basin to “not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 maf for any period of ten consecutive years.”
The Bureau does not pick a “preferred” alternative, like federal agencies typically do with environmental impact statements, leaving readers guessing about which option or combination of options might be chosen should the need arise. But it also gives more room for the states to reach some sort of agreement to pick an option from the provided list.
* It is found in the Hydrologic Resources section: “While the flows in the Colorado River would not affect groundwater in the region, changes to the groundwater systems in the Grand Canyon due to climate change may be an additional environmental factor that affects flows in the Colorado River.”
The snowpack remains dismal in most of the West, and it’s not just because of lack of precipitation. In fact, it’s probably more due to the crazy-warm temperatures. The average temperatures across the Interior were way above normal in November and December, as the map below shows. And January’s similarly unseasonably balmy so far. Yikes.
Precipitation levels were mixed across the West during late autumn and early winter, but temperatures were warmer than normal across the entire region, diminishing snowpack and leading to rather unwintery conditions. Source: NOAA.
🌵 Public Lands 🌲
Last week the new public lands media outlet, RE:PUBLIC, warned readers of “major shrinkage” this year. They meant, of course, that the Trump administration will probably get around to eliminating or eviscerating at least one national monument in the next twelve months. It’s probably a pretty safe bet, given that in Trump’s first term he shrank Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, and Project 2025, which the administration has hewn closely to, calls for even more reductions.
Indeed, I’m surprised they haven’t already moved to eliminate some of these protected areas, especially the more recently designated ones like Bears Ears, Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, or Chuckwalla National Monument in California. An optimist might hope that the Trump administration has realized how deeply unpopular this would be, or has come to terms with the fact that the Antiquities Act only allows presidents to establish national monuments, not eliminate them. But I think it’s more likely they were simply too busy dismantling other environmental safeguards — and, for that matter, democracy — to get around to diminishing national monuments.
I was a little surprised by RE:PUBLIC’s list of vulnerable national monuments, however. It included Bears Ears et al, which makes sense, but then also speculates about other “likely targets, due to their proximity to energy and mining interests,” including: Aztec Ruins, Dinosaur, Hovenweep, and Natural Bridges national monuments.
I hate trying to predict what the Trump administration will do in the future, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that these particular national monuments are not in the administration’s crosshairs. While these protected areas are close to energy-producing areas, and probably have some oil and gas, uranium, lithium, and/or potash producing potential, they simply offer too little to the extractive industries to make it worth the political blowback from eviscerating them.
Hovenweep National Monument. Jonathan P. Thompson photo
For those who may be unfamiliar with these places, I’ll take each one individually:
Aztec Ruins: First off, this tiny national monument adjacent to the residential neighborhoods of Aztec, New Mexico, is an amazing place and well worth the visit. The Puebloan structures here are built in the style of Chacoan great houses, and the community — which was established at the end of Chaco’s heyday — may have been become succeeded Chaco as a regional cultural and political center. It is in the San Juan Basin coalbed methane fields and is surrounded by gas wells. In fact, there are a few existing, active wells within the monument boundaries. But no one is champing at the bit to drill any new wells in this region, and they certainly don’t need to do so in this tiny monument.
Dinosaur National Monument, in northwestern Colorado, is probably somewhat vulnerable, given its size and proximity to oil and gas fields. But again, there’s not a whole lot of new drilling going on in the area. It was established in 1915 to protect dinosaur quarries — clearly in tune with the Antiquities Act — so shrinking it would be met with serious bipartisan political pushback.
When Warren G. Harding designated Hovenweep National Monument in 1923 to protect six clusters of Puebloan structures in southeastern Utah from development and pothunters, he strictly followed the Antiquities Act’s mandate to confine its boundaries to “the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” As such, the boundaries of each “unit” is basically drawn right around the pueblo and a small area of surroundings, leaving little room for shrinkage. Though it lies on the edge of the historically productive Aneth Oil Field, oil and gas drillers have no need to get inside the boundaries to get at the hydrocarbons. Besides, Trump and Harding have a lot in common, so Trump’s not likely to want to erase his predecessor’s legacy.
Natural Bridges: It’s odd to me that this one, which is currently surrounded by Bears Ears National Monument, is included on this list. Yes, there are historic uranium mines nearby, and yes, White Canyon, where the monument’s namesake formations are located, was once considered for tar sands and oil shale development. But the small monument itself — which was designated by Teddy Roosevelt in 1908 — is not getting in the way of any of this sort of development. It’s much more likely that Trump would remove the White Canyon area from Bears Ears National Monument, as he did during his first term, potentially opening the area around Natural Bridges back up to new uranium mining claims, while leaving the national monument’s current boundaries intact.
So, in summary: Don’t fret too much about these national monuments getting eliminated or shrunk anytime soon. And for now, maybe we shouldn’t worry about any national monument shrinkage. It is possible that Trump won’t go there this term. Trump shrunk Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante during his first term in part out of spite toward Obama and Clinton, but also to get then-Sen. Orrin Hatch’s legislative support. That the shrinkage also re-opened some public lands to new mining claims and drilling was a secondary motivation.
This time around, Trump has come up with far more generous gifts for the mining and drilling companies, and much more sinister ways to attack his political adversaries. Besides, he’s got his eyes on much bigger prizes — like Greenland.
1 * The single use of the term “climate change” is found in the Hydrologic Resources section: “While the flows in the Colorado River would not affect groundwater in the region, changes to the groundwater systems in the Grand Canyon due to climate change may be an additional environmental factor that affects flows in the Colorado River.”
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
The Government Highline Canal, in Palisade. The Government Highline Canal near Grand Junction. The Grand Valley Water Users Association, which operates the canal, has been experimenting with a program that pays water users to fallow fields and reduce their consumptive use of water. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
January 15, 2026
Absent a crucial but elusive consensus among the seven Colorado River states, federal authorities are forging ahead with their own ideas on how to divvy up painful water cuts as climate change diminishes flows in the critical river. The Bureau of Reclamation last week made public a 1,600-page behemoth of a document outlining five potential plans for managing the river after current regulations expire at the end of this year. The agency did not identify which proposal it favors, in hopes that the seven states in the river basin will soon come to a consensus that incorporates parts of the five plans. But time is running out. The states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, California, Arizona and Nevada — already blew past a Nov. 11 deadline set by federal authorities to announce the concepts of such a plan. They now have until Feb. 14 to present a detailed proposal for the future of the river that makes modern life possible for 40 million people across the Southwest. They were set to meet this week in Salt Lake City to continue negotiations. Federal authorities must finalize a plan by Oct. 1…
“The Department of the Interior is moving forward with this process to ensure environmental compliance is in place so operations can continue without interruption when the current guidelines expire,” Andrea Travnicek, the assistant secretary for water and science at the Department of the Interior, said in a news release announcing the document. “The river and the 40 million people who depend on it cannot wait. In the face of an ongoing severe drought, inaction is not an option.”
A 45-day public comment period opens Friday on the proposed plans for managing the river system, contained in a document called a draft environmental impact statement. The current operating guidelines expire at the end of 2026, but authorities need a replacement plan in place prior to the Oct. 1 start to the 2027 water year. The water year follows the water cycle, beginning as winter snowpack starts to accumulate and ending Sept. 30, as irrigation seasons end and water supplies typically reach their lowest levels…
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Already, Lake Mead — on the Arizona-Nevada border — and Lake Powell are only 33% and 26% full, respectively. Projections from the Bureau of Reclamation show that, in a worst-case scenario, Powell’s waters could fall below the level required to run the dam’s power turbines by October and remain below the minimum power pool until June 2027. Experts monitoring the yearslong effort to draft new operating guidelines said any plan implemented by Reclamation must consider the reality of a river with far less water than assumed when the original river management agreements were signed more than a century ago.
Click the link to read the article on the USGS website:
Aqueducts move water
June 5, 2018
If you live in an area where ample rain falls all year, you won’t see many aqueducts like the ones pictured here. But there are many areas of the world, such as the western United States, where much less rainfall occurs and it may only occur during certain times of the year. Large cities and communities in the dry areas need lots of water, and nature doesn’t always supply it to them.
The California Aqueduct, San Joaquin Valley, California. Sources/Usage: Public Domain. View Media Details
Some parts of the western U.S. do have ample water supplies, though. So, some states have developed ways of moving water from the place of ample supply to the thirsty areas. Engineers have built aqueducts, or canals, to move water, sometimes many hundreds of miles. Actually, aqueducts aren’t a high-tech modern invention—the ancient Romans had aqueducts to bring water from the mountains above Rome, Italy to the city.
Can you see something about the aqueduct picture above that causes some water to be lost in transit? In all environments, but especially In places where the climate is hot and dry, a certain portion of the water flowing in the aqueduct is bound to evaporate. It would be more efficient to cover the aqueduct to stop loss by evaporation, but the cost of covering it must be weighed against the value of the evaporated water.
Aqueducts were popular in ancient Rome
Below is a picture of the Roman aqueduct at Pont du Gard, crossing the Gard River in southern France. The aqueduct was used to supply water to the town on Nimes, which is about 30 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. Although the water ended up in the baths and homes in Nîmes, it originated about 12 miles away in higher elevations to the north. The total length of the aqueduct was about 31 miles, though, considering its winding journey.
There is even a Roman aqueduct that is still functioning and bringing water to some of Rome’s fountains. The Acqua Vergine, built in 19 B.C., has been restored several time, but lives on as a functioning aqueduct.
Roman aqueduct at Pont du Gard, crossing the Gard River in southern France. Credit: Carole Raddato, Creative Commons
Aqueducts were not the Roman’s choice for water-delivery systems, as they would use buried pipes when possible (much easier to bury a pipe than build an above-ground system). Although aqueducts use gravity to move water, the engineering feats of the Romans are shown in that the vertical drop from the highlands source to Nîmes is only 56 feet. Yet, that was enough to move water over 30 miles. And, if you think you can see the aqueduct in this picture “leaning” to one side, it is a illusion, as the vertical drop is only 1 inch for the 1,500 foot length. It is estimated that the aqueduct supplied the city with around 200,000,000 liters (44,000,000 imperial gallons) of water a day, and water took nearly 27 hours to flow from the source to the city. (Source: Wikipedia)
Incorporating instream flow uses into municipal water supply planning efforts can provide numerous public benefits. This article discusses the framework and opportunity for collaborative instream flow protection in municipal water supply operations.
Colorado’s instream flow program is a dynamic approach to protecting the natural environment that encourages practical and creative solutions to evolving environmental concerns. While water rights typically involve diverting water from the stream, the instream flow program protects water in the stream. Environmental values associated with instream flow uses can work synergistically with municipal water supply operations to realize several public benefits, such as improved water quality, riparian health, urban cooling, resiliency, recreational opportunities, and aesthetic value. As illustrated by the examples discussed later in this article, the instream flow program can facilitate cooperative agreements with municipal water providers for shared beneficial use of our state’s most precious resource.
Water Rights and the Prior Appropriation Doctrine in Colorado
The prior appropriation doctrine governs the ownership and use of water and water rights in Colorado. In simple terms, the prior appropriation system is described as “first in time, first in right.” A water user that has demonstrated an intent to put water to beneficial use first has a vested and prior right to use water in that amount against subsequent water users. This system developed out of necessity during the colonial expansion westward and was influenced by Spanish settlers and early miners to allocate water in the arid environment of Colorado, as an alternative to the more common riparian system of water rights based on land ownership abutting water ways.1
The prior appropriation doctrine has been enshrined in the Colorado Constitution. Article XVI, § 5 dedicates water in Colorado as public property for use by the people, subject to appropriation, and § 6 gives the right to appropriate water for beneficial use in priority.2 The 1969 Water Rights Determination and Administration Act (1969 Act) provides the legal framework for surface and tributary ground water distribution and use under the prior appropriation doctrine.3
An appropriation of a water right under the 1969 Act, as originally codified, meant “the diversion of a certain portion of the waters of the state and the application of the same to a beneficial use.”4 Similarly, beneficial uses were limited to diversions of water from the stream system for extractive uses such as domestic or municipal, irrigation, and manufacturing or industrial activities.5 Environmental uses of water, including instream flows, were not initially addressed in the 1969 Act but were later incorporated through amendments.6
Colorado Instream Flow Program
The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) was first established by the Colorado legislature in 1937 to protect and develop Colorado’s water resources for the benefit of present and future generations.7 It was not until the national environmental movement in the late 1960s, however, that discussions regarding the value of instream flows and role of the CWCB in the protection of such flows began to garner serious attention and focus.8 In 1973, those discussions culminated in the passage of SB 97 to create the Colorado Instream Flow and Natural Lake Level Program.9 SB 97 was unprecedented at the time and amended the 1969 Act to define beneficial use of a water right to include use by the CWCB for protection of stream flows within a specified reach without a diversion of water from the stream.10
Under the instream flow program, the CWCB has exclusive authority to hold a water right for instream flow uses in Colorado and may appropriate water rights or acquire existing water rights for instream flow, provided that it determines that such water rights are necessary to preserve or improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.11 Since the program’s inception, the CWCB has appropriated nearly 1,700 instream flow rights across 9,700 miles of stream and completed over 35 water acquisition transactions.12
The General Assembly has reinforced and expanded the CWCB’s ability to acquire water rights for instream flow purposes on several occasions.13 Acquiring and changing senior water rights for instream flows in over-appropriated systems can add great value by preserving the priority date, and therefore the availability, of the water for greater instream flow protection.14 Acquisitions can be donated to or purchased by the CWCB, and the statutory language specifically anticipates potential acquisitions from governmental entities, like municipalities.15 Other free-market developments to the Colorado instream flow program enacted by the state legislature over the years include streamlined processes for loans of water rights for instream flow use, instream flow protection for mitigation releases, and stream flow augmentation plans.16 These developments provide additional opportunities for water users, including municipalities, to participate in the program in support of instream flows.
In addition to implementing the instream flow program, the CWCB is tasked with creating the Colorado Water Plan, which addresses the state’s water challenges through collaborative water planning, including expanded opportunities for instream flow protection.17
Case Studies Along the Front Range
The instream flow program provides reasonable protection of the environment for benefit of the public and is emphasized in the Colorado Water Plan as a balanced approach to addressing environmental needs in the face of climate change.18 Similarly, municipal water service providers, acting in the interest of their respective jurisdictions, must often balance water supply with other public interests. Municipal water projects and water supply planning efforts can be designed to address multiple needs and related uncertainties across a jurisdiction, informed by integrated planning efforts. The various public interests typically considered by municipalities may align with instream flow protection in many respects. The Colorado Water Plan includes several policy considerations that highlight this potential overlap between municipal water interests and instream flows.19
Fundamentally, the Colorado Water Plan encourages a holistic, collaborative approach to water management that balances multiple uses and benefits to meet water shortages throughout the state.20As competition for water resources in Colorado becomes more pronounced with increased demands and costs, the benefits of water sharing and collaboration will also likely increase.21 The Colorado Water Plan focuses on thriving watersheds as an action area to support stream health, recreational uses, resiliency, erosion control, and water quality, all of which provide tangible benefits to municipal water service providers.22 Accordingly, more water in the stream system for instream flows can be a natural complement to a municipality seeking to balance growing water demands with related public interests. The following examples demonstrate how instream flow uses can benefit municipal water supply, and vice versa, to realize this balance in a meaningful way.
Boulder Creek Instream Flow Project
The Boulder Creek instream flow project is a long-standing cooperative project that has been operating in Boulder County for almost 35 years. This project has operated successfully due in large part to the partnership between the City of Boulder and the CWCB and their collaboration with neighboring water users in Boulder County to support environmental stream flows and other uses in the creek.
In the early 1990s, Boulder donated a suite of valuable senior water rights to the CWCB to establish a year-round instream flow program on North Boulder and Boulder Creeks.23 The acquisition was memorialized in a series of donation agreements between Boulder and the CWCB pursuant to CRS § 37-92-102(3), following certain legislative amendments throughout the 1980s that clarified and enhanced the CWCB’s acquisition authority for instream flows.24 Boulder and the CWCB, as co-applicants, also received a water court decree to change the use of the donated rights to include instream flow uses for the project.25
Figure 1. Map depicting locations of instream flow protected reaches along Boulder Creek. Image created by the City of Boulder (Oct. 2018).
The Boulder Creek instream flow project protects three segments from below the Silver Lake Reservoir near the headwaters of North Boulder Creek down to 75th Street in Boulder County (see fig. 1). The donated rights include reservoir releases, bypassed diversions, and changed irrigation ditch shares to support instream flows throughout the year. As part of its donation to the CWCB, Boulder retained the right to use water available under the donated rights (1) for municipal purposes under certain conditions, including drought and emergency conditions in its municipal water supply operations; (2) for municipal purposes anytime they are not needed to meet instream flow amounts; and (3) for beneficial reuse downstream of the protected reaches.26This provides operational flexibility for the city’s municipal water supply while also supporting instream flow uses by the CWCB in most years. Its participation in the Boulder Creek instream flow program has also helped the city address US Forest Service regulatory requirements for bypasses related to its diversions from North Boulder Creek as part of federal permitting for one of its raw water pipelines.27
The City of Boulder has a long-standing environmental ethos that incorporates instream flows into its water supply planning and operations. Boulder’s water supply planning documents from the 1980s identified the goal of supporting instream flows in Boulder Creek to enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystems, reflecting city planners’ prediction that dry-up periods in the creek would become more severe and frequent with increased water demands.28 Subsequent Boulder water supply and land use planning documents have included similar goals focused on balancing instream flows and environmental preservation with municipal water demands and operations, and emphasizing the connection between stream health and reliable drinking water supplies.29
Because the protected stream segments run through the Boulder city limits, and extend both above and below the city, the project benefits water quality, riparian health, and resiliency in the Boulder municipal watershed and water system operations and provides additional environmental benefits to the larger Boulder County community.
Gross Reservoir Environmental Pool Project
The cities of Boulder and Lafayette entered into an intergovernmental agreement in 2010 with Denver Water to establish a 5,000 acre-foot environmental pool in an enlarged Gross Reservoir to augment stream flows in South Boulder Creek.30 Boulder recognized the need to address low flows on South Boulder Creek as a key goal in its planning documents and identified Denver Water’s planned expansion of Gross Reservoir as an opportunity to use upstream storage to establish a robust instream flow program. Lafayette similarly identified Gross Reservoir for potential water storage in its water rights decrees, providing both a water supply and environmental benefit to its operations. The parties proactively agreed to cooperate to mitigate the reservoir expansion’s impacts to aquatic resources in the South Boulder Creek basin by creating and operating the environmental pool.31
Coordinated with municipal water system operations, releases from the environmental pool will allow Boulder and Lafayette to store their decreed water rights for later release to meet specific target flows below Gross Reservoir in South Boulder Creek throughout the year. The segments identified for the target flows include Gross Reservoir to South Boulder Road (Upper Segment, depicted as segments 1 and 2 in fig. 2) and South Boulder Road to the confluence with Boulder Creek (Lower Segment, depicted as segment 3 in fig. 2).32 The agreement also includes provisions to address emergencies such as extended drought or an unexpected problem with water storage, conveyance, or treatment infrastructure to allow for flexibility in operations to meet both target flows and municipal needs.
Boulder’s releases from the environmental pool are protected as instream flows according to a Water Delivery Agreement with the CWCB dated September 9, 2019, and a water court decree entered for Boulder, Lafayette, and the CWCB.33 Water released by Boulder to meet the target flows will be protected for instream flow uses to the extent that such flows do not exceed the amounts that CWCB has determined to be appropriate to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree in South Boulder Creek. Boulder’s target flow releases will support CWCB’s existing appropriated instream flow rights up to the specified amounts (see fig. 2). Boulder may then redivert the water downstream of the protected reaches for its municipal uses.
The environmental pool will provide permanent, dedicated storage for water rights owned by Boulder and Lafayette to be released to enhance stream flows in South Boulder Creek prior to downstream uses for municipal purposes by the parties. These operations provide added flexibility, resiliency, and redundancy to the cities’ respective water supply systems. In turn, the enhanced stream flows will benefit 17.3 miles of South Boulder Creek, including Eldorado Canyon State Park, South Boulder Creek Natural Area, and City of Boulder open space lands, and will support native fish populations and riparian and wetland habitats.
Figure 2. Map depicting target flows and reaches for enhanced stream flows on South Boulder Creek. Image created by the City of Boulder (Aug. 7, 2018).
Poudre Flows Project
The Poudre Flows Project is the first stream flow augmentation plan developed pursuant to CRS § 37-92-102(4.5).34 It is a partnership amongst the CWCB; municipalities of Fort Collins, Thornton, and Greeley; Colorado Water Trust; Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Cache la Poudre Water Users Association; and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The project will augment stream flows through a 52-mile reach of the Cache la Poudre River, with an overarching goal to improve river health (see fig. 3).35 The concept was first envisioned as part of the Poudre Runs Through It working group, a collaborative group of diverse partners and stakeholders in the Poudre River.36 The City of Fort Collins planning priorities incorporate similar goals, including to “[p]rotect community water systems in an integrated way to ensure resilient water resources and healthy watersheds.”37
The project anticipates that the CWCB, through agreements with water right owners, including Fort Collins and Greeley, will use previously changed and quantified water rights owned by these municipalities and potentially others to augment stream flows in six segments of the Poudre River spanning from Canyon Gage to the confluence with the South Platte River.38 Besides the instream flow protection of the environment to a reasonable degree, project partners have identified numerous additional benefits such as connectivity for fish passage and decreased temperatures and nutrient concentrations, all while avoiding impacts to existing water rights and operations.39
By integrating water supply planning with a holistic approach to water development and management that provides multiple public benefits, municipalities can become strong partners with the CWCB. Together, they can help protect instream flows and balance growing water demands and future uncertainties with the environmental values that make Colorado a beautiful place to live.
1. See generallyCoffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co., 6 Colo. 443, 447 (Colo. 1882).
2. Colo. Const. Art. XVI, §§ 5–6. See also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. CWCB, 594 P.2d 570, 573 (Colo. 1979) (“The reason and thrust for this provision was to negate any thought that Colorado would follow the riparian doctrine in the acquisition and use of water.”).
9. SB 97, 49th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 1973). See CRS § 37-92-102(3).
10. Bassi, supra note 6 at 398. See also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist., 594 P.2d at 576. SB 97 was carefully drafted to provide environmental protection through the CWCB, as a fiduciary to the public, without inviting riparian rights for adjacent landowners. Id. The Colorado Supreme Court reiterated this important distinction in St. Jude Co. v. Roaring Fork Club, LLC, 351 P. 3d 442 (Colo. 2015), ruling that a diversion from a steam for private instream flows is a “forbidden right” contrary to the prior appropriation doctrine; only the CWCB, with strict limitations identified by the general assembly, can hold an instream flow right for the benefit of the public. Id. at 451.
11. CRS § 37-92-102(3) (The CWCB is “vested with exclusive authority, on behalf of the people of the state of Colorado, to appropriate . . . such waters of natural streams . . . as the board determines may be required for minimum streamflows . . . to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.” The board also may acquire water rights “in such amount as the board determines is appropriate for streamflows . . . to preserve or improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.”). Legislation enacted in 2002 expanded the Colorado instream flow program to provide that water rights may also be used by the CWCB to improve the natural environment (and not just for preservation purposes). Bassi, supra note 6 at 391.
14. Id. at 406. The Colorado Water Trust was formed in 2001 to support Colorado’s instream flow program by promoting voluntary, market-based efforts to restore stream flows in Colorado’s rivers. The Water Trust has been instrumental in facilitating and streamlining the acquisition of water rights from willing partners for use by the CWCB. Seehttps://coloradowatertrust.org.
16. See generally CRS §§ 37-83-105, 37-92-102(8), 37-92-102(4.5).
17. The Colorado Water Plan was adopted by the CWCB in 2023 as a framework for decision-making to address water challenges and build resiliency in the state. The 2023 Water Plan is an update to the first iteration of the plan released in 2015. Seehttps://cwcb.colorado.gov/colorado-water-plan.
18. SeeSt. Jude Co., 351 P. 3d at 449 (in its use of water for instream flows, the CWCB has a “‘statutory fiduciary duty’ to the people . . . to both protect the environment and appropriate only the minimum amount of water necessary to do so . . . .”).
20. See id. at 217–19, 231, 233 (“All areas of the Water Plan are interconnected, and projects need to consider multi-purpose, multi-benefit solutions.”).
21. See id. at 217 (“Multi-purpose projects better address water supply challenges across municipal, agricultural, environmental, and recreation sectors as they occur.”).
22. See id. at 181, 204–07 (stream health and related environmental benefits can enhance municipal supply or improve the quality of life in urban areas).
23. See Decree, In re Application for Water Rts. of the Colo. Water Conservation Bd. on Behalf of the State of Colo. and Water Rts. of the City of Boulder, No. 90CW193 (Colo. Water Div. 1, Dec. 20, 1993).
30. See Decree, In re Application for Water Rts. of City of Lafayette, City of Boulder, and Colo. Water Conservation Bd. in Boulder Cnty., No. 17CW3212 (Colo. Water Div. 1, Feb. 11, 2021). The author represented the City of Boulder in Case No. 17CW3212 and was involved in prosecuting the case and negotiating the underlying agreement with CWCB.
31. Denver Water’s enlargement of Gross Reservoir is the subject of pending litigation.
32. The target flows and target reaches are based on previously collected data and analysis by Colorado Parks and Wildlife using the R2Cross method, which supported CWCB’s previous instream flow appropriations.
38. See Application, In reApplication for Water Rts. of Cache La Poudre Water Users Ass’n, City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley, Colo. Water Tr., N. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., City of Thornton and Colo. Water Conservation Bd. in Larimer and Weld Cntys., No. 21CW3056 (Colo. Water Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2021).
After Coloradan U.S. House Reps. Lauren Boebert and Jeff Hurd saw their Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act approved unanimously by Congress in December, they were stunned when President Donald Trump — once a proponent of the project — vetoed it…After the rejection of the legislation sponsored by Boebert, the former 3rd Congressional District representative and co-sponsored by Hurd, the district’s current representative, they sought a rare move for Congressional Republicans in the Trump era: a veto override that could have defied the president. A vote on the veto override was held in the House on Thursday, needing two-thirds of voters to vote “yes” to pass. It ultimately failed with 249 “yes” votes and 176 “no” votes, with one “present” vote, around 8% short of the threshold for passage. All 213 Democrats voted to back the override, while 36 Republicans backed the override but 176 did not. Five Republicans did not vote…
Boebert’s bill, H.R. 131, would have provided communities in the region more time and flexibility to repay the federal government by extending repayment periods and lowering interest rates. In his veto decision, Trump cited financial concerns, but on the House floor, both Boebert and Hurd emphasized that the bill would not expand the project, authorize new construction or increase federal share. Per Boebert, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation found that Arkansas Valley drinking water has such high levels of radium, uranium and other pollutant contamination that people in the area could see the cost of drinking water triple without this legislation.
“Contrary to what the veto message states, my bill does not authorize any additional federal funding. It simply modifies the repayment terms for small rural communities in my district so they’re able to afford their 35% cost share of the project that they are statutorily obligated to repay,” Boebert said…
Hurd said that rural Colorado and rural America voted “overwhelmingly” for Trump because they didn’t want to be forgotten by the government, adding, “They expected Washington to keep its word, not abandon them midway.” He also expressed concern about the precedent a failed veto override would set, not just for the rest of Trump’s term but moving forward on Capitol Hill. This was a similar, though less alarmingly phrased, point as Neguse earlier stating, “No state is safe from political retaliation.”
Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.
Total precipitation (inches) from 9-15 October 2025 with gridded data from the PRISM Climate Group and observations from the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow (CoCoRaHS) network.
On January 6, 2026 Town of Pagosa Springs staff informed the Pagosa Springs Town Council about the town’s ongoing flood recovery funding efforts in the wake of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) denial of the town’s request for $5.7 million to aid cleanup efforts. Development Director James Dickhoff and Projects Manager Kyle Rickert were both on hand to walk the council through various other funding opportunities, with Dickhoff stating, “We are not counting on FEMA money to come through to us” after the denial on Dec. 21, 2025. Dickhoff stated that staff just wanted to inform the council “on where we are at” regarding the town’s relief funding efforts from the October 2025 flooding…
The total project cost of river cleanup and restoration following the October flood event is estimated to be just shy of $6 million, stated Town Manager David Harris in correspondence. Rickert explained that, with the FEMA funding off the table, the town is pursuing several state grants, and possibly a state loan, as well as two other federal funding programs. Dickhoff added that if the town wanted to pursue “the loan opportunity through the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB),” the council would need to put it before the voters in an upcoming spring election to be legally eligible to take out the loan…
Rickert explained that the federal Emergency Watershed Protection had awarded the town about $3.3 million and the Colorado Office of Emergency Management awarded $463,504 in funds. These funds will go toward embankment stabilizations near the Pagosa Springs History Museum and near 6th Street, pedestrian bridge abutment stabilization at Centennial Park, restoring the River Center ponds, as well as Apache Street bridge repairs and log jam removals, all coming with a total project price tag of $4,178,038, the slideshow states…
He added, “The river is an important part of our tourism portfolio and we need to get it cleaned up” and make it safe for those recreating in the river before summer hits. Rickert then informed the council about a Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Fishing is Fun grant that the town has requested in the amount of $328,603. This grant would go toward dredging the River Center ponds, a headgate replacement at Pond #1 (the east pond), ditch restoration, debris and sediment removal upstream of town limits to the future 1st Street pedestrian bridge, as well as rebuilding rock structures in the same area. Rickert noted that the town was also awarded $15,000 from History Colorado Emergency Grant for its ongoing efforts to stabilize the river bank near the museum…One or possibly two water gauge stations would give the town an estimated two hours of warning time as water levels rise during another flood event, providing historic data as part of the U.S. Geological Survey monitoring system, she noted. This grant application would be due by Jan. 31, so she asked the council to pass a resolution supporting the CWCB river gauge grant, which the council passed unanimously.
The San Juan River has peaked above 8,000 cfs twice in the last several days, reaching the highest levels seen since the 1927 flood. Source: USGS.
The Bureau of Reclamation today released a draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluating a range of operational alternatives for managing of Colorado River reservoirs after 2026, when the current operating agreements expire. The draft EIS evaluates a broad range of potential operating strategies. It does not designate a preferred alternative, ensuring flexibility for a potential collective agreement.
Prolonged drought conditions over the past 25 years, combined with forecasts for continued dry conditions, have made development of future operating guidelines for the Colorado River particularly challenging.
“The Department of the Interior is moving forward with this process to ensure environmental compliance is in place so operations can continue without interruption when the current guidelines expire,” Assistant Secretary – Water and Science Andrea Travnicek said. “The river and the 40 million people who depend on it cannot wait. In the face of an ongoing severe drought, inaction is not an option.”
The draft EIS evaluates a broad range of operational alternatives for post-2026 reservoir management informed through input and extensive collaborative engagement with stakeholders, including the seven basin states, tribes, conservation organizations, other federal agencies, other Basin water users, and the public. It includes the following alternatives that capture operational elements and potential environmental impacts:
No Action
Basic Coordination
Enhanced Coordination
Maximum Operational Flexibility
Supply Driven
The document will be published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2026, initiating a 45-day comment period that will end on March 2, 2026. The draft EIS and additional information on the alternatives are available on Reclamation’s website.
“Given the importance of a consensus-based approach to operations for the stability of the system, Reclamation has not yet identified a preferred alternative,” said Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron. “However, Reclamation anticipates that when an agreement is reached, it will incorporate elements or variations of these five alternatives and will be fully analyzed in the Final EIS enabling the sustainable and effective management of the Colorado River.”
The Colorado River provides water for more than 40 million people and fuels hydropower resources in seven states. It serves as a vital resource for 30 Tribal Nations and two Mexican states, sustaining 5.5 million acres of farmland and agricultural communities throughout the West, while also supporting critical ecosystems and protecting endangered species.
The Draft EIS addresses only domestic river operations. A separate binational process addressing water deliveries to Mexico is underway and the Department is committed to continued collaboration with the Republic of Mexico. The Department will conduct all necessary and appropriate discussions regarding post-2026 operations and implementation of the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico through the International Boundary and Water Commission in consultation with the Department of State.
To provide certainty for communities, tribes, and water users, a decision regarding operations after 2026 will be made prior to October 1, 2026 – the start of the 2027 water year.
Photo shows Lake Mead with a water elevation of 1078. Credit: USBR
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
The consensus-based effort to develop new rules to manage the Colorado River system hasn’t worked – it’s time for a new approach
Federal leadership and the credible threat of managing reservoirs to protect the system is that new approach
Missing Deadlines
Way back at the end of the last century, at the annual Colorado River conference in Vegas, Marc Reisner repeated the Margaret Thatcher quote that consensus is the absence of leadership. On Veterans Day, the seven Colorado River basin states missed yet another deadline to reach consensus on a conceptual plan for managing the shrinking Colorado River after the current rules expire in 2026. Valentine’s Day marks the next holiday deadline, this time for a detailed plan, but multiple missed deadlines give no indication that the states will reach consensus then, either.
The basin state negotiators have met for years behind closed doors, without success. It’s time for a new approach. Aggressive federal intervention and the credible threat of a federally-imposed Colorado River management plan would offer political cover – or a political imperative – for the negotiators. The credible threat of a federal plan would give the negotiators the space to compromise without having to do so unilaterally and then being accused of not protecting their state’s interests.
But federal leadership alone is not enough – it must be coupled with a plausible federal plan that compels the states to act and can meet the magnitude of the ongoing crisis. As the Department of the Interior announced in its 6/15/2023 press release, the purpose of and need for the post-2026 guidelines is “to develop future operating guidelines and strategies to protect the stability and sustainability of the Colorado River.” To date, the development of the post-2026 guidelines has prioritized routine operations of Glen Canyon and Hoover dams over the system as a whole, a focus inconsistent with the magnitude and urgency of the problem. Prioritizing routine dam operations and hydropower generation over water delivery and environmental protection elevates the tool over the task. Seeking to preserve routine operations of the dams while imposing draconian cuts on water users is not a path to resilience and precludes alternatives that would help stabilize the system.
The Plan
Instead, by early next year, the Secretary should announce that Interior will implement a federal plan incorporating the following elements:
As a condition precedent, the Lower Basin states agree not to place a “compact call” for the duration of the agreement.
Implement annual Lower Basin water use reductions for the following calendar year based on total system contents on August 1:
75% – 60%: cuts to Lower Basin water uses increasing from 0 to 1.5 MAF<60% – 38%: static cut to Lower Basin water uses of 1.5 MAF<38% – 23%: increasing cuts to Lower Basin water uses of up to 3.0 MAF total
below 23% of total system contents – cut Lower Basin water uses to the minimum required to protect human health and safety and satisfy present perfected rights
If the Lower Basin states do not satisfy the condition precedent in #3 above, Reclamation limits Lower Basin deliveries to the minimum required to satisfy present perfected rights when total system contents are <75%.
Recover water stored in federal Upper Basin reservoirs unless the Upper Basin states reduce annual water use based on total system contents:
<34% – 23%: Assuming the first 0.25 MAF “reduction” would be contributed by the elimination of Powell’s evaporative losses and gains from Glen Canyon bank storage, reduce Upper Basin water uses up to 0.65 MAF
below 23% of total system contents – limit total Upper Basin water uses to 3.56 MAF (the minimum volume reported this century)
Expand the pool of parties eligible to create Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) beyond existing Colorado River contractors, to include water agencies and other entities with agreements to use Colorado River water.
Eliminate the existing limits on the total quantity of Extraordinary Conservation ICS and DCP ICS that may be accumulated in ICS and DCP ICS accounts, while maintaining existing limits on delivery of such water.
Fully mitigate the on-stream and off-stream community and environmental impacts of the water use reductions identified above.
After a three-year phase-in period, condition Colorado River diversions on a clear “reasonable and beneficial use” standard predicated on existing best practices for water efficiency, including but not limited to the examples listed below (state(s) that already have such standards):
Require removal of non-functional turf grass (California, Nevada)
Incentivize landscape conversion and turf removal statewide (California, Colorado, Utah)
Adopt stronger efficiency standards for plumbing and equipment (Colorado, California, and Nevada)
Require urban utilities to report distribution system leakage, and to meet standards for reducing water losses (California)
Require all new urban landscapes to be water-efficient (California)
Require metering of landscape irrigation turnouts (Utah)
Ensure that existing buildings are water-efficient when they are sold or leased (Los Angeles, San Diego)
Require agricultural water deliveries to be metered and priced at least in part by volume (California)
Many of the elements listed above raise important questions about federal authorities, accounting and data challenges, the roles and obligations of state water officials to implement coordinated actions in-state, water access for disadvantaged communities, environmental compliance, and potential economic and social costs, among others. For each item listed, many details will need to be refined. Similarly, the plan’s duration will need to be determined. But as temperatures again climb into the high 40s in the Rockies near the Colorado River’s headwaters (in mid-December!), drying soils and reducing next year’s runoff, and the National Weather Service issues red flag fire warnings for Colorado’s Front Range, the need for bold action is clear.
The Dominy Bypass
Recovering water stored in Lake Powell will require the construction of new bypass tunnels around Glen Canyon Dam. Former Reclamation Commissioner Floyd Dominy sketched the design of such tunnels almost thirty years ago (see image). Such tunnels would enable the recovery of about 5.6 MAF of water stored below the minimum power pool elevation – more water than the Upper Basin states consume each year. Current operating rules and the scope of the current planning process effectively treat this massive volume of water as “dead storage” – a luxury the system can no longer afford. After Reclamation constructs the bypass tunnels, water recovery should be timed to maximize environmental and recreational benefits in the Grand Canyon.
John Wesley Powell at his desk—same desk used by the USGS Director today via the USGS
Running the River
Almost 160 years ago, John Wesley Powell – the reservoir’s namesake – demonstrated bold leadership, going where no (white) man had gone before. With leadership and a clear goal, he charted a route through the Colorado River’s iconic canyons. Now is the time for more bold leadership, a clear goal, and a plan to get there.
About the author
Michael Cohen. Photo credit: Pacific Institute
Since 1998, Michael Cohen’s work with the Pacific Institute has focused on water use in the Colorado River basin and delta region and the management and revitalization of the Salton Sea ecosystem. Michael received a B.A. in Government from Cornell University and has a Master’s degree in Geography, with a concentration in Resources and Environmental Quality, from San Diego State University.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Kevin Freking and Nick Coltrain ). Here’s an excerpt:
January 8, 2026
Rep. Lauren Boebert, who sponsored bill, pushed president in November to release Jeffrey Epstein files
The U.S. House refused Thursday to override President Donald Trump’s vetoes of two low-profile bills — including one that would help pay for a water pipeline in Colorado — as Republicans stuck with the president despite their prior support for the measures. Congress can override a veto with support from two-thirds of the members of the House and the Senate. The threshold is rarely reached. In this case, Republicans opted to avoid a fight in an election year over bills with little national significance, with most GOP members voting to sustain the vetoes. The two vetoes were the first of Trump’s second term. One bill was designed to help local communities finance the construction of a pipeline to provide water to tens of thousands in southeastern Colorado. The other designated a site in Everglades National Park as a part of the Miccosukee Indian Reservation…
On the Colorado bill, 35 Republicans sided with Democrats in voting for an override — with all members of the state’s delegation from both parties supporting an override. On the Florida bill, only 24 Republicans voted for the override. The White House did not issue any veto threats prior to passage of the bills, so Trump’s scathing comments in his recent veto message came as a surprise to sponsors of the legislation. Ultimately, his vetoes had the effect of punishing backers who had opposed the president’s positions on other issues. The water pipeline bill came from Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, a longtime Trump ally who broke with the president in November to release files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The bill to give the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians more control of some of its tribal lands would have benefited one of the groups that sued the administration over an immigration detention center known as “Alligator Alcatraz.”
U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet issued the following statement after President Trump vetoed their bipartisan Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act:
“Nothing says ‘Make America Great Again’ like denying 50,000 rural Coloradans access to clean, affordable drinking water. President Trump’s first veto of his second term blocks a bipartisan bill that both the House and Senate passed unanimously, costs taxpayers nothing, and delivers safe, reliable water to rural communities that overwhelmingly supported him. Trump’s attacks on Southern Colorado are politics at its worst—putting personal and political grievances ahead of Americans. Southeastern Coloradans were promised the completion of the Arkansas Valley Conduit more than 60 years ago. With this veto, President Trump broke that promise and demonstrated exactly why so many Americans are fed up with Washington. We will keep fighting to make sure rural Coloradans get the clean drinking water they were promised.”
Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.
Bedrock Energy’s drilling rig digs a 1,000-foot borehole as part of a geothermal network that’ll keep energy costs low for companies that move into a new Hayden business park. (Alison F. Takemura/Canary Media)
For decades, Dallas Robinson’s family excavation company developed coal mines and power plants in the rugged, fossil-fuel-rich region of northwest Colorado. It was a good business to be in, one that helped hamlets like Hayden grow from outposts to bustling mountain towns — and kept families like Robinson’s rooted in place for generations.
“This area, with the exception of agriculture, was built on oil and gas and coal,” said Robinson, a former town councilor for Hayden.
But that era is coming to a close. Across the United States, bad economics and even worse environmental impacts are driving coal companies out of business. The 441-megawatt coal-burning power plant just outside Hayden is no exception: It’s shutting down by the end of 2028. The Twentymile mine that feeds it is expected to follow.
Coal closures can gut communities like Hayden, a town of about 2,000 people. That story has been playing out for decades, particularly in Appalachia, where coal regions with depressed economies have seen populations decline as people strike out for better opportunities elsewhere. Robinson, a friendly, gregarious guy, fears the same could happen in Hayden.
“I grew up here, so I know everyone,” he said. “It’s hard to see people lose their jobs and have to move away. … These are families that sweat and bled and been through the good and the bad times in small towns like this.”
Struggling American coal towns need an economic rebirth as the fossil-fuel industry fades. Hayden has a vision that, at first, doesn’t sound all that unusual. The town is developing a 58-acre business and industrial park to attract a diverse array of new employers.
The innovative part: companies that move in will get cheap energy bills at a time of surging utility costs. The town is installing tech that’s still uncommon but gaining traction — a geothermal heating-and-cooling system, which will draw energy from 1,000 feet underground.
In short, Hayden is tapping abundant renewable energy to help invigorate its economy. That’s a playbook that could serve other communities looking to rise from the coal dust.
At an all-day event hosted by geothermal drilling startup Bedrock Energy this summer, I saw the ambitious project in progress. Under a blazing sun, a Bedrock drilling rig chewed methodically into the region’s ochre dirt. Once it finished this borehole — one of about 150 — it would feed in a massive spool of black pipe to transfer heat.
Bedrock will complete the project, providing 2 megawatts of thermal energy, in phases, with roughly half the district done in 2026 and the whole job finished by 2028. Along the way, constructed buildings will be able to connect with portions of the district as they’re ready.
“We see it as a long-term bet,” Mathew Mendisco, city manager of Hayden, later told me, describing the town as full of grit and good people. Geothermal energy “is literally so sustainable — like, you could generate those megawatts forever. You’re never going to have to be reliant on the delivery of coal or natural gas. … You drill it on-site, the heat comes out.”
“We disagree on the urgency of addressing climate change, [but] this is something that Chris Wright and I agree on,” Colorado Senator John Hickenlooper (D), a trained geologist, told a packed conference-room crowd on the day of the event. “Geothermal energy has … unbelievable potential to, at scale, create clean energy.”
Charting a post-coal economy
The eventual closure of the Hayden Station coal plant, which has operated for more than half a century, has loomed over the town since Xcel Energy announced an early shutdown in 2021.
The power plant and the mine employ about 240 people. Property taxes from those businesses have historically provided more than half the funding for the town’s fire management and school districts — though that fraction is shrinking thanks to recent efforts to diversify Hayden’s economy, Mendisco said.
Taking into account the other businesses that serve the coal industry and its workers, according to Mendisco, the economic fallout from the closures is projected to be a whopping $319 million per year.
“Really, the highest-paying jobs, the most stable jobs, with the best benefits [and] the best retirement, are in coal and coal-fired power plants,” Robinson said.
Hayden aims for its business park to help the town weather this transition. With 15 lots to be available for purchase, the development is designed to provide more than 70 jobs and help offset a portion of the tax losses from Hayden Station’s closure, according to Mendisco.
“We are not going to sit on our hands and wait for something to come save us,” Mayor Ryan Banks told me at the event.
Companies that move into the business park won’t have a gas bill. They’ll be insulated from fossil-fuel price spikes, like those that occurred in December 2022, when gas prices leapt in the West and customers’ bills skyrocketed by 75% on average from December 2021.
In the Hayden development, businesses will be charged for their energy use by the electric utility and by a geothermal municipal utility that Hayden is forming to oversee the thermal energy network. Rather than forcing customers to pay for the infrastructure upfront, the town will spread out those costs on energy bills over time — like investor-owned utilities do. Unlike a private utility, though, Hayden will take no profit. Mendisco said he expects the geothermal district to cut energy costs by roughly 40%, compared with other heating systems.
Municipally owned geothermal districts are rare in the U.S., but the approach has legs. Pagosa Springs, Colorado, has run its geothermal network since the early 1980s, when it scrambled to combat fuel scarcity during the 1970s oil embargo. New Haven, Connecticut, recently broke ground on a geothermal project for its train station and a new public housing complex. And Ann Arbor, Michigan, has plans to build a geothermal district to help make one neighborhood carbon-neutral.
Hayden’s infrastructure investment is already attracting business owners. An industrial painting company has bought a plot, and so has a regional alcohol distributor, Mendisco said.
One couple is particularly excited to be a part of the town’s clean energy venture. Nate and Steph Yarbrough own DIY off-grid-electrical startup Explorist.Life; renewable power is in the company’s DNA. The Yarbroughs teach people how to put solar panels and batteries on camper vans, boats, and cabins to fuel their outdoor adventures, and Explorist.Life sells the necessary gear.
“When we bought that property, it was largely because of the whole geothermal concept,” Nate Yarbrough told me. “We thought it made a whole bunch of sense with what we do.”
Reducing reliance on hydrocarbons, he noted, is “a good thing for society overall.”
Geothermal tech heats up
The geothermal network that could transform Hayden’s future is mostly invisible from aboveground. Besides the drilling rig and a trench, the most prominent features I spotted were flexible tubes jutting from the earth like bunny ears.
Those ends of buried U-shaped pipes will eventually connect to a main distribution loop for businesses to hook up to. Throughout the network, pipes will ferry a nontoxic mix of water and glycol — a heat-carrying fluid that electric heat pumps can tap to keep buildings toasty in the winter and chilled in the summer.
As part of Hayden’s geothermal network, a loop of U-shaped pipe will collect constant heat from the earth, no matter how bitter the winter. Its two ends — the only parts visible — will connect to a distribution loop. (Alison F. Takemura/Canary Media)
Despite their superior efficiency, these heat pumps are far less common than the kind that pull from the ambient air, largely due to project cost. Because you have to drill to install a ground-source heat pump, the systems are typically about twice as expensive as air-source heat pumps.
But the underground infrastructure lasts 50 years or more, and the systems pay for themselves in fuel-cost savings more quickly in places that endure frostier temperatures, including Rocky Mountain municipalities like Hayden. Those long-term cost benefits were too attractive to ignore, Mendisco said.
Hayden’s project “is 100% replicable today,” Mendisco told attendees at the event, which included leaders of other mountain towns. Geothermal tech is ready; the money is out there, he added: “You can do this.”
Colorado certainly believes that — and it’s giving first-mover communities a boost.
In October, the state energy office announced $7.3 million in merit-based tax-credit awards for four geothermal projects. Vail is getting nearly $1.8 million for a network, into which the ice arena can dump heat and the library can soak it up. Colorado Springs will use its $5 million award to keep a downtown high school comfortable year-round. Steamboat Springs and a Denver neighborhood will share the rest of the funding.
At least one other northwest Colorado coal community is also getting on board with geothermal. In the prior round of state awards, the energy office granted $58,000 to the town of Craig’s Memorial Regional Health to explore a project for its medical campus.
With dozens of communities warming to the notion, “it’s an exciting time for geothermal in Colorado,” said Bryce Carter, geothermal program manager at the state energy office.
So far, the state has pumped $30.5 million into geothermal developments — with over $27 million going toward heating-and-cooling projects specifically — through its grant and tax-credit programs. The larger tax-credit incentive still has about $13.8 million left in its coffers.
Hayden, for its part, is also taking advantage of the federal tax credits to save up to 50% on the cost of its geothermal district. That includes a 10% bonus credit that the community qualifies for because of its coal legacy. After also accounting for a bonanza of state incentives, the $14-million project will only be $2.2 million, Mendisco said.
Tech innovation could further improve geothermal’s prospects, even in areas with less generous inducements than Colorado’s. Bedrock Energy, for one, aims to drive down costs by using advanced sensing technology that allows it to see the subsurface and make computationally guided decisions while drilling.
“In Hayden, we have gone from about 25 hours for a 1,000-foot bore to about nine hours for a 1,000-foot bore — in just the last couple of months,” Joselyn Lai, Bedrock’s co-founder and CEO, told me at the event. Overall, the firm’s subsurface construction costs from the first quarter of 2025 to the second quarter fell by about 16%, she noted.
When drilling, Bedrock Energy harnesses a constant stream of data to navigate underground obstacles from boulders to fractures. (Alison F. Takemura/Canary Media)
Hayden is likely just at the start of its geothermal journey. If all goes well with the business park, the town aims to retrofit its municipal buildings with these systems to comply with the state’s climate-pollution limits on big buildings, Mendisco said. Hayden’s community center could be the first to get a geothermal makeover starting in 2027, he added.
Robinson, despite coal’s salience in the region and his family’s legacy in its extraction, believes in Hayden’s vision: Geothermal could be a winner in a post-coal economy. In fact, he’s interested in investing in the geothermal industry and installing a system in a new house he’s building, he said.
“I’ve lived a lot of my life making a living by exploiting natural resources. I understand the value of that — as well as lessening our impact and being able to find new and better,” Robinson said. “This is the next step, right?”
This article was originally published by Canary Media and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global effort to boost coverage of climate change.
The coal-fired Tri-State Generation and Transmission plant in Craig provides much of the power used in Western Colorado, including in Aspen and Pitkin County. Will Toor, executive director of the Colorado Energy Office has a plan to move the state’s electric grid to 100 percent renewable energy by 2040. Photo credit: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
Platte River Power Authority’s general manager says he disagrees with a federal order requiring one of the coal plants it owns a stake in to remain open past its scheduled retirement and is waiting to learn what it might cost Fort Collins’ wholesale electricity provider…PRPA is a joint owner of the plant with PacifiCorp, Xcel Energy, Salt River Project and Tri-State Generation and Transmission, which operates the facility. PRPA owns 18% of the Craig 1 and 2 coal units…
The Department of Energy’s emergency order contends there is a shortage of electric energy and facilities in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council Northwest assessment area, which includes Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The order, signed by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, states that peak demand in the area is expected to grow 8.5% in the next decade, while many coal plants in the region have been retired, with more retirements planned…Wright cites supply chain issues with building battery storage systems to help replace the energy from those retirements. The emergency order also cited two executive orders from President Donald Trump. One declared a national energy emergency due to “insufficient energy production, transportation, refining, and generation.” The other declares the United States is experiencing an unprecedented surge in electricity demand driven by rapid technological advancements, like the expansion of AI data centers and domestic manufacturing…
But PRPA General Manager and CEO Jason Frisbie says PRPA does not need the Craig 1 unit because it has already replaced the energy that came from it.
“We have planned for the retirement of Craig Unit 1 for nearly a decade and have proactively replaced the capacity and energy from new sources,” Frisbie said in a statement provided to the Coloradoan.
Colorado State University researcher Perry Cabot talks to a group about forage crops at the Fruita field station. Cabot studies the effects of irrigation withdrawal and forage crops that use less water. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
The findings of recent water-conservation studies on the Western Slope could have implications for lawmakers and water managers as they plan for a future with less water.
Researchers from Colorado State University have found that removing irrigation water from high-elevation grass pastures for an entire season could have long-lasting effects and may not conserve much water compared with lower-elevation crops. Western Slope water users prefer conservation programs that don’t require them to withhold water for the entire irrigation season, and having the Front Range simultaneously reduce its water use may persuade more people to participate. Researchers also found that water users who are resistant to conservation programs don’t feel much individual responsibility to contribute to what is a Colorado River basinwide water shortage.
“It’s not a simple economic calculus to get somebody to the table and get them to sign a contract for a conservation agreement,” said Seth Mason, a Carbondale-based hydrologist and one of the researchers. “It involves a lot of nuance. It involves a lot of thinking about tradeoffs.”
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Over the past 25 years, a historic drought and the effects of climate change have robbed the Colorado River of its flows, meaning there is increasing competition for a dwindling resource. In 2022, water levels in Lake Powell fell to their lowest point ever, prompting federal officials to call on the seven states that share the river for unprecedented levels of water conservation.
The Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) have experimented for the past decade with pilot programs that pay agricultural water users to voluntarily and temporarily cut back by not irrigating some of their fields for a season or part of a season.
The most recent program was the federally funded System Conservation Pilot Program, which ran in the Upper Basin in 2023 and 2024, and saved about 100,000 acre-feet of water at a cost of $45 million. The Upper Basin has been facing mounting pressure to cut back on its use, and although some type of future conservation program seems certain, Upper Basin officials say conservation must be voluntary, not mandatory.
Despite dabbling in these pilot conservation programs, Upper Basin water managers have resisted calls for cuts, saying their water users already suffer shortages in dry years and blaming the plummeting reservoirs on the Lower Basin states (California, Nevada and Arizona). Plus, the Upper Basin has never used its entire allocation of 7.5 million acre-feet a year promised to it under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, while the Lower Basin uses more than its fair share.
Sketches by Floyd Dominy show the way he’d end the Glen Canyon Dam. From the article “Floyd Dominy built the Glen Canyon Dam, then he sketched its end on a napkin” on the Salt Lake Tribune website
But as climate change continues to fuel shortages, makes a mockery of century-old agreements and pushes Colorado River management into crisis mode, the Upper Basin can no longer avoid scrutiny about how it uses water.
“We need a stable system in order to protect rivers,” said Matt Rice, director of the Southwest region at environmental group American Rivers, which helped fund and conduct the research. “(Upper Basin conservation) is not a silver bullet. But it’s an important contributing factor, it’s politically important and it’s inevitable.”
Researchers from Colorado State University used this monitoring station to track water use on fields near Kremmling. Researchers have found that Western Slope water users are more likely to participate in conservation programs if there is a corresponding Front Range match in water use reduction. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Findings
Papers by the researchers outline how water savings on Colorado’s high-elevation grass pastures — which represent the majority of irrigated acres on the Western Slope — are much less than on lower-elevation fields with other annual crops. Elevation can be thought of as a proxy for temperature; fewer frost-free days means a shorter growing season and less water use by the plants.
“Our results suggest that to get the equivalent conserved consumptive-use benefit that you might achieve on one acre of cornfield in Delta would require five acres of grass pasture if you were up near Granby, for example,” said Mason, who is a doctoral candidate at CSU. “This is a pretty important constraint as we’re thinking about what it means to do conservation in different locations across the West Slope.”
In addition to the science of water savings, Mason’s research also looked at the social aspects of how water users decide to participate in conservation programs. He surveyed 573 agricultural water users across the Western Slope and found that attitudes toward conservation and tendencies toward risk aversion — not just how much money was offered — played a role in participation.
Many who said they would not participate had a low sense of individual responsibility to act and a limited sense of agency that they could meaningfully contribute to a basinwide problem.
If you don’t pay attention to the attitudes of water users, you could end up with an overly rosy picture of the likelihood of participation, Mason said.
“It may do well to think less about how you optimize conservation contracts on price and do more thinking about how you might structure public outreach campaigns to change hearts and minds, how you might shift language as a policymaker,” he said. “A lot of the commentary that we hear around us is that maybe this isn’t our problem, that this is the Lower Basin’s problem. [ed. emphasis mine] The more you hear that, the less likely you are to internalize a notion of responsibility.”
Mason also found that a corresponding reduction in Front Range water use may boost participation by Western Slope water users. The fact that Front Range water providers take about 500,000 acre-feet annually from the headwaters of the Colorado River is a sore spot for many on the Western Slope, who feel the growth of Front Range cities has come at their expense. These transmountain diversions can leave Western Slope streams depleted.
Western Slope water users often describe feeling as if they have a target on their back as the quickest and easiest place to find water savings.
“I think they tend to be appreciative of notions that have some element of burden sharing built into them,” Mason said. “So they aren’t the only ones being looked at to contribute as part of a solution to a problem.”
Perry Cabot, a CSU researcher who studies the effects of irrigation withdrawal and forage crops that use less water, headed up a study on fields near Kremmling to see what happens when they aren’t irrigated for a full season or part of a season. The findings showed that fields where irrigation water was removed for the entire season produced less hay, even several years after full irrigation was resumed. Fields where water was removed for only part of the season had minimal yield loss and faster recovery.
“In the full season, you can have a three-year legacy effect, so that’s where the risk really comes in if you’re a producer participating in these programs,” Cabot said. “For three years after, you’re not getting paid even though you’ve diminished that yield.”
At the CSU research station in Fruita, Cabot is studying a legume called sainfoin, a forage crop and potentially an alternative to grass or alfalfa. He said sainfoin shows promise as a drought-tolerant crop that can be cut early in the season, allowing producers to have their cake and eat it too: They could maintain the income from growing a crop, avoid some of the worst impacts of a full-season fallowing, and still participate in a partial-season conservation program.
“I’d like to see flexible options that allow us to think about conservation happening on fields that still have green stuff out there,” Cabot said.
This field near Kremmling participated in an early study on the effects of removing irrigation water. Researchers found the effects of full-season fallowing can have lasting impacts. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Part of the solution
The Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District has been one of the loudest voices weighing in on conservation in recent years, helping to fund Cabot’s and Mason’s studies, as well as conducting its own. The River District, which represents 15 counties on the Western Slope, is not a fan of conservation programs, but it has long accepted their inevitability. It has advocated for local control and strict guidelines around a program’s implementation to avoid negative impacts to rural agricultural communities.
River District General Manager Andy Mueller said there is still a lot of resistance to a conservation program in Colorado — especially if the saved water is being used downstream to fuel the growth of residential subdivisions, computer-chip factories and data centers in Arizona. In addition to wanting the Front Range to share their pain, Western Slope water users don’t want to make sacrifices for the benefit of the Lower Basin. [ed. emphasis mine]
“They want to be part of the solution, but they don’t want to suffer so that others can thrive,” Mueller said. “That’s what I keep hearing over and over again from our producers on the ground: They are willing to step up, but they want everybody to step up with them.”
Water experts agree Upper Basin conservation is not a quick solution that will keep the system from crashing. Complicated questions remain about how to make sure the conserved water gets to Lake Powell and how a program would be funded.
And as recent studies show, the tricky social issues that influence program participation, multiseason impacts to fields when water is removed and the scant water savings from high-elevation pastures mean the state may struggle to contribute a meaningful amount of water to the Colorado River system through a conservation program.
“If the dry conditions continue, it’s hard to produce the volumes of water that make a difference in that system,” Mueller said. “But are we willing to try? Absolutely. It has to be done really carefully.”
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Nick Coltrain). Here’s an excerpt:
December 31, 2025
House Resolution 131, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, both of Colorado, sought to jumpstart a project that has languished since 1962. The bill, one of two vetoed by Trump on Tuesday, would extend the repayment period for the project and lower the interest rate. It passed both chambers of Congress by voice vote earlier this year…Trump, who has recently lashed out at Colorado for a slew of grievances, cited the project’s $1.3 billion price tag and said it was supposed to be paid for by local municipalities — not the federal government — in his veto statement…
9News first reported the veto. In a statement to the news station, Boebert said, “If this administration wants to make its legacy blocking projects that deliver water to rural Americans, that’s on them.” She also told the network that she hopes “this veto has nothing to do with political retaliation for calling out corruption and demanding accountability. Americans deserve leadership that puts people over politics.”
Boebert, a Republican representing Colorado’s 4th Congressional District and a longtime ally of the president, recently broke with him by voting to mandate the release of the so-called Epstein files, a trove of documents about the notorious sex criminal with longtime ties to Trump. Trump has also singled out Colorado for retribution over the state’s imprisonment of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters.
Chris Woodka, senior policy and issues manager at the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which is overseeing the project, said his team is working with Colorado’s congressional delegation on next steps.
Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.
Click the link to read the article on the Associated Press website (Michelle l. Price and Meg Kinnard). Here’s an excerpt:
President Donald Trump issued the first vetoes of his second term on Tuesday, rejecting two low-profile bipartisan bills, a move that had the effect of punishing backers who had opposed the president’s positions on other issues. Trump vetoed drinking water pipeline legislation from Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, a longtime ally who broke with the president in November to release files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He also vetoed legislation that would have given the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida more control of some of its tribal lands. The tribe was among groups suing the administration over an immigration detention center in the Everglades known as “ Alligator Alcatraz.” Both bills had bipartisan support and had been noncontroversial until the White House announced Trump’s vetoes Tuesday night…
Trump did not allude to Boebert in his veto of her legislation, but raised concerns about the cost of the water pipeline at the heart of that bill. Boebert, one of four House Republicans who sided with House Democrats early on to force the release of the Epstein files, shared a statement on social media suggesting that the veto may have been “political retaliation.” Boebert’s legislation, the “Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act,” aimed to improve access to clean drinking water in eastern Colorado.
Craig Station. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
December 31, 2025
Trump orders Craig coal unit planned for retirement to stay open. But it so happens the unit is broken. Ludicrous says Polis team. Sierra Club challenges basis for emergency declaration.
It was no surprise. Tri-State Generation and Transmission has said for at least three months that it expected to get orders from the Trump administration to continue operating a coal-burning unit at Craig, in northwest Colorado, beyond its scheduled retirement on Dec. 31, 2025.
The order was posted at 6 p.m. MST Tuesday. Citing emergency authority claimed by President Donald Trump, Energy Secretary Chris Wright ordered the coal unit to remain in operation through March 2026. The order cited a sudden increase in demand for electricity, or a shortage of generation capacity.
The irony of the order is that it was issued when the 427-megawatt unit was out of operation, according to a statement issued by the office of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis.
“Ludicrously, the coal plant isn’t even operational right now, meaning repairs — to the tune of millions of dollars — just to get it running, all on the backs of rural Colorado ratepayers!” Polis said.
“Going backwards is an attempt to force local communities to foot the bill to extend plant operations and will cost energy consumers more. Today’s action flies in the face of this careful planning, is inconsistent with market forces, and will hurt Coloradans.”
The Polis team estimated continued operations would cost tens of millions of dollars “to keep a coal plant open that is broken and not needed.”
Tri-State, in a statement on Wednesday morning, explained that the unit “went into an outage” on Dec. 19, 2025, due to a mechanical failure of a valve. “Tri-State and the other co-owners will need to take the necessary steps to repair the valve in a timely manner,” the statement said.
“Tri-State has a policy of 100% compliance, and we will work with Unit 1 co-owners, and federal and state governments to determine the most cost-effective path to that end,” said Duane Highley, Tri-State CEO. “We are continuing to review the order to determine what this means for Craig Station employees and operations, and the financial impacts. As a not-for-profit cooperative, our membership will bear the costs of compliance with this order unless we can identify a method to share costs with those in the region. There is not a clear path for doing so, but we will continue to evaluate our options.”
As a result of the order, retaining Unit 1 will likely require additional investments in operations, repairs, maintenance and, potentially, fuel supply, all factors increasing costs, Tri-State said. “Tri-State is continuing to review the order to determine how best to comply while limiting the costs to its members, and the impacts to its employees and operations.”
Highley told Big Pivots in October that the wholesale supplier for cooperatives in Colorado and three other states did not need the electrical production at this time, as it is actually producing more than it needs.
Wright, in his order, No. 202-25-14, cited several justifications.
One justification was a 2024 report by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council that forecast growth of 8.5% in peak demand during the next decade in Colorado and several adjoining states.
The order also said that Tri-State and its co-owners — Fort Collins-based Platte River Power Authority, Phoenix-based Salt River Project, Salt Lake City-based PacifiCorp., and Denver-based Xcel Energy — “take all measures necessary” to ensure that Craig Unit 1 is available to operate at the direction of either Western Area Power Administration in its role as a balancing authority or the Southwest Power Pool West in its role as the reliability coordinator.
The Sierra Club emphasized the cost of operating Craig No. 1. It cited a recent report by Grid Strategies that found operating the unit past the retirement deadline will cost the plant owners $85 million per year. This is distinct from repairs that may be necessary.
“Trump is playing politics with coal,” said Margaret Kran-Annexstein, director of the Colorado chapter, in a statement issued shortly after the order was posted.
Matthew Gerhart, the senior attorney for the Sierra Club at its Denver office, had even stronger language in an interview with Big Pivots.
“I think this order is a joke even by this administration’s standards,” he said. “This is quite clearly just a political move. None of the documents they cite even come close to saying there is an emergency.”
Wright’s order cited the 2025-2026 Winter Reliability Assessment issued by the North America Electric Reliability Corporation. That report in November noted total and net internal demand increases of almost 1% driven primarily by data centers and commercial and industrial customer growth. Even so, the operating reserve margins in the Rocky Mountain were expected to be met before imports in all winter scenarios.
That being said, Xcel Energy almost a year ago began expressing concerns about resource adequacy.
Gerhart also found fault with Wright’s order that the unit be available to operate at the direction of the Southwest Power Pool West in its role as the reliability coordinator. SPP exists, but not the configuration — a regional transmission organization — that would allow SPP to do this, he said. SPP has a day-ahead market and also a balancing market but not the apparatus set up to manage the operation of Craig No. 1, he said.
Will Toor, director of the Colorado Energy Office, also pointed to the report from the North America Reliability Corporation that found no short-term or long-term elevated reliability risks in the Rocky Mountain region,
“These orders will take money out of the pockets of Colorado ratepayers, and especially harm rural communities across the West who could be forced to absorb the unnecessary excess costs required to keep this plant operational,” he said. “The Trump administration is engaging in Soviet-style central planning, driven by ideology rather than the realities of the electric grid, that will drive dirtier air and higher electric rates across our state. These orders are unlawful and will not improve energy security in Colorado or the region.”
Trump has claimed authority to order coal plants remain in operation under the Federal Power Act. That nearly century-old law explicitly gives presidents authority to order electrical plants to operate under duress of war or weather emergencies. Since last April, Trump has sought to expand the power, citing emergencies caused by concerns about resource adequacy. The concerns, he has said, result from retiring fossil fuel and nuclear plants, dramatic growth in demand, and the intermittency of renewables.
U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, a gubernatorial candidate, also pushed back: “The DOE order is the latest in a string of attacks against Colorado, because we refuse to bend to the President. President Trump continues to take out his personal and political grievances on Coloradans who are already struggling to make ends meet. Federal intervention like this makes long-term planning impossible – this is not how you operate a business, plan an electric grid, or help a community stay prosperous. I am disappointed but not surprised by this continued revenge tour.”
Wright’s order said that 417.3 megawatts of coal-fired generating capacity across six units at three locations have retired in Colorado since 2019. It cited the Western Electricity Coordinating Council. “Looking forward, by 2029, about 3,700 megawatts of coal-fired generating capacity in Colorado is scheduled to be retired.” The order said that during that time, 675.6 megawatts of natural gas-fired generating capacity in Colorado will retire as well.
Wind turbines near Pawnee Buttes in northeastern Colorado. Photo/Allen Best
In 2025, wind accounted for over 5,300 megawatts of Colorado’s electricity generating capacity, the order noted.
Wright’s order described wind as intermittent. Of course, coal can be intermittent, too. That has been demonstrated repeatedly at Pueblo, particularly in the case of Comanche 3. The coal unit went down again in August and is not expected to be restored into operation until June 2026. In its absence, Xcel asked — and the Polis administration agreed — that Comanche 2 would not be retired this month, as had been planned for several years.
As for Craig No. 1, its retirement was planned in an agreement reached almost a decade ago. Air quality standards in Rocky Mountain National Park and other national parks and wilderness areas are being violated in part because of emissions from the unit. The regional haze standards were federally created and state enforced. The agreement with the Colordo Air Quality Control Commission was reached in 2016.
Tri-State’s electric resource plan of 2023 showed adequate resources to maintain reliability on Tri-State’s system following the retirement of Craig No. 1 as well as two other units at Craig Station that are scheduled to close in 2028. Unit 2, which Tri-State owns with its other partners in Unit 1, has a capacity of 410 megawatts. Tri-State owns 100% of Unit 3, which has a capacity of 448 megawatts. The three units were constructed and went on line in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Colorado River water could enable a pumped storage hydropower project intended to make the region’s electric grid more resilient.
KEY POINTS
One of the longest-duration pumped storage hydropower projects in the country is proposed for Navajo Nation land in the Four Corners region.
The project received a $7.1 million Department of Energy grant this year for feasibility studies.
Pumped storage hydropower is the largest form of energy storage in the U.S.
Standing in a breezy parking lot on Navajo land in the state’s far northwest corner, Tom Taylor looked toward the western horizon and then upwards at the furrowed mass of the Carrizo Mountains less than 10 miles away.
If all goes to plan, the infrastructure that could one day spill from the mountain’s flanks and through its core will become an essential piece of the region’s electric grid, able to store surplus electricity from renewable energy and other power sources for when it is needed later.
Fighting the wind that chilly November morning, Taylor used both hands to pin a detailed map against the hood of his Porsche Macan. A jumble of dashed lines and blue splotches representing proposed power lines, reservoirs, a water-supply pipeline, and access roads were printed atop the real-world geography on display in front of us.
“This will be a battery that lasts a long time,” Taylor said, holding tightly to the map.
JOAN CARSTENSEN
The project is the $5 billion Carrizo Four Corners Pumped Storage Hydro Center, which is designed to be one of the largest long-duration energy storage projects in the country. Pumped storage moves water between two reservoirs at different elevations. Water is pumped uphill when excess electricity is available and released to generate electricity when power demand warrants it.
Taylor, a former mayor of Farmington and a state House representative from 2000 to 2014, is employed by Kinetic Power, the three-person, Santa Fe-based outfit behind the Carrizo proposal. The company sees the project as a way to make the region’s electric grid more durable and cost-effective, not only by smoothing the intermittent nature of wind and solar but also as a bulwark against energy emergencies like the winter storm in 2021 that caused blackouts and 246 deaths in Texas. The twinned reservoirs, using water sourced from a Colorado River tributary nearby, would have the capacity to generate 1,500 megawatts over 70 hours – a form of battery that could provide the equivalent output of a large nuclear plant for nearly three days.
“We believe that the key is delivering economic value,” said Thomas Conroy, Kinetic Power’s co-founder, who has four decades of experience developing energy projects.
What seems straightforward when placing lines on a map is much less so in three dimensions. Carrizo Four Corners, which is still in the exploratory stage and is at least five years away from breaking ground, has nearly as many questions as answers at this point. What is the geology within the Carrizo Mountains? Will it support a 3,300-foot-deep shaft, a subterranean powerhouse, and dam abutments? How will drought affect the water supply? What cultural sites and wildlife might be at risk from construction? What are the power market dynamics?
Answering those questions is the goal of a $7.1 million, two-and-a-half-year Department of Energy grant that Kinetic and its six university and research partners secured in August. (The state of New Mexico and the research partners are also contributing $7.1 million.) On the political side, will future Navajo administrations feel as favorably toward Carrizo as current president Buu Nygren?
The technical questions are but one piece of an ambitious project that touches many of the most pressing questions about natural resources in the American West today: energy development, water use, and the relationship between federal law and tribal law.
Connecting Water and Energy
Though the details are still to be worked out, the project can be described in broad strokes.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees federal hydropower licensing, granted Kinetic a preliminary permit in 2021. In February 2025 FERC extended the permit, which allows for site investigations but no construction work, for another four years.
The company envisions two “off-channel” reservoirs that would not dam a flowing river. The lower reservoir will be near Beclabito. The upper, in the high reaches of the Carrizo Mountains. Both are on Navajo land, but on different sides of the Arizona-New Mexico border.
The powerhouse that holds the electricity-generating turbines will be located underground, some 3,300 feet below the upper reservoir. Some of the longest pumped storage tunnels in the country will be required to connect the reservoirs and the powerhouse.
Despite the geotechnical challenges, Conroy is particularly enthused by the site, which he said is the most optimal in Arizona and New Mexico – and possibly the entire country – to locate a pumped storage hydropower project.
The site stands out for four reasons, he said. It is near existing transmission corridors and grid connections due to the region’s legacy of enormous coal-fired power plants. And it will have a comparatively low capital cost for the energy it will produce.
The other two reasons relate to water. Because of the extreme height differential between the upper and lower reservoirs – almost three Empire State Buildings – less water will be required to produce a unit of energy than for reservoirs with a gentler gradient. And because the upper reservoir site is a deep canyon, surface area and thus evaporation will be minimized.
“Water is just top of mind here in the Southwest,” Conroy said. “And our project is as water-efficient as can be made.”
Water to fill the reservoirs would be drawn from the San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado, via pipeline. The water would come from the Navajo Nation’s San Juan rights, which have been quantified but are not fully used.
How much water? In its FERC permit application, Kinetic estimated that the initial fill, which will take one and a half to two years, would require 38,300 acre-feet. To cover subsequent evaporation losses, the reservoirs would need to be topped up with 2,635 acre-feet per year. Those numbers will be refined in the feasibility studies.
“It’s what, about 1,300 acres of corn?” Taylor said, doing a rough mental calculation of the equivalent water consumption for the annual evaporation loss. “I think this is more valuable than 1,300 acres of corn.”
Saving for Tomorrow
So far the project has threaded the federal government’s fraught energy politics. The Trump administration is hostile to wind and solar, which in their eyes reek of liberal values. Two water-based technologies – hydropower and geothermal – have escaped condemnation and are listed in the administration’s energy dominance documents. The DOE grant that Carrizo secured is a holdover from the Biden administration’s infrastructure bill, which provided up to $10 million for feasibility studies for pumped storage projects that would store renewable energy generated on tribal lands.
Storage is the holy grail of renewable energy. Human civilization has advanced, from the dawn of agriculture to the artificial intelligence revolution today, by being able to carry a surplus from one season and one year to the next. So it is with wind and solar. To maximize their utility and counteract their intermittent nature, engineers have been searching for cost-effective ways to store energy when the sun shines and when the wind blows for the days when neither of those things happen.
“If you want to improve the resiliency of the system, you either build more firm capacity instead of more renewable, or you build longer storage,” said Fengyu Wang, a New Mexico State University assistant professor who is the principal investigator for the DOE grant.
Storage has taken many forms. Some are fantastic mechanical configurations – lifting heavy objects and dropping them, or forcing air into caverns and releasing it. Thermal options use molten salt to trap the sun’s heat. The most familiar are batteries, which leverage chemical energy. But the most common, at least in the U.S., is pumped storage hydropower.
The 43 pumped storage facilities in the U.S. represent the bulk of the country’s utility-scale energy storage. They accounted for 88 percent of the total in 2024, according to Oak Ridge National Laboratory. That is changing quickly, however, as more battery storage comes online. The share for pumped storage was 96 percent in 2022.
Still, long-duration storage is where pumped storage shines. According to Oak Ridge, the median battery storage is two hours. For pumped storage, it is 12 hours. Longer duration provides more buffer, not only from day to day but also season to season.
In that regard, Carrizo would signify a huge leap. The only comparable pumped storage project under consideration in the U.S. is Cat Creek, in Idaho. Even though its duration is 121 hours, its generating capacity is less than half, at 720 megawatts.
Carrizo will have a different use case than other U.S. pumped storage projects, Conroy said. Many facilities have one customer and one generator. A nuclear plant, for instance, might be paired with a pumped storage system so that the nuclear plant can run continuously.
For Carrizo, there might be a consortium of utilities that have multiple generating sources feeding into this project and moving the water uphill. They would take delivery of that power across a large region with different climatic conditions and different needs for when and how they use the stored power. That means operating the facility will be more complicated than a traditional pumped storage project. One thing is certain, Conroy said: the Navajo will have an equity stake.
Tribal Outlook
Caution on the part of the Navajo would be understandable. The tribe’s lands have long been the center of energy developments with environmentally ruinous but economically helpful outcomes.
Uranium mining to fuel the Manhattan Project and then the nation’s reactors polluted rivers and groundwater, as did the coal mines that fed Four Corners Power Plant and the now-shuttered Navajo Generating Station and San Juan Generating Station. On the other hand, these developments provided employment and income. Navajo Mine, which supplies Four Corners Power Plant, accounts for about 35 percent of the Navajo Nation’s general fund.
Navajo and other tribal lands in the Four Corners region have been the target for a handful of pumped storage proposals in recent years. The Navajo Nation opposed three projects proposed for the Little Colorado River watershed, which were either withdrawn by the developer or denied a permit by FERC. Two other projects – Carrizo and Sweetwater, both using San Juan River water – are still in development. Sweetwater, a smaller project with eight hours duration, is being co-developed with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. A third project, Western Navajo Pumped Storage, which would be located near the former Navajo Generating Station, received a FERC preliminary permit in August.
Carrizo has not run into the same level of opposition as the other proposals. In part that is due to the proposed use of the San Juan River instead of groundwater, said Erika Pirotte, an assistant attorney general in the Navajo Nation’s water rights unit. Many Navajo communities rely on groundwater, and using it for pumped storage was viewed as unreasonable.
The lack of strong opposition is also because of Kinetic’s engagement with the Navajo Nation. The company has held meetings with the Beclabito, Red Valley, and Teec Nos Pos chapters, in addition to meetings with Navajo Nation agencies and Buu Nygren, the Navajo Nation president. Kinetic has a memorandum of understanding with Nygren, who also signed a letter of support for the project’s DOE grant application.
“We have the support of the council,” Conroy said. “We have a very high level of support from the president, and he is just extraordinarily interested in this project and seeing that it moves forward.”
From the Navajo perspective, what is interesting are the “ancillary benefits” that could come from the water supply pipeline, Pirotte said. Once the reservoirs are filled and the pipeline’s full capacity is not needed, the extra space could be repurposed for tribal water supply uses.
“That’s why the feasibility studies are really important for the Nation, because they help us understand to what extent Navajo Nation resources would be used for the project,” Pirotte said.
None of this is immediately around the corner, Conroy cautions. The DOE grant extends for more than two years. The FERC permitting process could be another two to four years. With Congress and the Trump administration talking about faster permitting and better coordination, that timeline is a best guess.
And then there is the question of tribal authority in the permitting process, not just for the Carrizo project but for other such developments. Will FERC abide by its 2024 stance that preliminary permits for hydropower projects on tribal lands require tribal consent? The Trump administration would like to see that policy scrapped. If FERC approves a project must a tribe assent to all the associated infrastructure? Will the Navajo be allowed to conduct reviews and issue permits?
And then there is construction, the biggest component. That will take four to six years, Conroy said.
Even on an ambitious timeline, Carrizo is not operating until the mid-2030s.
“I’m 77,” Taylor said. “I probably won’t see it.”
This story was produced by Circle of Blue, in partnership with The Water Desk at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Center for Environmental Journalism.
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
Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral website (Debra Utacia Krol). Here’s an excerpt:
December 29, 2025
Key Points
A new intertribal land trust has acquired 10,000 acres of land along the Klamath River from former dam operator PacifiCorp.
The land transfer is a key step in restoring the river basin’s ecosystem following the removal of four dams.
Indigenous values and traditional practices will guide the restoration of the land, which includes important salmon habitat.
Another milestone in restoring the Klamath River Basin has been reached. A new land trust received title to land on Dec. 22 that includes important salmon habitat and lands upstream of and adjacent to four now-removed dams and the shallow reservoirs that impeded fish and nurtured deadly algae in northern California and southern Oregon. The Klamath Indigenous Land Trust was formed by a coalition of members from four basin tribes after the historic 2002 fish kill to remove the dams as the beginning of a long-term effort to restore health to one of the West’s most imperiled rivers. PacifiCorp, the previous landowner and former hydropower operator, agreed to sell 10,000 acres to the land trust to return stewardship to the tribes who fought for decades to remove the dams as the first step in river recovery. Indigenous values and millennial-long practices which once made the basin one of the West Coast’s largest salmon habitats will direct the job of restoring the ecology of the area, which is the size of West Virginia. The Catena Foundation, the Community Foundation of New Jersey and an anonymous donor provided the funding for the purchase, which is one of the largest such purchases by an Indigenous-led land trust to date…
“Dam removal allowed the salmon to return home,” said Molli Myers, the land trust’s board president and member of the Karuk Tribe. “Returning these lands to Indigenous care ensures that home will be a place where they can flourish and recover.”
“PacifiCorp is pleased to see these lands transition to a stewardship model that honors their cultural and ecological significance,” said Ryan Flynn, president of Pacific Power, the division of PacifiCorp that serves customers in the Northwest.
Workers raise dam 109 feet in 2025. Next year’s goal: Reaching the top.
The Denver Water team working on Gross Dam in Boulder County is celebrating a successful year after the dam raise is 95% complete.
“In 2025, we raised the height of the dam by 109 feet above the original structure,” said Jeff Martin, Denver Water’s program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. “We have 22 feet left to go to reach the new height and we’re on track to reach that in 2026.”
The dam-raising aspect of the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project wrapped up for the season on Nov. 14, due to the drop in temperatures. The project is designed to nearly triple the water storage capacity of Gross Reservoir.
In 2025, workers raised the height of Gross Dam by 109 feet. The final 22 feet will be completed in 2026 to reach the dam’s new height of 471 feet. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“We have to stop placing roller-compacted concrete when the temperatures drop below freezing,” said Casey Dick, deputy program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.
“To prepare for winter, we put blankets on top of the new concrete to keep it from getting too cold. That’s because if the concrete freezes while it is still curing, it can lead to a weakened final product.”
Work associated with the dam raise will resume in spring 2026, when the weather warms up enough to complete the final 22 feet.
Protective “blankets” were placed on top of the dam to insulate the new concrete, so it does not fully cure over the cold, winter months. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Once that work is complete, the dam will be 471 feet tall, which is 131 feet higher than the original. The completed dam also will be longer across its crest, or top. The original crest was 1,050 feet long; the higher dam will have a crest that stretches 2,040 feet from one side of the canyon to the other.
This year marked the second year of dam raising construction work at Gross.
As of December 2025, workers had placed more than 730,000 cubic yards of concrete. To put that in perspective, Empower Stadium at Mile High, where the Denver Broncos play their home football games, required just 29,000 cubic yards of concrete to build, about 4% of the concrete placed so far on Gross Dam.
Protective “blankets” were placed on top of the dam to insulate the new concrete, so it does not fully cure over the cold, winter months. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Roller-compacted concrete is a special mix of concrete that allows crews to place it on the dam and then spread it out. The concrete is firm enough to be able to drive machinery on top of it. The process is a fast and efficient method of raising the dam. During the construction work, crews raised the height of the dam by about 1 foot per day.
Construction crews use GPS technology and survey equipment to keep track of how high they’ve raised the dam.
“The way we keep track of the elevation gain is that the bulldozers are equipped with GPS-grade control technology, which ensures that each layer of concrete is spread to the correct thickness,” Dick said.
“Once the concrete is rolled and vibrated into place, each layer ends up being 1 foot thick. It’s then checked by surveyors with their equipment to verify the exact elevation.”
The bulldozers are equipped with GPS-grade control technology to monitor the height of the concrete as it is spread across the top of the dam and keep track of the elevation. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Work won’t completely stop over the winter.
Mechanical and pipe work will be done inside the dam, and crews will build a stilling basin at the base of the dam. The basin’s function is to slow the speed of water coming down the dam’s spillway and safely redirect the water into South Boulder Creek.
Work on the stilling basin at the base of the dam will continue over the winter. The stilling basin is designed to slow the flow of water coming down the spillway and channel it into the creek. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“This season was a huge success, and our team met a ton of challenges in raising Gross Dam,” Martin said. “We had legal challenges and adverse weather challenges. We also had wildfire safety operation challenges that shut down our power supply up here. Despite all those setbacks, the dedicated team of 500 men and women rose to the challenge. I’d just like to thank everybody who committed themselves to this project and helped us make 2025 a success.”
Jeff Martin, Denver Water’s program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, stands at the south side of the dam. Once completed, the dam will reach up to white line on the rock wall. Photo credit: Denver Water.
The Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference met in Las Vegas [December 16-18, 2025]. Each year, over a thousand government officials, members of the press, municipal water district leaders, water engineers, ranchers, and tribal members meet to discuss the management of the mighty Colorado River. Hanging over the three-day conference was a stalemate between the upper and lower basin states over how to manage the Colorado River after current operational guidelines expire at the end of 2026.
Throughout the conference, the states’ inability to reach a consensus deal produced ripple effects. The stalemate held back progress on both near term shortage concerns (experts predict that Lake Powell will be only 28% full at the end of the ’25-’26 water year) and long-range planning, such as the development of the next “Minute” agreement between the United States and Mexico.
The closing act of CRWUA 2025 was an orderly (and familiar) report from each of the basin states’ principal negotiators that their state is stretched thin but remains committed to finding a consensus agreement. This final session had no discussion or Q&A. The basin states now have until February 14th to provide the Bureau of Reclamation with their consensus deal, which would presumably be added to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) draft that is expected to be released in early January. With time running short, many worry that public participation in the EIS process – vital to informed decision-making – will be greatly reduced.
Still, as Rhett Larson of Arizona State University said on the first day of the conference, “Desert rivers bring people together.” Tribal governments continue to innovate in the areas of conservation and storage, even in spite of ongoing challenges to meaningful access of federally reserved tribal water rights. For instance, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, or CRIT, shared news of a Resolution and Water Code recently passed by their Tribal Council which work together to recognize the Colorado River’s personhood under Tribal law. This provides CRIT with a holistic framework for on-reservation use and requires the consideration of the living nature of the Colorado River in off-reservation water leasing decisions. John Bezdek, who represented CRIT at the conference, put it this way: “If laws are an expression of values, then this tribal council is expressing to the world the importance of protecting and preserving the lifeblood of the Colorado River.” Among others, Celene Hawkins of The Nature Conservancy and Kate Ryan of the Colorado Water Trust also shared about the unique, and often unlikely, partnerships formed to protect stream flows and the riparian environment across the Colorado River basin.
Notwithstanding the basin states’ current deadlock, one theme rang true at CRWUA 2025: Despite the dire hydrologic and administrative realities facing decision-makers today, the Colorado River continues to bring unlikely parties together.
Left to right: Becky Mitchell, Tom Buschatzke, Brandon Gebhart, John Entsminger, Keith Burron, Gene Shawcroft, JB Hamby, Estevan López. Photo credit: Yes To Tap via X (Twitter)
The single most important gathering of Colorado River Basin officials came and went — with no significant announcements regarding the often frustrating yet crucial seven-state negotiations for how to divvy up the river over the next 20 years…Here are three takeaways as the states wrestle with basinwide overuse of water, declining river flows due to a warming world and how to meet the federal government’s Valentine’s Day deadline for a consensus-based deal.
States far from deal — with less than 60 days left
Unlike last year’s conference, the seven states agreed to sit on a panel that was added to the agenda for the last day. The ballroom was still packed for the early morning session. That’s because the stakes are high for states to meet Burgum’s Feb. 14 deadline for a seven-state agreement. Should they not deliver one, Burgum could intervene and states are likely to sue. The Lower Basin states have agreed to shoulder the brunt of a massive deficit the system faces that totals 1.5 million acre-feet, or almost 489 billion gallons. However, the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming say they don’t have more water to give should cuts in their jurisdictions become necessary. Conflicts exist with state laws, too…
Temporary deal could be on the table to avoid courtroom
Nevada’s governor-appointed negotiator, John Entsminger, spoke last on the panel and called out the other six states for failing to cede any ground on further conservation in their remarks. Without some compromise from each state on these long-standing arguments, the negotiations are “going nowhere,” he said. While the states have been expected up until this point to deliver a 20-year deal, Entsminger suggested on the panel that a temporary, five-year deal could be on the table to comply with the Feb. 14 deadline.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Poor outlook sending shockwaves throughout basin
The underlying issues of the Colorado River are making this moment much more precarious. Several experts presented a dismal picture for the system at large. Carly Jerla, senior water resource program manager at the Bureau of Reclamation, said the agency’s most recent projections place flows into Lake Powell anywhere between 44 percent to 73 percent of average this upcoming year. And since 2006, that replenishment of the reservoir has declined about 15 percent because of poor snow years, evaporative losses and more…
The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo. Annotations: Jonathan P. Thompson
Jack Schmidt, who leads the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University, has published several papers this year alongside a group of experts throughout the basin. By his estimation, should snowpack in the Rocky Mountains fail to impress again this winter, water managers may be blowing through a crucial buffer that ensures water can be released from Lake Powell into Lake Mead — and that hydropower generation can continue.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
A private development company is investing $150 million in an ambitious plan to harvest groundwater lying beneath sprawling northern Colorado ranches to serve fast-growing towns along the Interstate 25 corridor.
FrontRange H2O, backed by a Texas oil and real estate company, is behind the venture. The firm has been operating in Colorado for more than 20 years, treating and delivering wastewater from oil wells for oil industry reuse on the West Slope, and overseeing extensive real estate holdings in Denver and elsewhere, according to Brent Waller, who is president of the Loveland-based company.
“We were recycling produced water before it was cool,” Waller said. Produced water describes wastewater that is generated through oil production.
Experts say the large-scale, private urban water development is the first of its kind in Colorado and could help thirsty towns like Fort Collins and Loveland shore up their water systems.
But others worry that the privatization of water in the state could lead to price hikes and might also, because of its reliance on nonrenewable groundwater, undermine the state’s future water security.
Still, Front Range H20 believes its system will deliver water at less cost and sooner than other government-backed projects.
Until now, Colorado communities have relied on water that is captured, stored and treated by public, nonprofit water utilities, such as Denver Water. The agency is an independent entity governed by commissioners who are appointed by the Denver mayor. In other cases, cities operate their own water systems. Public entities such as these are required by law to regulate water rates, to issue bonds to finance their work, and they are subject to oversight by elected or appointed bodies.
But FrontRange H2O is a private company that is using millions of dollars in private financing to secure the water rights, obtain state permission to drill the groundwater wells, and to build a water treatment system and pipeline to carry the water. Although it must obtain state permission to drill the wells and build the water treatment plant, it is not subject to the same public oversight as a public government system would be.
“This kind of thing is common in Texas and Arizona, particularly with groundwater, but it is unique in Colorado,” said Adam Jokerst, Rocky Mountain regional director for WestWater Research, based in Fort Collins. Jokerst is a groundwater expert who has consulted with Front Range H2O on its northern Colorado plans.
FrontRange H2O refers to its current project as VitaH2O. Nine wells drilled into the aquifer are expected to generate up to 5,000 acre-feet of water initially, Waller said. An acre foot equals nearly 326,000 gallons of water and is eough to serve to two to four urban households for one year. The water will be treated at a new plant north of Nunn and then delivered down to Cobb Lake, a reservoir owned by the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, or FCLWD.
The district was in the news earlier this year when it opted out of a large-scale water and reservoir project run by Northern Water known as NISP, the Northern Integrated Supply Project. It will instead partner with VitaH2O.
Typical water well
As the project moves forward, Waller said FCLWD will contribute an additional $150 million to help complete the new water supply project. Chris Pletcher, general manager of FCLWD, declined an interview request. The water district was NISP’s largest customer and was on track to pay $400 million to help build the giant system.
Colorado derives most of its water supplies from melting snows that fill its streams and rivers, but large swaths of the state, including Douglas County, rely heavily on wells drilled deep into aquifers, many of which are not recharged through rain and snow.
As the state grows, the pressure to tap these nonrenewable waters is growing as well.
According to the Colorado Division of Water Resources, interest in drilling high producing groundwater wells in northern Colorado is growing.
“There has been more activity in this area in the last 10 years,” said Tracy Kosloff, deputy state engineer at Colorado’s Division of Water Resources.
Major players in the area include Front Range H2O and the city of Greeley, among others.
The interest in nonrenewable groundwater worries people like Steve Boand, a former Douglas County commissioner and water consultant who has watched his region’s nonrenewable groundwater supplies shrink as they are used by fast-growing towns like Parker and Castle Rock.
Any project that relies on nonrenewable groundwater is problematic, Boand said.
“In general, sustainable water supplies are the preferred source,” Boand said, noting that Douglas County water providers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to recycle water and tap rivers and streams to wean themselves off nonrenewable groundwater. Their hope is, eventually, to use their aquifers only in drought years when surface supplies are scarce.
And that is part of the plan with VitaH2O, Waller said. The project will use surface supplies that the Fort Collins-Loveland district already owns to recharge the aquifers they plan to withdraw water from, in hopes that the treated water being pumped back into the ground in wet years will extend the life of the nonrenewable aquifers.
Under Colorado water law, groundwater can be drilled by whomever owns the land above the aquifer, but they must demonstrate that they are extracting water gradually and must prove it will last at least 100 years.
Waller said he believes the surface supplies that VitaH2O will inject back into the aquifers in wet years will extend the life of the system beyond 100 years, to 300 years or more.
The location of the wellfield as seen in a PDF provided by the Vita H20 Project.
East of Waller’s development, the city of Greeley has already invested $85 million in developing an aquifer system under the Terry Ranch that will supply water in drought years and will also store treated water, according to Sean Chambers, Greeley’s director of water and sewer utilities.
“What you are seeing now is a new approach to diversifying surface water supplies with this deep aquifer, nonrenewable groundwater … and there is a rush on that,” Chambers said.
Looming in the background is Northern Water’s NISP project. It was originally designed to serve 15 entities, but three have already pulled out, including the largest, the Fort Collins-Loveland district. Waller said he is in talks with several other communities, including Wellington and Eaton, who are looking for an alternative to the costly $2.7 billion NISP, which will rely on renewable water supplies from the Poudre and South Platte rivers.
Brad Wind, general manager of Northern Water, said NISP’s growing cost is prompting long-time supporters to rethink their participation and that some will inevitably go with other providers, such as VitaH2O.
“People have some hard choices to make,” Wind said.
How much water is available to be mined from these aquifers isn’t clear yet, though developers such as Waller and Greeley have invested heavily in doing the hydrological analysis that gives them an estimate of what is available.
But overuse is a major concern and Chambers says that is a key issue the city is addressing as it develops its system.
“Collectively we will have to find ways over time to make sure that northern Colorado and other communities that rely on this water don’t just mine it to extinction … Greeley goes into this effort with our eyes very wide open about that,” Chambers said.
“This is a resource that should last for 10 generations or longer and provide a runway for public officials to figure out how to build resilience into all of our sources of supply,” he said.
Boand isn’t convinced that the recharge technologies and state rules designed to make the water last longer are going to be enough to protect the aquifers.
“Recharge has been somewhat successful but everybody has talked about it as if it is the great salvation, even though it is very much in the testing phase,” Boand said. “And it takes the same attention to detail that running a nuclear power plant takes … lots of engineers and lots of scientists.”
Another concern with having a private company develop a major public water supply is the stability of the company and the water system if the company should fail.
Waller says his company’s contracts provide protection for that possibility.
“If we go belly up, five years or 10 years down the road, the water districts and participants have the right to step in and take over the system. There are controls in place,” Waller said. They expect to deliver water in the first quarter of 2029.
As with most new water projects, developers go through a special court review where they must prove their water estimates are accurate and that their water use won’t harm others. Waller said his company’s water court application was filed in October.
And it is being closely watched.
Chambers, with the city of Greeley, is concerned that the VitaH2O project may impact the Terry Ranch project, which lies nearby. He said he expects to fight to defend Greeley’s rights and will object to anything he sees as threatening.
“We intend to be an objector in the water court process to protect our decree and our investments,” he said.
A new report from Colorado Law’s Colorado River Research Group warns the Colorado River Basin is “out of time,” describing conditions so severe they threaten the region’s water supply, economy and governance. Called “Colorado River Insights 2025: Dancing with Deadpool,” the report details a dire assessment of the basin’s worsening crisis and offers options for reform. According to the report, reservoirs that once stored four years of river flows are now more than two-thirds empty. The authors note a single dry year or two could push Lake Powell and Lake Mead below critical thresholds, jeopardizing hydropower, water deliveries, and even physical conveyance downstream. The report concludes that current operating rules through 2026 are unlikely to prevent this scenario.
“This report underscores that the basin is out of time, the crisis is no longer theoretical,” said Douglas Kenney, director of the Western Water Policy Program of the Getches-Wilkinson Center at the University of Colorado Law School and chair of the Colorado River Research Group.
“Post-2026 negotiations must produce durable, equitable, climate-realistic solutions — and they must do so urgently. The message is stark: the Colorado River system is now dancing with Deadpool.”
Among the key challenges:
Severe shortage risk: The authors warn that if the next two winters are dry, combined usable storage in Powell and Mead could fall below 4 million acre-feet — far short of what’s needed for water supply and compact obligations.
Climate-driven decline: Rising temperatures, shrinking snowpack efficiency and ocean-atmosphere interactions are reducing runoff and precipitation.
Safety nets collapsing: Groundwater reserves are rapidly depleting, while federal capacity — funding, staffing and science programs — are eroding. Interstate cooperation is fraying, and litigation may be on the table.
Authors stress that many challenges are self-inflicted and, in their view, solvable with technical, legal and financial tools already available.
Colorado River Basin Plumbing. Credit: Lester Doré/Mary Moran via Dustin Mulvaney and Twitter
The year is ending with the Colorado River at a critical juncture.
Figure 4. Graph showing active storage in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and in Powell+Mead between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies
The big reservoirs Mead and Powell remain perilously low and the seven states that share the basin have been unable to agree on cuts that would reduce their reliance on the shrinking river.
Reservoir operating rules expire at the end of 2026. If no agreement is reached the federal government could step in, or the states could take their chances in court. It’s a risky move that no one in principle seems to want. Yet brinkmanship and entrenched positions have stymied compromise.
Native America in the Colorado River Basin. Credit: USBR
The basin’s Indian tribes, which collectively have rights to more than a quarter of its recent average annual flow, are adamant that their interests – and more broadly, the river itself – be protected. “Any progress made in the negotiations to date is merely rationing a reduced supply, not actively managing and augmenting it as a shared resource with strategies and tools that can benefit the entire basin,” the leaders of the Gila River Indian Community wrote on November 12.
At Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada, “the National Park Service’s focus remains on sustaining boating access and visitor services across the park, including operations at Hemenway Harbor, Callville Bay Marina, Echo Bay, Temple Bar Marina, and South Cove to the extent feasible,” the National Parks Traveler was told.
“As part of that effort, construction began at Hemenway Harbor last summer to extend the launch ramp and help maintain access as conditions change. Lake levels are closely monitored, and NPS operations continue to be adjusted as needed to support safe recreation while protecting park resources,” the Park Service said.
Two years ago Lake Mead officials adopted a plan to “maintain recreational motorboat access in the event water declines to 950 feet.” As of Tuesday, the elevation was 1061.76 feet, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. At Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, which straddles the Utah-Arizona border, the Park Service has spent more than $100 million in recent years to extend boat ramps and relocate a takeout for river runners coming down the Colorado River through Canyonlands National Park.
Colorado River negotiators are seen, from left to right: Becky Mitchell (Colorado), Tom Buschatzke (Arizona), Brandon Gebhart (Wyoming), and John Entsminger (Nevada). (Photo by Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)
Western states that rely on the Colorado River have less than two months to agree on how to manage the troubled river – and pressure is mounting as the federal government pushes for a compromise and a troubling forecast for the river’s two biggest reservoirs looms.
Top water officials for the seven Colorado River Basin states — Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming — gathered for the three-day Colorado River Water Users Association conference at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas last week.
Colorado River states have until Feb. 14 to reach a new water sharing agreement before current operating rules expire at the end of 2026 —or the federal government will step in with their own plan.
Despite the fast-approaching deadline, states reiterated many of the same issues they did during previous years at the conference, namely, which water users will need to sacrifice more water to keep the Colorado River stable as overallocation, climate change, and rising demand sucks the river dry.
Nevada’s chief river negotiator and general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority John Entsminger offered a succinct but sharp assessment of the negotiations during a panel discussion Thursday.
“If you distill down what my six partners just said, I believe there’s three common things: Here’s all the great things my state has done. Here’s how hard/impossible it is to do any more. And here are all the reasons why other people should have to do more,” Entsminger said.
“As long as we keep polishing those arguments and repeating them to each other, we are going nowhere,” he continued.
The seven states that share the river’s flows have been deadlocked for nearly two years over how to govern the waterway through the coming decades — even as water levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell are forecasted to reach record lows after two straight years of disappointing snowpack across the West.
The Colorado River’s headwaters saw a weak snowpack last winter, contributing to one of the worst spring runoff seasons on record. Water flow into the river this year was only 56% of average, leading to significant reductions in Lake Powell, according to the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation.
Federal officials also released a troubling forecast of expected flows for the river in 2026, which were significantly lower than previous predictions. Projections from the Bureau of Reclamation found the Colorado River’s inflow next year would likely be 27% lower than normal, with worst-case scenarios predicting even lower flows.
Without a strong winter snow season, it’s possible Lake Powell’s levels could drop low enough to cease hydropower production by next October — a scenario that would also limit the department’s ability to send water downstream to Arizona, California and Nevada.
The federal government has refrained from imposing its own plan for the river, preferring the seven basin states reach consensus themselves. But the Interior Department has ramped up pressure on states to reach a deal.
The Bureau of Reclamation’s Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron said he and other federal officials have intensified efforts to bring states to a consensus, flying out West every other week since early April to meet with the seven states’ river negotiators.
“The expiration of the current agreements is not a distant horizon. It’s less than a year away. The time to act is now,” said Cameron.
Within the next few weeks, the Bureau of Reclamation will release a range of proposals to replace the river’s current operating rules, but said they would not identify which set of operating guidelines the federal government would prefer
During the conference, negotiators for the seven states repeated that they are still committed to finding a consensus despite missing previous deadlines. California’s biggest water districts said they were willing to “set aside many of their legal positions” in order to reach a seven-state agreement.
However, a long-term multidecade strategy for managing low river flows is likely out of reach.
“I went into this process…advocating strenuously for a 20- to 30-year deal,” said Entsminger. “I no longer believe that’s possible with the time we have left and with the hydrology that we’re facing.”
Entsminger said the “best possible outcome at this juncture” is a short-term five-year deal that sets new rules around water releases and storage at Lakes Powell and Mead.
During a panel of state negotiators, states highlighted water conservation efforts they have undertaken to reduce water use and protect the river, but all explained why their state can’t take on more cuts.
Figure 4. Graph showing active storage in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and in Powell+Mead between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies
“Our savings accounts are totally depleted,” said Utah’s’s river negotiator, Gene Shawcroft. “Reserviours were full when we started this process. They’re empty now.”
One of the biggest disagreements between the Upper and Lower Basin states is over which faction should have to cut back on their water use during dry years.
The Lower Basin – Nevada, Arizona, and California – have agreed to take the first 1.5 million acre-feet in water cuts needed to address deficits and evaporation that are reducing flows in the river, but say any additional cuts during dry years must be shared with upstream states. Under the current agreement, Lower Basin states must take mandetory cuts when water levels in Lakes Powell and Mead are low.
The Upper Basin, which is not subject to mandatory cuts under the current guidelines, say they already use much less water than downstream states and should not face additional cuts during shortages.
Any more cuts to water users in downstream states during dry years will be politically perilous, explained Arizona’s top negotiator, Tom Buschatzke. Arizona requires the state legislature to approve any changes to Colorado River management rules impacting the state.
Buschatzke called for the Upper Basin – Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah – to split any additional water cuts with the Lower Basin states 50-50.
“We need conservation in the Upper Basin that is verifiable and mandatory,” Buschatzke said, during the panel.
“I have to go to my legislature and get that approval,” he continued. “And I will say right now, I do not think there is anything on the table from the Upper Basin that would compel me to do that today.”
New Mexico’s river negotiator, Estevan López, responded, “I think we’ve been pretty clear. We are unwilling to require additional mandatory reductions on our water users.”
This story was originally produced by Nevada Current, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Stateline, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Click the link to read the report from “Dancing with Dead Poll” on the Getches-Wilkinson website (Jack Schmidt1, Anne Castle2, John Fleck3, Eric Kuhn4, Kathryn Sorensen5, Katherine Tara6) Here’s Chapter 1:
In Brief
The rains of mid-October caused significant flooding in the San Juan River basin and increased reservoir storage throughout that basin and in Lake Powell.7 However, basinwide reservoir storage remains low, and the October rainfall offerings were insufficient to alleviate the peril of declining overall water supply.
While the attention of the Basin’s water management community remains focused on the thus far unsuccessful effort to forge a seven-state agreement on future long-term operating rules, the Basin continues to face the risk of short-term crisis. If winter 2025-2026 is relatively dry and inflow to Lake Powell and other Upper Basin reservoirs is similar to that of 2024-2025, low reservoir levels in summer 2026 will challenge water supply management, hydropower production, and environmental river management. Under such a scenario, it is likely that less than 4 million acre feet in Lake Powell and Lake Mead would be realistically available for use during the nine months between late summer 2026 and the onset of snowmelt runoff in 2027. If winter 2026-2027 is also dry, water supply would be further constrained. The present reservoir operating rules that remain in place through 2026 are insufficient to avert this potential water supply crisis. Action to further reduce consumptive water use across the basin is needed now.
How did we get here?
The Basin’s reservoirs were nearly full in late summer 1999,8 acting as a buffer against dry years and serving their fundamental purpose. At that time, the 46 Colorado River Basin reservoirs tracked by the Bureau of Reclamation in its Hydro database held 59.5 million acre feet (maf) in active storage,9 more than four times the Basin’s average consumptive uses and losses in the 1990s (Fig. 1).10 Beginning in 2000, five years of below average runoff11 resulted in a 46% reduction in storage in the Basin’s reservoirs.12 During that time, the reduction in storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead accounted for 90% of the Basin’s total loss in storage, because most of the Basin’s water was stored in those two reservoirs.
Figure 1. Graph showing active storage in Colorado River basin reservoirs between January 1, 2021, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies
During the next fourteen and a half years, the amount of storage in the Basin’s reservoirs changed little, despite four years of large runoff (2005, 2011, 2017, and 2019). The increase in storage during the few wet years was nearly completely consumed during the more frequent dry years, and active storage in Powell and Mead was only 5% greater in late July 2019 than it had been at the beginning of 2005.13 When dry years of low runoff returned between 2020 and 2022,14 the Basin’s water users had little of the buffer that they had at the beginning of the 21st century. Combined active storage of Powell and Mead was halved again between mid-July 2019 and mid-March 2023,15 reducing the combined contents of these two reservoirs to only 27% of what it had been in late summer 1999.16 If next winter’s runoff is as low as it was in 2025 17 and consumptive use is not significantly reduced, Powell and Mead will drop below the previous unprecedented low stand of mid-March 2023.
How much of active storage is realistically available?
One of the challenges of the current water supply crisis is uncertainty over how much water is actually available in the reservoirs for use. Although Reclamation regularly reports the amount of water in active storage, our analysis identifies realistically accessible storage as the more appropriate metric of the amount of water that is available for use without challenging the integrity of the dam structures, efficient production of hydroelectricity, or implementation of environmental river management protocols, especially in Grand Canyon.
The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo. Annotations: Jonathan P. Thompson
Reservoir water that can be physically released from a dam is termed active storage. In virtually all reservoirs, there is a small amount of water below the elevation of the lowest outlets–the infamously named dead pool. Active storage is everything above dead pool–water that can be physically released through the reservoir’s lowest outlets.
We know, however, that not all the water above dead pool is readily usable. Engineering assessments have indicated that infrastructure constraints at Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams require that higher reservoir elevations be maintained, thereby constraining utilization of the lowest part of the active storage. We defined realistically accessible storage as the volume of water whose release does not impact previously identified engineering or hydropower-production constraints.
At Glen Canyon Dam, for example, the lowest release tubes, called the “river outlets,” are at elevation 3370 ft. Reservoir water below that elevation cannot be released and constitutes the dead pool. Above the river outlets, at elevation 3490 ft, are the intakes for the power generating turbines, known as the penstocks. The penstocks are the conduits that withdraw water from the reservoir into the powerplant to generate electricity, and thereafter discharge the water to the Colorado River downstream from the dam. When the reservoir falls below the elevation of the penstocks, the river outlets are the only means of discharging water through the dam (Fig. 2). The river outlets are not routinely used to release water; virtually all normal releases go through the penstocks.
Experience has shown that the river outlets were not designed for continuous release at the discharge rates required to meet downstream obligations. If the river outlets were to be used continuously, there is significant concern that structural damage to those outlets could occur.18
Accordingly, Reclamation has determined that it will take steps to avoid Lake Powell elevation declining below 3500 ft, considered a safe elevation for continuous withdrawal of water through the penstocks without risk of harm caused by cavitation to the turbines that produce electricity.19 Similarly at Lake Mead, Reclamation has indicated its intent to protect the reservoir from going below elevation 1000 ft.20
Figure 2. Diagram showing schematic of Glen Canyon Dam elevations at which Lake Powell’s waters can be released downstream, and the volumes of water defined by these elevations. Active storage between 3370 and 3500 ft is not realistically accessible for continuous downstream release without risk to engineering infrastructure at the dam and powerplant. Hydroelectricity cannot be produced below 3490 ft, and 3500 ft has been established as a minimum safe level for intake through the penstocks.
The total volume of active storage in Lake Powell above dead pool but below elevation 3500 ft is 4.2 maf. Release of this stored water is constrained, because it cannot be safely withdrawn through the penstocks, and continuous use of the river outlets is considered unwise. At Hoover Dam, there is 4.5 maf of active storage below elevation 1000 ft, also not realistically accessible. In these two largest reservoirs of the Colorado River Basin, there is a total of 8.7 maf of active storage below the elevations required for safe and efficient operation of the infrastructure (Fig. 3). Thus, of the 14.9 maf of active storage at Lake Powell and Lake Mead on November 15, 2025, only 42% of that active storage, 6.2 maf, was realistically accessible.
Figure 4. Graph showing active storage in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and in Powell+Mead between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies
Implementation of environmental river management protocols at Glen Canyon Dam are constrained when the elevation of Lake Powell is low. Since 1996, controlled floods, administratively termed High Flow Experiments (HFEs), have been conducted at Glen Canyon Dam to rebuild eddy sandbars along the river’s margin and conserve sediment. HFEs are now an essential component of the Long Term Experimental and Management Plan for Glen Canyon Dam.21 Reclamation did not, however, release an HFE in 2021 or 2022 when sediment conditions were sufficient to trigger implementation of the HFE Protocol because Lake Powell was low. In early October of those years, when decisions about implementing HFEs were made, active storage in Lake Powell was 7.3 maf (elevation 3545.3 ft) and 5.8 maf (elevation 3529.4) in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Reclamation cited low storage as the reason not to release those controlled floods.22 Although administrative decisions change with time, it is doubtful that any HFEs would be released if Lake Powell fell below elevation 3500 ft.
Low reservoir levels also impact Reclamation’s ability to control the invasion into Grand Canyon of smallmouth bass, and other warm water reservoir fish species, that dominate the recreational fish community of Lake Powell. These nonnatives are significant predators and competitors of endangered or threatened native fish species and live near the surface of Lake Powell. At moderate and low reservoir elevations, water withdrawn through the penstocks (termed fish entrainment) includes some fish that survive passage through the powerplant turbines and are delivered into the Colorado River downstream from the dam. These fish have the potential to successfully spawn downstream from the dam if river temperatures are relatively warm, such as occurs when Lake Powell is low and water is only released through the penstocks.
This infographic shows how as Lake Powell water levels decline, warm water containing smallmouth bass gets closer to intakes delivering water through the Glen Canyon Dam to the Grand Canyon downstream. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey
Reclamation has implemented a protocol to eliminate the potential of smallmouth bass population establishment in Grand Canyon by releasing some cooler water through the river outlets when the water released through the penstocks is warm. The objective of these Cool Mix releases is to disrupt smallmouth bass spawning downstream from the dam. Water released through the river outlets bypasses the powerplant and does not produce electricity, and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) must purchase electricity on the open market to replace electricity that the agency contractually committed to provide. WAPA estimated that the cost of replacing contracted electricity was $18.9 million23 and $6.5 million24 during the Cool Mix releases of 2024 and 2025, respectively. The risk of fish entrainment from Lake Powell increases significantly as Lake Powell’s elevation drops, and the need to implement the Cool Mix protocol therefore increases. The risk is minimized if Lake Powell is higher than 3590 ft (10.8 maf active storage) and significantly increases when Lake
Powell is below 3530 ft (5.8 maf active storage).25 When water is no longer withdrawn through the penstocks, the risk of entrainment decreases, because all water passes through the lower elevation river outlets.
What would happen if the coming winter and spring snowmelt is similar to 2024-2025?
In an analysis released in September 2025, we reviewed what might happen in the coming year if runoff is the same as it was last year and Basin consumptive uses and losses are the average of the past four years. We used a simple mass balance approach and estimated the available water supply and consumptive uses and losses, and calculated the difference between the two. The available water supply is the sum of the natural flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry plus inflows that occur in the Lower Basin, primarily in Grand Canyon. Consumptive uses and losses are those associated with diversions that support irrigated agriculture, municipal and industrial use, water exported from the Basin by trans-basin diversions, and reservoir evaporation. The difference between supply and use is the net effect on reservoir storage. We then estimated the effect of the Basinwide imbalance between supply and use on the combined realistically accessible storage in Powell and Mead, i.e., above elevations 3500 and 1000 ft in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, respectively.
In the scenario that we considered, we assumed that natural flow at Lees Ferry in the coming year will be 8.5 maf, the same as in Water Year 2025,26 and inflow in the Grand Canyon is 0.8 maf. Thus, we assumed a total supply in the coming water year of 9.3 maf. We analyzed a scenario wherein consumptive uses and losses in the United States portion of the Colorado River would be the average of the most recent four years (2021-2024), namely 11.5 maf,27 and we assumed that 1.4 maf would be delivered to Mexico.
The gap between supply and use under this scenario is 3.6 maf, which would have to be met by additional withdrawals from reservoir storage. Assuming that 75% of this deficit would be withdrawn from Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2.7 maf), then the realistically accessible storage in these two reservoirs would be reduced to 3.5 maf, slightly less than the 21st century low that occurred in mid-March 2023 (Fig. 3). Our analysis of this one realistically low inflow scenario–the coming year’s supply is just like last year’s and consumptive uses and losses are the average of the past four years–is consistent with, but less dire than, Reclamation’s most recent 24-Month Study minimum probable forecast28 for the coming year. That study projects that total storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead will be drawn down by 3.8 maf during the next year, 2.9 maf from Lake Powell alone. Under Reclamation’s minimum probable projection, the elevation of Lake Powell would drop below 3500 ft in August 2026. All of the remaining realistically accessible storage, 2.5 maf in the scenario modeled by Reclamation, would be in Lake Mead. Under the assumption that the current operating rules remain in effect in 2027, Reclamation’s projection is that the elevation of Lake Powell would stay below elevation 3500 ft through at least July 2027.
Further complicating the situation is that the status and ownership of water in Lake Mead at very low storage levels is unclear. Lake Mead holds (a) water available for allocation in the Lower Division under the prior appropriation system, (b) at least some amount of the water due to Mexico under treaty obligations, and (c) assigned water. Assigned water, commonly known as Intentionally Created Surplus or ICS, is water that can be delivered independent of the Lower Basin’s prior appropriation water allocation system and that is held in Lake Mead by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of a specific entity. Assigned water also includes delayed water deliveries held for the benefit of the Republic of Mexico that can be delivered subsequently in amounts in excess of the U.S. treaty obligation to Mexico of 1.5 maf/year. Owners of assigned water have the right to withdraw that water when Lake Mead water levels are above 1025 ft, but entitlement holders in the priority system also have a right to water deliveries, as does Mexico via treaty.
Sketches by Floyd Dominy show the way he’d end the Glen Canyon Dam. From the article “Floyd Dominy built the Glen Canyon Dam, then he sketched its end on a napkin” on the Salt Lake Tribune website.
So long as there is water in Lake Mead adequate to fulfill all required and requested deliveries, no conflict arises. However, as the amount of water in Lake Mead decreases, the potential for a clash increases. International treaty obligations take precedence over deliveries pursuant to the priority system within the U.S., but it is unclear how competing priorities and entitlements will be resolved within the U.S. Holders of higher-priority entitlements would likely contest the Secretary’s authority to reduce their deliveries while withholding assigned water from the priority system. As of the end of 2024, there was approximately 3.5 maf of assigned water in Lake Mead, almost the same as the amount of realistically accessible water in storage above elevation 1000 ft. If Lake Powell ever became a “run of the river” facility, the potential for conflict over access to water in Lake Mead would also increase.
Implications
We are not weather forecasters and have no crystal ball that reveals the coming winter snowpack. We are not predicting that our assumptions about the gap between supply and use/losses and the resulting drawdown of Lake Powell and Lake Mead will inevitably occur. Our scenario is merely one of many possibilities, but our assumptions are sufficiently realistic to serve as a warning of how close the Basin is to a true water crisis. Our results should serve as a call to action. We need to adopt additional and immediate measures across the Basin to reduce water consumption even further during the next year, well before any new guidelines are in place.
Taking steps now to decrease consumptive uses across the Basin will reduce the need to implement draconian measures next summer or in the following years. Every acre foot saved now is an acre foot available for our future selves, slowing the rate of reservoir decline and creating more room for creative Colorado River management solutions. If, on the other hand, we delay reducing water usage and addressing reservoir drawdown, we may find ourselves in more significant distress at the beginning of the Post-2026 guidelines. As we wrote in October, continued reduction in Lake Powell releases also brings the Basin perilously close to the Colorado River Compact “tripwire,” the point at which the ten-year rolling total of water delivered from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin might trigger litigation asking the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret long avoided ambiguities in rules written a century ago by the drafters of the Colorado River Compact.
We do not presume to make specific recommendations about the steps that should be taken immediately to reduce consumptive use in the Basin. There are many smart and experienced individuals in the Colorado River community whose sole focus is on the mechanics of operating the Colorado River water system and the impacts of operations on their particular constituencies.
We can, however, highlight the available mechanisms for reduction of consumptive use that should be explored for their immediate utility in diminishing the looming jeopardy to the overall system. Such mechanisms include:
Releases from federal reservoirs upstream of Lake Powell to stabilize storage in Lake Powell.
Such releases would be made pursuant to the Drought Response Operations Agreement or similar successor agreement or pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior’s inherent authority to operate federal water projects. Obviously, such releases do nothing to solve the imbalance between supply and demand and will create additional depletions in the system when these reservoirs are refilled. Such releases can, however, provide a temporary bulwark against exceptionally low levels in Lake Powell.
Additional reductions in deliveries from Lake Mead under the Secretary’s Section 5 delivery contracts in the Lower Basin, as authorized by Section II.B.3 of the decree in Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964).
By reducing deliveries from Lake Mead, releases from Lake Powell could also be reduced without the risk of causing exceptionally low storage in Lake Mead.
Extension of system conservation programs in the Lower Basin, and facilitation of an Upper Basin water conservation program, both funded through compensation from federal or state governments or other water users in the Basin, and requiring specific quantities of saved water.
Relying on compensated annual forbearance alone is unsustainable, however, because it is not feasible to pay water users in the long term to forgo the use of water that nature no longer supplies. Permanent reductions in consumptive use are both necessary and also the most productive use of limited funding. In addition, to be effective, changes to state law in some Upper Basin states may be necessary, including recognition of water conservation as a beneficial use for the purpose of avoiding litigation concerning the Colorado River Compact. Finally, authorization for shepherding of saved water to the intended place of storage is essential, including across state borders.
Reductions in deliveries to Mexico through negotiation of a new minute.
Reductions in consumptive use by federal water projects in the Upper Basin, if allowable pursuant to the Secretary’s authority.
It should be noted, however, that in order to benefit the Colorado River system, any such reductions must be recognized at the point of diversion and shepherded to the intended place of storage.
It is obvious that any long-term agreement for future Colorado River operations among the Basin States should be evaluated based on its immediate ability to reverse the storage declines experienced in recent years and anticipated in the future under similar hydrology. An agreement that does not reliably balance supply with uses and losses is not sustainable. Similarly, any operational alternative proffered by the Department of the Interior must achieve the same objectives. When our reservoir storage is as low as it is now, we have very little buffer to rely on–we simply cannot use more water than nature provides.
The focus within the Basin and among its principal water users and state negotiators has been on the formulation of the Post-2026 guidelines for operation of the river. But action is necessary now to avoid creating conditions that will doom the next set of operating principles by initiating their implementation when the Basin is in full crisis mode. No governmental administration, state or federal, wants to see the Colorado River system fail on its watch. Negotiators have worked tirelessly to reach agreement, yet have come up short. The hour is late. The Secretary must take decisive action.
Photo Credit: John Weishei via the Colorado River Research Group
Footnotes
1 Director, Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, former Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.
2 Senior Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School, former US Commissioner, Upper Colorado River Commission, former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, US Dept. of the Interior.
3 Writer in Residence, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.
4 Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District.
5 Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University, former Director, Phoenix Water Services.
6 Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.
7 Between 9 October and 8 November, five reservoirs in the San Juan River basin gained 204,000 af in total storage, especially in Navajo and Vallecito Reservoirs. Between 9 October and 20 October, Lake Powell gained 105,000 af in active storage, and the total contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead increased by 108,000 af between September 25 and October 27.
8 Schmidt, J.C., Yackulic, C.B., and Kuhn, E. 2023. The Colorado River water crisis: its origin and the future. WIREs Water 2023;e1672.
9 Total active storage in the Basin’s 46 reservoirs was at its maximum on 24 August 1999.
10 Total Basin consumptive uses and losses, including deliveries to Mexico, averaged 14.2 maf/yr between 1990 and 1999.
11 Average natural flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, estimated by Reclamation, was 9.5 (Water Year, WY) and 9.6 (Calendar Year, CY) maf/ yr between 2000 and 2004. Average natural flow for the preceding ten years (1990-1999) was 15.0 maf/yr (WY, CY). Average natural flow for the entire 21st century between 2000 and 2025 was 12.3 maf/yr (WY, CY).
12 Total active storage of the Basin’s reservoirs was 32.0 maf on 19 October 2004.
13 Total active storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead was 23.0 maf on 1 January 2005 and was 24.2 maf on 28 July 2019, a 5% increase.
14 Average natural flow at Lees Ferry averaged 9.0 (WY) and 9.2 (CY) maf/yr between 2020 and 2022.
15 Total active storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead was 12.7 maf on 14 March 2023, 48% less than it had been on 28 July 2019.
16 Total active storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead was 47.7 maf on 19 September 1999.
17 Reclamation estimates that natural flow at Lees Ferry was 8.5 (WY, CY) maf in 2025.
18 Bureau of Reclamation, Establishment of Interim Operating Guidance for Glen Canyon Dam during Low Reservoir Levels at Lake Powell (2024).18
19 Bureau of Reclamation, Supplement to 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, Record of Decision (2024) (SEIS ROD).
20 Id.
21 U.S. Department of the Interior, Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, December 2016.
22 Salter, G. and 7 co-authors, 2025, Reservoir operational strategies for sustainable sand management in the Colorado River. Water Resources Research 61, e2024WR038315.
23 Ploussard, Q., Pavičević, M., and Yu, A. 2025. Financial analysis of the smallmouth bass flows implemented at the Glen Canyon Dam during Water Year 2024. Argonne National Laboratory report ANL 25/44, 17 pp.
24 C. Ellsworth, Western Area Power Administration, pers. commun.
25 Eppenhimer, D. E., Yackulic, C. B., Bruckerhoff, L. A., Wang, J., Young, K. L., Bestgen, K. R., Mihalevich, B. A., and Schmidt, J. C. 2025. Declining reservoir elevations following a two-decade drought increase water temperatures and non-native fish passage facilitating a downstream invasion. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 82:1-19.
26 During the 21st century, natural flow at Lees Ferry was lower than this amount in 2002, 2012, 2018, and 2021, meaning that this is not a worst case scenario.
27 In 2024, consumptive uses and losses in the Upper and Lower Basins totaled 11.4 maf.
28 October 2025 24-Month Study Minimum Probable Forecast. For a discussion of why the Minimum Probable forecast has become a more reliable indicator of the future than the Most Probable 24-Month Study, see Awaiting the Colorado River 24-Month Study, Aug. 14, 2025.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Anne Castle, Jeff Kightlinger, Jim Lochhead at the 2025 CRWUA Conference. Photo credit: Water Mark (@OtayMark)
Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Daily News website (Austin Corona). Here’s an excerpt:
December 17, 2025
Federal officials have released a “sobering” forecast of 2026 water levels in the Colorado River, with expected flows plummeting from previous predictions. Precipitation later in the winter could turn those dire forecasts around, officials say, but the current outlook is grim for a river already flirting with crisis. Officials published the new forecast on Monday, only a day before negotiators and stakeholders from the river’s basin states gathered in Las Vegas for a three-day conference. The federal government has given states until February to agree on a longer-term strategy for managing low river flows. The Colorado River’s flow in 2026 (specifically, the unregulated inflow to Lake Powell) could be 27% lower than normal, according to the most probable scenario in the December forecast, with worst-case scenarios predicting even lower flows. The projection has worsened estimates released in November (16% lower than normal in most probable scenarios).
“We all know Mother Nature is a trickster and can often confound our expectations. We certainly hope she intends to do that this year,” said Wayne Pullan, the Bureau of Reclamation’s regional director for the Upper Colorado River Basin, on Tuesday. “But December’s outlook is troubling.”
The bureau, which manages federal dams, will delay water releases at Lake Powell to conserve supplies in the reservoir during the dry winter months in 2026, Pullan said. Even with those efforts, however, the lake’s water levels could fall to critical levels in 2027 as another disappointing year hits the basin. A bad water year in 2026 would compound already poor conditions from 2025, when river flows have been less than half of normal. The new forecast increases the possibility that water levels in Lake Powell could drop below the intakes for hydropower turbines and that releases from the lake could fall below the annual average required to meet the requirements of the 1922 Colorado River Compact, which governs water allocation between the seven states that use the river. Without above-average flows in future years to bring averages back up, or an interstate deal on how to manage drought, those low releases could set the stage for a legal battle on the river.
The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo. Annotations: Jonathan P. Thompson
North Weld County Water District Service Area. Graphic via NWCWD.
Here’s the release from the North Weld county Water District:
December 10, 2025
North Weld County Water District implements modest 4% rate increase for 2026 – still among lowest in region
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO (Dec. 10, 2026) –North Weld County Water District (NWCWD) announced a comparatively modest 4 percent rate increase for 2026 – which is less than the previous year and significantly lower than the surrounding region.
“Maintaining our water service infrastructure continues to be a priority for the district and one that we balance with our fiduciary responsibility to our rate payers,” said Eric Reckentine, General Manager, North Weld County Water District.
A diligent infrastructure improvement plan is highlighted in these key District projects designed to ensure a clean, robust, and affordable water supply:
Weld County West Transmission Line: The District will start construction of the Weld County west 42-inch transmission line and new 6 million gallon treated water tank in 2026 with a project cost of $20 million dollars.
Eastern Zone Distribution Line: The District will continue construction of the eastern zone 30-inch distribution line with the project’s third phase starting in 2026 and to be completed in 2027.
Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Plant Expansion: The SCWTP treatment plant capacity was expanded from 60 million gallons per day to 68 million gallons in 2025. In collaboration with the Soldier Canyon Water Treatment Authority and nearby District partners (such as Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and East Larimer County Water District), NWCWD is finalizing the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant Master Plan, and will begin design on a plant expansion for additional treatment capacity for the District to begin in 2029.
With these improvements, the district says it can meet growth needs well into the future.
“Upgrades to our aging water delivery system allow the District to meet new treatment standards and accommodate the record-breaking growth in Northern Colorado,” Reckentine said. “A stable revenue stream from water rates enables us to accomplish that.”
About North Weld County Water District:
Weld County is the fastest growing in the state. North Weld County Water District’s cities, residents, and businesses rely on the safe, reliable, and affordable water we have been delivering for over 64 years. The District constantly plans for growing communities, which now span from agricultural to rural to urban, ensuring that all future water needs are met and we can continue to deliver the highest quality water in the growing region for decades to come. To learn more, visit NWCWD.org.
The South Platte River originates in South Park and then wanders northeast, entering Nebraska just a few miles west of Colorado’s northeast corner. The red line here distinguishes the upper South Platte Basin in Colorado from the lower basin. Image: U.S. Geologic Survey.
Colorado River states have been given less than two months to agree on how to share water cuts from the shrinking river.
Homeland Security waives environmental laws to speed the construction of a border wall in parts of New Mexico.
A federal judge proclaims federal authority over the contentious Line 5 oil pipeline that crosses the Great Lakes.
U.S., Mexican governments sign Tijuana River sewage cleanup agreement.
The House passes a bill to change environmental reviews for infrastructure permitting.
USGS study finds lower water levels in Colorado’s Blue Mesa reservoir the cause of increased toxic algal blooms.
And lastly, a draft EIS for post-2026 Colorado River reservoir operations, when current rules expire, will be published in the coming weeks.
“Let me be clear, cooperation is better than litigation. Litigation consumes time, resources, and relationships. It also increases uncertainty and delays progress. The only certainty around litigation in the Colorado River basin is a bunch of water lawyers are going to be able to put their children and grandchildren through graduate school. There are much better ways to spend several hundred million dollars.” – Scott Cameron, acting commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, speaking at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference on December 17, 2025. Cameron encouraged the states to reach an agreement on water cuts and reservoir operating rules instead of suing each other.
By the Numbers
February 14: New Interior Department deadline for the seven Colorado River states to reach an agreement on water cuts and reservoir operations. If the states fail at that, Interior could assert its own authority. There could also be lawsuits. A short-term agreement might be necessary.
The deadline, according to Interior’s Andrea Travnicek, is for several reasons. It gives states time to pass legislation, if necessary. It provides time for consultation with Mexico and the basin’s tribes. And it allows for reservoir operating decisions in 2027 to be set this fall.
“Time is of the essence, and it is time to be able to adjust those stakes, to arrange so compromises can be made,” Travnicek said.
News Briefs
Line 5 Oil Pipeline Court Case A U.S. district judge ruled that the federal government, not the state of Michigan, has authority over the contentious Line 5 oil pipeline that crosses the Great Lakes at the Straits of Mackinac.
Michigan’s top officials have attempted to shut down Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 since 2020 when Gov. Gretchen Witmer revoked the company’s easement.
In his ruling, Judge Robert Jonker determined that the federal Pipeline Safety Act gives the U.S. government the sole authority over Line 5’s continued operation, the Associated Press reports.
Tijuana River Sewage Pollution Cleanup U.S. and Mexican representatives signed an agreement that will facilitate the cleanup of chronic sewage pollution in the Tijuana River, a shared waterway.
Line 5 Oil Pipeline Court Case A U.S. district judge ruled that the federal government, not the state of Michigan, has authority over the contentious Line 5 oil pipeline that crosses the Great Lakes at the Straits of Mackinac.
Michigan’s top officials have attempted to shut down Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 since 2020 when Gov. Gretchen Witmer revoked the company’s easement.
In his ruling, Judge Robert Jonker determined that the federal Pipeline Safety Act gives the U.S. government the sole authority over Line 5’s continued operation, the Associated Press reports.
Tijuana River Sewage Pollution Cleanup U.S. and Mexican representatives signed an agreement that will facilitate the cleanup of chronic sewage pollution in the Tijuana River, a shared waterway.
Called Minute 333, the agreement outlines actions and sets timelines. A joint work group will assess project engineering and feasibility studies. Mexico will build a wastewater treatment plant by December 2028 and a sediment control basin by winter 2026-27. The agreement also addresses monitoring, planning, and data sharing.
Permitting and Land Use Bills House Republicans used the week before the holiday break to pass a bill that changes infrastructure permitting processes.
The SPEED Act, which passed with support from 11 Democrats, changes the National Environmental Policy Act and the environmental reviews it requires for major federal projects. It restricts reviews to immediate project impacts, sets timelines, and limits lawsuits.
“On net, these reforms are likely to make it easier to build energy infrastructure in the United States,” asserts the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Border Wall Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is waiving environmental laws in order to speed the construction of a border wall in parts of New Mexico near El Paso, Texas.
The affected laws include the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and others.
Studies and Reports
Mississippi River Recap The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a December state of the Mississippi River report, noting how drought conditions this year have influenced operations on the country’s largest river system.
The Corps authorized construction of an underwater dam that was completed in October in order to impede the upstream movement of salty water from the Gulf of Mexico.
Harmful Algal Blooms in Colorado Reservoir Blue Mesa is the largest reservoir in Colorado and is part of the Colorado River basin water storage system.
The U.S. Geological Survey investigated why Blue Mesa has been experiencing toxic algal blooms in recent years. Its report concluded that warmer water temperatures enabled by lower water levels are the likely cause.
The affected laws include the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and others.
Studies and Reports
Mississippi River Recap The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a December state of the Mississippi River report, noting how drought conditions this year have influenced operations on the country’s largest river system.
The Corps authorized construction of an underwater dam that was completed in October in order to impede the upstream movement of salty water from the Gulf of Mexico.
Harmful Algal Blooms in Colorado Reservoir Blue Mesa is the largest reservoir in Colorado and is part of the Colorado River basin water storage system.
The U.S. Geological Survey investigated why Blue Mesa has been experiencing toxic algal blooms in recent years. Its report concluded that warmer water temperatures enabled by lower water levels are the likely cause.
Reducing nutrient inflows is unlikely to help, the researchers said. There are naturally occurring phosphorus inputs and the algae can fix nitrogen from the air.
The best solution might be keeping the reservoir high enough, the report says. That will not be easy in a drying and warming region with competing water demands.
On the Radar
Colorado River Draft EIS Coming Soon In the coming weeks – in early January if not by the end of the year – the Bureau of Reclamation will publish a draft environmental impact statement for changes to how the big Colorado River reservoirs will be managed.
Reclamation began its environmental review about two and a half years ago. The agency had hoped to slot a seven-state consensus agreement into the document. But since there is no agreement, the document will instead describe a “broad range” of options, said Carly Jerla of Reclamation, who spoke at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference.
The draft will not select a preferred option, Jerla said. Instead that will come in the final version.
“We’ve set up a draft EIS that reflects a range of carefully crafted alternatives to enable the further innovation and the ability of the basin to come to a consensus agreement to be able to adopt in time for the 2027 operations,” Jerla said.
Federal Water Tap is a weekly digest spotting trends in U.S. government water policy. To get more water news, follow Circle of Blue on Twitter and sign up for our newsletter.
The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)
The seven states that rely on the Colorado River to supply farms and cities across the U.S. West appear no closer to reaching a consensus on a long-term plan for sharing the dwindling resource. The river’s future was the center of discussions this week at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas, where water leaders from California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming gathered alongside federal and tribal officials. It comes after the states blew past a November deadline for a new plan to deal with drought and water shortages after 2026, when current guidelines expire. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has set a new deadline of Feb. 14. Nevada’s lead negotiator said it is unlikely the states will reach agreement that quickly.
“As we sit here mid-December with a looming February deadline, I don’t see any clear path to a long-term deal, but I do see a path to the possibility of a shorter-term deal to keep us out of court,” John Entsminger of the Southern Nevada Water Authority told The Associated Press.
The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)
The federal government continues to refrain from coming up with its own solution — preferring the seven basin states reach consensus themselves. If they don’t, a federally imposed plan could leave parties unhappy and result in costly, lengthy litigation. Not only is this water fight between the upper and lower basins, individual municipalities, tribal nations and water agencies have their own stakes in this battle. California, which has the largest share of Colorado River water, has over 200 water agencies alone, each with their own customers.
“It’s a rabbit hole you can dive down in, and it is incredibly complex,” said Noah Garrison, a water researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Lower Basin states pitched a reduction of 1.5 million acre-feet per year to cover a structural deficit that occurs when water evaporates or is absorbed into the ground as it flows downstream. An acre-foot is enough water to supply two to three households a year. But they want to see a similar contribution from the Upper Basin. The Upper Basin states, however, don’t think they should have to make additional cuts because they already don’t use their full share of the water and are legally obligated to send a certain amount of water downstream.
“Our water users feel that pain,” said Estevan López, New Mexico’s representative for the Upper Colorado River Commission.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Lake Powell is seen from the air in October 2022. The December 24-month study from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation projects Powell could drop below the threshold needed to make hydropower in 2026. CREDIT: ALEXANDER HEILNER/THE WATER DESK
Federal water officials addressed the increasingly grim river conditions and laid out their options for dealing with plummeting reservoir levels over the first two days of the largest annual gathering of water managers in the Colorado River Basin.
On Monday, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released its monthly report, which projects a two-year hydrology outlook for the operation of the nation’s two largest reservoirs: Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The report provided a sobering backdrop to the Colorado River Water Users Association conference at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas.
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map December 18, 2025. via the NRCS.
With the slow start to winter in the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming), the report showed a drop in Lake Powell’s projected 2026 inflow of 1 million acre-feet since the November forecast. Under the “minimum” possible inflow, Lake Powell would fall below the surface-elevation level of 3,490 feet needed to generate hydropower by October 2026 and stay there until spring runoff briefly bumps up reservoir levels in summer 2027; but the water level would again dip below 3,490 in the fall of 2027.
Under the “most probable” forecast, the reservoir’s level stays above minimum power pool, but falls below the target elevation of 3,525 until the 2027 runoff. (Reservoir levels below the target elevation trigger more drastic emergency actions.) The reservoir is currently about 28% full, down from 37% at this time last year.
Wayne Pullan, regional director for the bureau’s Upper Basin, called the December projections troubling.
“That outlook is sobering for all of us,” Pullan said at Tuesday’s meeting of the Upper Colorado River Commission.
Snowpack, which is lagging across the Upper Basin, hovered at around 61% of median Wednesday. Snowpack in the headwaters of the Colorado River was 53% of median.
The Colorado River basin has been locked in the grip of a megadrought since the turn of the century. Climate change and relentless demand have fueled shortages, pushed reservoirs to all-time lows and sent water managers scrambling.
Pullan laid out four tools that the Bureau of Reclamation can use to respond to the projected low water levels to prevent the surface of Lake Powell at the Glen Canyon Dam from falling below 3,500 feet in elevation.
This 2023 diagram shows the tubes through which Lake Powell’s fish can pass through to the section of the Colorado River that flows through the Grand Canyon. Credit: USGS and Reclamation 2023
The first tool is shifting some winter releases to the summer months when runoff into the reservoir will compensate for those releases. The second is releasing water from upstream reservoirs to boost Lake Powell. The third is reducing releases when water levels hit a certain trigger elevation.
Representatives from the Upper Basin and Lower Basin (Arizona, California and Nevada), which share the river, have been in talks for two years — with long periods of being deadlocked in disagreement — about how to manage the river after the current guidelines expire at the end of 2026. The 2007 guidelines set annual Lake Powell and Lake Mead releases based on reservoir levels and did not go far enough to prevent them from being drawn down during consecutive dry years.
“We have learned that if we failed at all in these last 25 years, it might have been that our vision wasn’t sufficiently pessimistic,” Pullan said.
States’ representatives have said they are still committed to finding a consensus after they blew past a Nov. 11 deadline to come up with an outline of a plan. Federal officials have set a second deadline of Feb. 14 for the states to submit a detailed plan.
While water managers across the basin wait for an agreement from the states, federal officials are moving ahead with the National Environmental Protection Act review process and crafting an environmental impact statement for future reservoir operations. Reclamation officials said that they plan to release a draft EIS around the end of the year and that the alternatives analyzed in the EIS will be broad enough that they would capture any seven-state agreement. The draft EIS will not choose a preferred alternative.
“Probably all of you have heard us say, ad nauseum, this emphasis on creating a broad range of alternatives,” Carly Jerla, a senior water resource program manager at the Bureau of Reclamation, said Wednesday. “We really went about this by taking input over the last almost two years from you all … to craft a broad range that really reflects the ideas on how to operate the system.”
Wayne Pullan, Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Basin Regional Director, speaks at the meeting of the Upper Colorado River Commission at the Colorado River Water Users Association Conference on Tuesday in Las Vegas. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Not a routine water source
This isn’t the first time the basin has experienced dire straits. In 2021, as Lake Powell flirted with falling below minimum power pool, the Bureau of Reclamation made 181,000 acre-feet in emergency releases from three Upper Basin reservoirs — Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Blue Mesa — to protect critical Lake Powell elevations.
These reservoirs are part of the Colorado River Storage Project, and their primary purpose is to control the flows of the Colorado River. But the unilateral action by the feds rubbed Upper Basin water managers the wrong way. The 36,000 acre-feet released from Blue Mesa cut short the boating season on Colorado’s largest reservoir, which is on the Gunnison River.
On Tuesday, Colorado’s representative, Becky Mitchell, said Upper Basin reservoirs are not a routine water source for the Lower Basin.
“I appreciate as we’re in critical and dire situations how we use our resources to protect our infrastructure, but we have to shift,” Mitchell said. “Our biggest resource is post-2026 and figuring out how do we do this in a way that doesn’t create those to be routine water sources.”
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
So far, the basin has avoided the worst outcomes by getting last-minute reprieves in the form of wet years in 2019 and 2023. But overall, Jerla said, the Colorado River can expect to see persistent dry years and challenging conditions in the future, and water managers will need more adaptive, flexible solutions.
“(This is) really our last year together operating under the existing agreements, kind of stretching the flexibilities and the bounds and stability which those agreements provide,” she said.
The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)
The Colorado River fills Glen Canyon, forming Lake Powell, the nation’s second-largest reservoir. The reservoir could drop to a new record low in 2026 if conditions remain dry in the Southwestern watershed. (Alexander Heilner/The Water Desk with aerial support from LightHawk)
Click the link to read the article on the Inside Climate News website (Wyatt Myskow, Blanca Begert, Jake Bolster):
December 19, 2025
At the Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference in Las Vegas, Colorado River Basin states remain at an impasse over how to cut their water use as Lake Mead and Lake Powell verge on record lows.
The Colorado River Basin is, quite literally, 50 feet away from collapse, and an agreement to save it is nowhere in sight.
Water titans clashed at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas this week, where negotiators from each of the seven Colorado River Basin states outlined what they have done to protect the river—and pointed fingers at each other, demanding more.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Talks over how to manage the river after 2026, when current drought mitigation guidelines expire, began two years ago. Federal deadlines have come and gone, and the stakes are higher than ever as climate change and overuse continue to push the river that 40 million people rely on to the edge. Still, the states are refusing to budge.
“It’s now 2025, we’re here in a different hotel a couple years later and the same problems are on the table. In the last two years, we’ve been spinning our wheels,” said JB Hamby, California’s lead negotiator, at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference.“Time has been wasted, and like water, that’s a very precious resource.”
The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo. Annotations: Jonathan P. Thompson
The Colorado River flows from Wyoming to Mexico, supplying water to seven U.S. states, two Mexican states and 30 tribes. But the bedrock law guiding its management, the 1922 Colorado River Compact, overestimated how much water the river could provide, leading to state allocations that promised more than was ultimately available. The nation’s two largest reservoirs, lakes Mead and Powell, which for decades have met the excess demand driven by overly optimistic allocations, are at the brink. Lake Mead is 33 percent full; Powell is just 28 percent full. If the latter’s water levels drop by an additional 50 feet, the water behind Glen Canyon Dam would be trapped, limiting deliveries to California, Arizona and Nevada, and preventing the dam from generating hydropower.
The federal government’s data indicate that Lake Powell could drop to that level, known as “deadpool,” by the summer of 2027 if significant cuts aren’t made.
Yet, the states remain stuck on the same points that, for years, have prevented any of them from agreeing to reduce their long-term use enough to prevent the collapse of the Colorado River system.
The structural deficit refers to the consumption by Lower Basin states of more water than enters Lake Mead each year. The deficit, which includes losses from evaporation, is estimated at 1.2 million acre-feet a year. (Image: Central Arizona Project circa 2019)
In a proposal to the federal government from March 2024, Arizona, California and Nevada, the three states that make up the Lower Basin, which uses the greatest amount of the river’s water and has historically over-consumed its allotments, put annual cuts of 1.5 million acre feet of water on the table for a post-2026 agreement. [ed. This includes 1.2 MAF for the “Structural Deficit”. The Lower Basin has never been charged for shrink in Lake Mead and in the Colorado River mainstream. USBR said earlier in the Post-2026 guideline negotiations that the LB would have to be charged for shrink going forward.] They want to see any necessary reductions after that, which experts estimate could range from another 2 to 4 million acre-feet per year, divided among all seven states. One acre-foot of water is enough to supply somewhere between two and four households for a year.
The Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have proposed taking voluntary reductions. They argue they should not face mandatory cuts because the Upper Basin has never used the full amount of water it was allocated under the 1922 compact, which apportions 7.5 million acre-feet to each basin. Due to climate change and a lack of storage infrastructure, they say they’re already living with cuts while delivering the required water to the Lower Basin.
— Colorado River Water Users Association (@CRWUA_water) December 18, 2025
In closing comments on Thursday, which provided a rare opportunity for the public to hear what have otherwise been behind-closed-doors conversations, negotiators expressed frustration, rehashing the same talking points they have used for years.
“As long as we keep polishing those arguments and repeating them to each other, we are going nowhere,” said John Entsminger, Southern Nevada Water Authority’s general manager, and that state’s negotiator. He added that at this point, the best he could envision was an interim five-year operating plan agreement, not the multi-decadal deal that would be necessary to bring certainty to the region. Even a short-term deal still requires resolving debates about what each state can commit to.
The impasse heightens the risk that the federal government will have to step in to implement a plan to protect its infrastructure. Many fear that a failure to reach state consensus could lead to exorbitantly expensive litigation, delay needed action for years and cause uncertainty throughout the region.
The federal Bureau of Reclamation has told the basins to develop a plan by Feb. 14, 2026, after the states blew past a previous Nov. 11 deadline, so it can include their agreement in the federal government’s environmental analysis of a post-2026 plan to operate Lakes Mead and Powell and oversee their dam releases.
Lorelei Cloud, Vice-chair of the Southern Ute Tribal Council, and Southwest Colorado’s representative of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which addresses most water issues in Colorado. Photo via Sibley’s Rivers
Lorelei Cloud, chair of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and co-founder of the Indigenous Women’s Leadership Network, cautioned against federal intervention. The federal government has fallen short of its trust responsibility to the tribes by failing to provide water, she said.
”All the people on the ground really need to step up and provide a solution,” she said.
Bill Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River Resources for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said that federal intervention would mean reverting to pre-2007 operating guidelines under which water allocations are determined annually. That would make it harder for Metropolitan, which serves 19 million people across Southern California, to plan for the future.
“We might invest in sources that we don’t need, but also we may have to restrict water deliveries from time to time, as we’ve done in the past,” said Hasencamp. “For us, that’s a fail.”
But Tom Buschatzke, the director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the state’s lead negotiator, told Inside Climate News that federal leadership could break the deadlock between the states, a move that Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has called for recently.
Buschatzke feels that nothing the Upper Basin has proposed would withstand scrutiny from Arizona legislators, who would have to approve it. Visibly upset, he said the Upper Basin’s claim that they can’t take more cuts is “absurd” and is based on them not getting their “paper” water—a term used to refer to water that exists legally but has never been put to use or proven to currently be available.
“They need mandatory conservation that results in more water being in Lake Powell that can be moved to Lake Mead,” he said.
From left, J.B. Hamby, chair of the Colorado River Board of California, Tom Buschatzke, Arizona Department of Water Resources; Becky Mitchell, Colorado representative to the Upper Colorado River Commission at #CRWUA2023. Hamby and Buschatzke acknowledged during this panel at the Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference that the lower basin must own the structural deficit, something the upper basin has been pushing for for years. CREDIT: TOM YULSMAN/WATER DESK, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER
Upper Basin negotiators counter that it is not their responsibility to cut their use to accommodate Lower Basin users who have long overdrawn the system. “We cannot subsidize overuse,” said Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s negotiator.
Lower Basin water use since 1964. 2025 data provisional, based on USBR projections Oct. 29, 2015.
At one point, the Lower Basin used several million acre-feet more water per year than it was allocated, but it has since reduced its consumption and now uses less than it is legally entitled to. California, the river’s biggest user, touted drastic conservation measures that have reduced water use to its lowest levels since the 1940s, despite booming growth in the state. Lower Basin leaders argue, too, that the region’s biggest cities, farms and economic outputs from the river are within the three states.
Upper Basin officials argue they have the right to grow as the Lower Basin has, and it’s unfair for those four states to sacrifice their future.
— Colorado River Water Users Association (@CRWUA_water) December 17, 2025
Earlier this week, leaders in both basins saw a preview of the federal government’s draft environmental review, which included a range of options for managing Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Some in the Lower Basin expressed concern that the options relied too heavily on them making future cuts. Hamby, California’s negotiator, emphasized that if the basin states eventually reach an agreement, it will determine how the federal government manages the river.
“Ultimately, none of it should matter if we get to a seven-state consensus,” said Hamby, who is also a board member of Southern California’s Imperial Irrigation District, the river’s single-largest water user. “But as part of the [environmental review] process, what we look forward to seeing from California is an equally balanced risk across the basin that motivates people to develop a seven-state consensus.”
Brandon Gebhart, Wyoming’s state engineer and Colorado River negotiator, called the analysis “broad enough to accommodate any seven-state consensus agreement” in an email.
Andrea Travnicek, assistant secretary for water and science at the Interior Department, said the government expects to publish the environmental impact statement in the last week of December or first week of January.
Despite the urgency, conference attendees weren’t surprised that negotiations remain stalled and no deal appeared imminent.
Cynthia Campbell, the director of policy innovation for the Arizona Water Innovation Institute at Arizona State University, said she expects one of two outcomes in the next 18 months, and perhaps both: the system will collapse or there will be litigation.
The public, she said, will then ask what happened, and leaders will have no good answers.
“I came with very low expectations, and they were met,” she said.
The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)
Bureau of Reclamation’s Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron speaks at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association’s conference. (Photo: Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)
In the next few weeks, the public will get their first look at a critical document two and a half years in the making that will define how the Colorado River is managed for the next decade.
The Bureau of Reclamation – which manages water in the West under the Interior Department – is on track to release a draft environmental review by early January with a range of options to replace the river’s operating rules, which are set to expire at the end of 2026.
Several elements of the draft were shared during the annual Colorado River Water Users Association’s conference in Las Vegas at Caesars Palace Wednesday.
Negotiations between federal officials and the seven western states that rely on the Colorado River have largely remained behind closed doors since 2023, but any new operating rules will be required to go through a public environmental review process before a final decision can be made.
Interior Department Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Andrea Travnicek, said the agency is committed to meeting the self-imposed January deadline in order to finalize new rules before the current ones expire.
“The Department of the Interior recognizes a shrinking timeline is in front of us in order to operate under a new potential agreement,” Travnicek said.
In an unusual move, federal water officials said the draft will not identify which set of operating guidelines the federal government would prefer, which is typically included in environmental reviews.
“We will not be identifying a preferred alternative, but we anticipate the identification of that between the draft and the final,” said Bureau of Reclamation’s senior water resource program manager, Carly Jerla.
Instead, the draft environmental review will list a broad range of possible alternatives designed to enable states to continue working towards a seven-state consensus agreement on how to share the river’s shrinking water supply.
“We want to continue to facilitate, but not dictate these operations. The goal here is to inform decision makers and encourage parties to adopt agreements that put consultation and negotiation first,” Jerla continued.
The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)
Lower Basin states — California, Arizona, and Nevada — and Upper Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico — have been at an impasse for months over how to manage the Colorado River’s shrinking water supplies.
Last month, the states missed a federally-imposed deadline to submit a preliminary seven-state consensus plan that could replace the river’s operating guidelines after days of intense closed-door negotiations.
States’ last chance to share a final consensus-based plan will be mid-February 2026 in order to reach a final agreement in the summer with implementation of the new guidelines beginning in October 2026.
The Bureau of Reclamation’s Acting Commissioner Scott Cameron said he and other federal officials have intensified efforts to bring states to a consensus, flying out West every other week since early April to meet with the seven states’ river negotiators.
“There are a number of issues from decades past that some people are having some difficulty getting past,” Cameron said, adding that states must “be willing to set aside previous perceived inequities and unfairness.”
One of the biggest disagreements between the Upper and Lower Basin states is over which faction should have to cut back on their water use, and by how much.
Lower Basin states want all seven Colorado River states to share mandatory water cuts during dry years under the new guidelines. The Upper Basin, which is not subject to mandatory cuts under current guidelines, say they already use much less water than downstream states and should not face additional cuts. [ed. Also, the UB states face cuts every year from Mother Nature with the variability, but generally lower, snowpack each season.]
Despite states missing past deadlines, Cameron said he was “cautiously optimistic” states will reach a consensus deal by the February deadline.
“It’s not unusual in the negotiating process that tougher decisions get made the closer you get to the deadline. And frankly, there are tough decisions that have to be made,” Cameron said.
On Tuesday, California’s biggest water districts said they were willing to “set aside many of their legal positions” in order to reach a seven-state agreement.
The Bureau of Reclamation provided a broad overview of the components that will be included in draft’s range of options, including guidelines to reduce water deliveries from Lake Mead during shortages, coordinated reservoir operations for Lake Mead and Lake Powell, and storage and delivery mechanisms for conserved water.
Jerla, Reclamation’s senior water resource program manager, said the draft alternatives will include some components previously proposed by states.
She said the agency has adopted a number of temporary operational agreements since 2008 to address changing conditions on the river. Those agreements have served as test runs for a long term agreement and emphasized the need for more flexibility when managing the river from year-to-year.
“We want to preserve ourselves the flexibility to come back to the table, to do reviews, to make consensus adjustments if needed,” Jerla said.
That flexibility to operations will likely be needed again this year due to a less-than-average upcoming snow season, that combined with a dry spring or early summer in 2026, could create conditions for another low runoff year.
“We’re monitoring the forecast, and we’re seeing not a great start to water year 2026. It’s still early in the year, but the way things are setting up it isn’t looking good,” Jerla said.
Figure 1. Graph showing active storage in Colorado River basin reservoirs between January 1, 2021, and November 30, 2025. Credit: Jack Schmidt/Center for Colorado River Studies
The two biggest reservoirs in the country, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, are currently at a fraction of their full capacity. Lake Mead is at 32% capacity, while Lake Powell is at 28%.
Additionally, water inflow into the reservoirs in 2026 are projected to most likely be 75% of the average, according to the federal agency. The minimum probable inflow forecast for 2026 is 44% of average, indicating a potentially very dry year.
As the 80th annual Colorado River Water Users Association (CRWUA) conference wraps up, SNWA General Manager John Entsminger reflects on the shared responsibility of everyone on the river, emphasizing collaboration while continuing to protect Southern Nevada’s water future. pic.twitter.com/JjuvUrHwuR
I apologize, I missed the first Session Friday, “Near-term analysis of Colorado River Basin Storage” with Eric Kuhn, Sarah Porter, and Jack Schmidt. Here’s the link to “Colorado River Insights 2025: Dancing with Deadpool“. Their contribution is in Chapter 1, “Colorado River Reservoir Storage – Where We Stand”.
LAS VEGAS — About [1,700] people from every corner of the Colorado River Basin flocked to the palm tree-lined Caesars Palace casino in Las Vegas this week thirsty for insights into the stalled negotiations over the future management of the river.
New insights, however, were sparse as of Tuesday morning.
The highly anticipated Colorado River Water Users Association conference is the largest river gathering of the year. It’s a meet up where federal and state officials like to make big announcements about the water supply for 40 million people, and when farmers, tribal nations, city water managers, industrial representatives and environmental groups can swap strategies in hallway chats.
The meetings started Tuesday morning before the conference officially kicked off. Officials from basin states, including Colorado, set the tone by digging into their oft-repeated rhetoric about the worrisome conditions in the basin, impacts in their own states and conservation efforts. Conference-goers pushed state leaders for more transparency and progress in the discussions over the river’s future.
The basin’s main reservoirs, lakes Mead and Powell, have fallen to historic lows despite pouring state and federal dollars into broad conservation efforts, said Commissioner Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s governor-appointed negotiator on Colorado River issues.
“We’re in a precarious time because none of that is enough,” Mitchell told hundreds of audience members during an Upper Colorado River Commission meeting Tuesday. “It has not been enough.”
Natural flows — which is a calculation of how much water would pass Lees Ferry without upstream human intervention — has trended downward since the mid-1980s. Even before that, however, the river rarely carried as much water as the drafters of the 1922 Colorado River Compact presumed it did. They based the Compact on a median flow of 20 million acre-feet. The 1906-2025 median flow has actually been just 14.3 MAF, while the most recent six-year average has been just over 10 MAF. Data source: Bureau of Reclamation via The Land Desk.
As the river’s water supply is strained by a 26-year drought and human demands, officials are trying to replace an expiring agreement from 2007, which manages how Mead and Powell capture water from upstream states and release it downstream for water users in Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico.
The Department of the Interior is managing the effort, dubbed the post-2026 process, but deciding new rules is simpler said than done: Basin officials will have to address a changing climate and decide on painful water cuts going forward.
The Interior Department has given the seven basin states until Feb. 14 to reach a consensus. If they can agree, the feds will use the states’ proposal to manage the basin’s reservoirs. If not, the federal officials will decide what to do.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Officials from the Upper Basin states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — did not share examples of progress in the post-2026 negotiations. They said the basin’s water cycle, not its legal issues, are the main problem.
“It’s not political positions. It’s not legal interpretations,” Brandon Gebhart, Wyoming’s top negotiator, said. “It’s the hydrology of the entire basin.”
Native America in the Colorado River Basin. Credit: USBR
Others, including some of the 30 tribes in the basin, saw it differently. Some tribal representatives called for more transparency. Others said they couldn’t support a plan that is geared toward sending water to downstream states.
“Despite those that think hydrology is the problem, it’s not, and it can’t always be the scapegoat,” said Kirin Vicenti, water commissioner for the Jicarilla Apache Nation, located within New Mexico just south of the Colorado state line. “Our planning and policies must allow flexibility, and innovative and dynamic solutions.”
Portion of a Roman aqueduct Barcelona, Spain, May 2025.
A basin divided by a Rome-inspired wall
Relationships between upstream states and Lower Basin states — Arizona, California and Nevada — have been strained since the post-2026 effort kicked into gear in 2022 and 2023.
On the other side of the casino wall from the Upper Basin meeting, the Colorado River Board of California met Tuesday morning. Each audience could hear muffled clapping from the other room as the officials spoke to their constituents.
“We know one thing for sure, which is that we have a smaller river and that requires less use,” JB Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River board and California’s top negotiator, told the gathering.
He lauded California’s “massive” and expensive efforts to address the river’s shrinking supply while still growing the state’s economy and agriculture industry.
Lower Basin water use since 1964. 2025 data provisional, based on USBR projections Oct. 29, 2015.
California has cut its water use to 3.76 million acre-feet, the lowest it has been since 1949, state officials said. It has a proposed plan to conserve 440,000 acre-feet of river water per year.
One acre-foot roughly equals the annual water use of two to three households.
“We hear lots of applause lines from our friends next door, and we encourage them to take some examples from what California has been able to put together,” Hamby said. “We must all live with the resources we have, not the ones that we wish for.”
Crossing basin lines
While the states might be divided in water politics, conference attendees like Ken Curtis of Colorado moved between the rooms to hear each group’s discussion.
“We appear to be talking past each other,” said Curtis, the general manager of the Dolores Water Conservancy District in southwestern Colorado.
Some water managers from central Utah said they were already looking beyond the current negotiations to the next few decades. The basin’s challenges don’t end next fall — this is just a speed bump in a long future ahead, they said.
Others were waiting for updates from federal officials, scheduled for Wednesday. The Department of the Interior is set to release a highly anticipated look at different options for how to manage the basin around the end of the year.
Curtis said he is at the conference mainly to learn how other states were grappling with the tough water conditions and to get more insight into the negotiations beyond what’s in the media, he said.
“Squeezing it (water) out of the Upper Basin isn’t going to make enough water for the Lower Basin demands,” Curtis said. “And that may be a biased view, obviously, so I’m trying to get a little bit beyond my own biases.”
September 21, 1923, 9:00 a.m. — Colorado River at Lees Ferry. From right bank on line with Klohr’s house and gage house. Old “Dugway” or inclined gage shows to left of gage house. Gage height 11.05′, discharge 27,000 cfs. Lens 16, time =1/25, camera supported. Photo by G.C. Stevens of the USGS. Source: 1921-1937 Surface Water Records File, Colorado R. @ Lees Ferry, Laguna Niguel Federal Records Center, Accession No. 57-78-0006, Box 2 of 2 , Location No. MB053635.
The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)
Palm trees in the Imperial Valley 2017. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Brian McNeece):
December 15, 2025
Where Colorado and other Upper-Basin states need to retreat from trying to develop full compact allocation. But Lower Basin states need to acknowledge Mother Nature.
This was published on Dec. 13, 2025, in the Calexico Chronicle, a publication in California’s Imperial Valley. It is reposted here with permission, and we asked for that permission because we thought it was an interesting explanation from a close observer who was reared in an area that uses by far the most amount of water in the Colorado River Basin.
This week is the annual gathering of “water buffaloes” in Las Vegas. It’s the Colorado River Water Users Association convention. About 1,700 people will attend, but probably around 100 of them are the key people — the government regulators, tribal leaders, and the directors and managers of the contracting agencies that receive Colorado River water.
Anyone who is paying attention knows that we are in critical times on the river. Temporary agreements on how to distribute water during times of shortage are expiring. Negotiators have been talking for several years but haven’t been able to agree on anything concrete.
I’m just an observer, but I’ve been observing fairly closely. Within the limits on how much information I can get as an outsider, I’d like to propose some principles or guidelines that I think are important for the negotiation process.
A. When Hoover Dam was proposed, the main debate was over whether the federal government or private concerns would operate it. Because the federal option prevailed, water is delivered free to contractors. Colorado River water contractors do not pay the actual cost of water being delivered to them. It is subsidized by the U.S. government. As a public resource, Colorado River water should not be seen as a commodity.
B. The Lower Basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada should accept that the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are at the mercy of Mother Nature for much of their annual water supply. While the 1922 Colorado River Compact allocates them 7.5 million acre-feet annually, in wet years, they have been able to use a maximum of 4.7 maf. During the long, ongoing drought, their annual use has been 3.5 maf. They shouldn’t have to make more cuts.
C. However, neither should the Upper Basin states be able to develop their full allocation. It should be capped at a feasible number, perhaps 4.2 maf. As compensation, Upper Basin agencies and farmers can invest available federal funds in projects to use water more efficiently and to reuse it so that they can develop more water.
D. Despite the drought, we know there will be some wet years. To compensate the Lower Basin states for taking all the cuts in dry years, the Upper Basin should release more water beyond the Compact commitments during wet years. This means that Lake Mead and Lower Basin reservoirs would benefit from wet years and Lake Powell would not. In short, the Lower Basin takes cuts in dry years; the Upper Basin takes cuts in wet years.
E. Evaporation losses (water for the angels) can be better managed by keeping more of the Lower Basin’s water in Upper Basin reservoirs instead of in Lake Mead, where the warmer weather means higher evaporation losses. New agreements should include provisions to move that water in the Lower Basin account down to Lake Mead quickly. Timing is of the essence.
H. In the Lower Basin states, shortages should be shared along the same lines as specified in the 2007 Interim Guidelines, with California being last to take cuts as Lake Mead water level drops.
I. On the home front, Imperial Irrigation District policy makers should make a long-term plan to re-set water rates in accord with original water district policy. Because the district is a public, non-profit utility, water rates were set so that farmers paid only the cost to deliver water. Farmers currently pay $20 per acre foot, but the actual cost of delivering water is $60 per acre foot. That subsidy of $60 million comes from the water transfer revenues.
J. The San Diego County Water Authority transfer revenues now pay farmers $430 per acre-foot of conserved water, mostly for drip or sprinkler systems. Akin to a grant program, this very successful program generated almost 200,000 acre-feet of conserved water last year. Like any grant program, it should be regularly audited for effectiveness.
K. Some of those transfer revenues should be invested in innovative cropping patterns, advanced technologies, and marketing to help the farming community adapt to a changing world. The Imperial Irrigation District should use its resources to help all farmers be more successful, not just a select group.
L. Currently, federal subsidies pay farmers not to use water via the Deficit Irrigation Program. We can lobby for those subsidies to continue, but we should plan for when they dry up. Any arrangement that rewards farmers but penalizes farm services such as seed, fertilizer, pesticide, land leveling, equipment, and other work should be avoided.
M. Though the Imperial Irrigation District has considerable funding from the district’s QSA water transfers, it may need to consider issuing general obligation bonds as it did in its foundational days for larger water efficiency projects such as more local storage or a water treatment plant to re-use ag drain water.
Much progress has been made in using water more efficiently, especially in the Lower Basin states, but there’s a lot more water to be saved, and I believe collectively that we can do it.
The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)
Native America in the Colorado River Basin. Credit: USBR
State leaders seek durable post-2026 plan and make significant contributions
December 16, 2025
Las Vegas – California’s water, tribal, and agricultural leaders today presented a comprehensive framework for a durable, basin-wide operating agreement for the Colorado River and highlighted the state’s proposal for conserving 440,000 acre-feet of river water per year.
At the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference, California underscored the state’s leadership in conservation, collaboration, and long-term stewardship of shared water resources that inform its approach to post-2026 negotiations.
California takes a balanced approach, relying on contributions from the upper and lower basins to maintain a shared resource. California supports hydrology-based flexibility for river users, with all states contributing real water savings. Any viable framework would need to include transparent and verifiable accounting for conserved water, along with several other elements outlined in the California framework.
State leaders also noted that they are willing to set aside many of their legal positions to reach a deal, including releases from Lake Powell under the Colorado River Compact, distribution of Lower Basin shortages, and other provisions of the Law of the River, provided that there are equitable and sufficient water contributions from every state in the Basin and the country of Mexico.
Constructive California
“California is leading with constructive action,” said JB Hamby, chairman of the Colorado River Board of California. “We have reduced our water use to the lowest levels since the 1940s, invested billions to modernize our water systems and develop new supplies, partnered with tribes and agricultural communities, and committed to real water-use reductions that will stabilize the river. We are doing our part – and we invite every state to join us in this shared responsibility.”
Despite being home to 20 million Colorado River-reliant residents and a farming region that produces the majority of America’s winter vegetables, California’s use of Colorado River water is projected at 3.76 million acre-feet in 2025 – the lowest since 1949.
That achievement comes on top of historic reductions in water use over the past 20 years, led by collaborative conservation efforts. Urban Southern California cut imported water demand in half while adding almost 4 million residents. And farms reduced water use by more than 20% while sustaining more than $3 billion in annual output. Tribes also have made critical contributions, including nearly 40,000 acre-feet of conserved water by the Quechan Indian Tribe to directly support river system stability.
Going forward, California is prepared to reduce water use by 440,000 acre-feet per year – in addition to existing long-standing conservation efforts – as part of the Lower Basin’s proposal to conserve up to 1.5 million acre-feet per year, which would include participation by Mexico. When conditions warrant, California is also committed to making additional reductions to address future shortages as part of a comprehensive basin-state plan.
The state’s history of conservation illustrates what can be accomplished through collaboration, and all Colorado River water users in California are preparing to contribute to these reductions – agricultural agencies, urban agencies, and tribes.
Framework for a Post-2026 Agreement
In addition to conservation contributions, California provided a framework of principles for the post-2026 river operating guidelines to advance a shared solution for the seven Basin States, the tribes and Mexico. More specifically, California outlined the following key components for a new framework:
Lake Powell releases – California supports a policy of hydrology-based, flexible water releases that protects both Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Flexibility must be paired with appropriate risk-sharing across basins, avoiding disproportionate impacts to any one region.
Upper Initial Units (Colorado River Storage Project Act) – Releases should be made when needed to reduce water supply and power risks to both basins.
Shared contributions – The Lower Basin’s proposed 1.5 million acre-feet per year contribution to address the structural deficit, including an equitable share from Mexico (subject to binational negotiations), is the first enforceable offer on the table. When hydrology demands more, participation by all seven Basin States is essential.
Interstate exchanges – Interstate exchanges need to be part of any long-term solution to encourage interstate investments in new water supply projects that may not be economically viable for just one state or agency.
Operational flexibility – Continued ability to store water in Lake Mead is vital to maintain operational flexibility. California supports continuation and expansion of water storage in Lake Mead as a long-term feature of river management and to encourage conservation. We also support Upper Basin pools for conservation, allowing similar benefits.
Phasing of a long-term agreement – California supports a long-term operating agreement with adaptive phases. Tools like water storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell need to extend beyond any initial period due to significant investments required to store conserved water in the reservoirs.
Protections and federal support: Any agreement should be supported with federal funding and any necessary federal authorities, allow agriculture and urban areas to continue to thrive, protect tribal rights, and address the environment, including the environmentally sensitive Salton Sea.
“There are no easy choices left, but California has always done what is required to protect the river,” said Jessica Neuwerth, executive director of the Colorado River Board of California. “We have proven that conservation and growth can coexist. We have shown that reductions can be real, measurable, and durable. And we have demonstrated how states, tribes, cities, and farms can work together to build a sustainable future for the Colorado River.”
What California agencies are saying:
“The future of the Colorado River is vital to California – and our nation. As the fourth largest economy in the world, we rely on the Colorado River to support the water needs of millions of Californians and our agricultural community which feeds the rest of the nation. California is doing more with less, maintaining our economic growth while using less water in our urban and agricultural communities. We have cut our water use to its lowest levels in decades and are investing in diverse water supply infrastructure throughout California, doing our part to protect the Colorado River for generations to come. We look forward to continued discussions with our partners across the West to find the best path forward to keep the Colorado River healthy for all those who rely on it.” – Wade Crowfoot, Secretary, California Natural Resources
“Metropolitan’s story is one of collaboration, of finding common ground. We have forged partnerships across California and the Basin – with agriculture, urban agencies and tribes. And through that experience, we know that we can build a comprehensive Colorado River Agreement that includes all seven states and the country of Mexico. We must reach a consensus. That is the only option.” – Adán Ortega, Jr., Chair, Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors
“California’s leadership is grounded in results, and the Imperial Valley is proud to contribute to that record. Our growers have created one of the most efficient agricultural regions in the Basin—cutting use by over 20% while supporting a $3 billion farm economy that feeds America. Since 2003, IID has conserved more than nine million acre-feet, and with the Colorado River as our sole water supply, we remain firmly committed to constructive, collaborative solutions that protect America’s hardest-working river.” – Gina Dockstader, Chairwoman, Imperial Irrigation District
“The path to resiliency requires innovation, cooperation, and every Basin state’s commitment to conservation. The San Diego County Water Authority supports an approach that provides flexibility to adapt to changing climate conditions. That means developing a new framework that allows for interstate water transfers to move water where it’s most needed and incentivizes the development of new supplies for augmentation.” – CRB Vice Chair Jim Madaffer, San Diego County Water Authority
“Palo Verde Irrigation District is committed to maintaining a healthy, viable river system into the future. We at PVID have always gone above and beyond in supporting the river in times of need. Since 2023 our 95,000-acre valley, in collaboration with Metropolitan and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have committed over 351,000 acre-feet of verifiable wet water to support the river system and Lake Mead. It is important to our stakeholders in the Palo Verde Valley and all of California that Colorado River water continues to meet the needs of both rural and urban areas. We must find workable solutions that keep food on people’s plates and water running thru the faucets of homes.” – Brad Robinson, Board President, Palo Verde Irrigation District
“California continues to lead in conservation and collaboration, setting the standard for innovation and sustainability. Together, we strive to ensure reliability for millions of people, tribes, and acres of farmland. For decades, CVWD has invested in conservation efficiency, alongside investments from growers. Additionally, we have saved more than 118,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water since 2022 — underscoring our shared commitment to long-term sustainability. CVWD remains dedicated to finding collaborative solutions to protect the river’s health and stability.” – Peter Nelson, Board Director, Coachella Valley Water District
“As stewards of the Colorado River since time immemorial, our Tribe is committed to protecting the river for the benefit of our people and all of the communities and ecosystems that rely on it. We believe partnerships and collaboration, such as our agreement with Metropolitan Water District and the Bureau of Reclamation to conserve over 50,000 acre-feet of our water in Lake Mead between 2023 and 2026, are essential to ensure that we have a truly living river.” – President Jonathan Koteen, Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe
“Bard Water District remains committed to continued system conservation and responsible water management. While small in size, the District continues to make meaningful contributions to regional sustainability efforts on the Colorado River.” – Ray Face, Board President, Bard Water District
“LADWP is dedicated to delivering and managing a water supply that prioritizes resilience, high quality, and cost-effectiveness. These investments illustrate that achieving urban water resiliency is indeed feasible.” – Dave Pettijohn, Water Resources Director, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
Water shooting out of Glen Canyon Dam’s river outlets — as opposed to the penstocks and hydroelectric turbines — in autumn 2025. The releases were part of the Cool Flow project that is intended to lower the temperature of the river downstream of the dam to protect native fish by disrupting non-native smallmouth bass spawning. The releases diminished hydroelectric output, forcing the Western Area Power Administration to spend over $25 million over two years to purchase replacement electricity on the open market. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
A new report from the Colorado River Research Group, aptly named “Dancing with Deadpool,” paints a grim picture of the critical artery of the Southwest. Reservoir and groundwater levels are perilously low, the 25-year megadrought is likely to persist — perhaps for decades, and the collective users of the river have yet to develop a workable plan for cutting consumption and balancing demand with the river’s dwindling supply.
Amid all the darkness however, the report also delivers a few glimmers of hope, noting that mechanisms do exist to avert a full-blown crisis, and that humans do have the power to slow or halt human-cased global heating, which is one of the main drivers of reduced flows in the river.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Those reduced flows seem like a good place to start, since the Colorado River Basin is experiencing the very phenomenon that Jonathan Overpeck and Brad Udall write about in the second chapter, “Think Natural Flows Will Rebound in the Colorado River Basin? Think Again.”
Natural flows — which is a calculation of how much water would pass Lees Ferry without upstream human intervention — has trended downward since the mid-1980s. Even before that, however, the river rarely carried as much water as the drafters of the 1922 Colorado River Compact presumed it did. They based the Compact on a median flow of 20 million acre-feet. The 1906-2025 median flow has actually been just 14.3 MAF, while the most recent six-year average has been just over 10 MAF. Data source: Bureau of Reclamation.
The authors call the Southwest “megadrought country,” since tree rings and other sources show that severe, multi-decadal dry spells — like the one gripping the region currently — have occurred somewhat regularly over the last 2,000 years. The current drought, then, is likely a part of this natural climate variability.
But there’s a catch: The previous megadroughts most likely resulted from, primarily, a lack of precipitation. The current dry-spell is also due to lack of precipitation, but it is intensified by warming temperatures, which are the clear and direct result of climate change. They also find evidence that climate change may also be exacerbating the current climate deficit.
The takeaway is that even when we move through the current dry part of the cycle, the increasingly higher temperatures will offset some of the added precipitation and continue to diminish Colorado River flows. And, when the natural cycle comes back around to the drought side, it’s going to be even worse thanks to climate change.
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map December 16, 2025.
Water year 2026 is so far looking like an example of the former, with normal to above-normal precipitation accumulating, but as rain, not as snow, leaving much of the West with far below normal snowpack levels.
If the trend continues, it will not bode well for the Colorado River, according to the chapter written by Jack Schmidt, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Kathryn Sorensen, and Katherine Tara. In an updated version of a paper they put out in September, they find that if water year 2026 (which we’re about 2.5 months into) is anything like water year 2025, Lake Powell is in trouble, and “low reservoir levels in summer 2026 will challenge water supply management, hydropower production, and environmental river management.”
The top water users on the Lower Colorado River Basin. Imperial Irrigation District in southern California once again tops the list. But it’s notable how much consumption they’ve cut since 2003; the IID is expected to use even less water in 2025. Nevada is broken out as a state here because of the way the accounting works. Nearly all of Nevada’s Colorado River allocation goes to Southern Nevada and the Las Vegas metro area. Data source: Bureau of Reclamation.
In order to avoid a full-blown crisis in the near-term, Colorado River users must significantly and quickly cut water consumption — independent of whatever agreement the states come up with for dividing the river’s dwindling waters after 2026.
While there is a long-running debate over whether the Upper Basin or the Lower Basin will have to bear the brunt of those cuts, the math makes it indisputable that the agricultural sector in both basins will have to pare down its collective consumption. That’s because irrigated agriculture accounts for about 74% of all direct human consumptive use on the River, or about three times more than municipal, commercial, and industrial uses.
Chart showing how water from the Colorado River is used. Source: “New accounting reveals why the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea,” by Brian Richter et al.
That’s why, in recent years, the feds and states have paid farmers to stop irrigating some crops and fallow their fields. While this method has achieved meaningful cuts in overall water use in those areas, it is in most cases not sustainable because the deals are temporary, and because they rely on iffy federal funding. So, in another of the report’s chapters, Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter offer a different proposal: The federal government should simply purchase land from willing sellers and stop irrigating it (or at least compensate landowners for agreeing to stop or curtail irrigation permanently).
They emphasize that this is not a “buy-and-dry” proposition, where a city buys out the water rights of farms to serve more development. That doesn’t actually save any water, since the city is still using it, and it wrecks farms and communities. Instead, this proposal would actually convert the farmland into public land, and put the water back into the river. This proposed program would target high-water-use, low economic-water-productivity land in situations where the water savings would benefit the environment and the land transfer would help local communities.
Even then, this would be disruptive, in that it would take land out of agriculture and potentially remove farms — and the farmers — from the community. There would also be the question of how to manage the freshly fallowed fields so that they don’t become weed-infested wastelands or sources of airborne, snow-melting dust.
In the following chapter, a quartet of authors suggests a slightly softer approach, in which farmers adapt to dwindling water amounts by shifting crops or to reduce cattle herd sizes or approaches.
The report concludes with a call for a basin-wide approach to managing the Colorado River, and the creation of an entity that would address Colorado River issues in a more comprehensive, transparent, and inclusive way. The current approach, which arbitrarily cuts the watershed in half along an imaginary line, pitting one set of states against another while excluding sovereign tribal nations, and trying to operate within an outdated framework known as the Law of the River, is an opaque mess that has thus far resulted only in gridlock.
The authors propose, instead:
And, finally, a little smidgeon of hope from the report’s second chapter, although it’s hard to be hopeful about reversing climate change in times like these and with a presidential administration intent on burning more and more fossil fuels …
Remote camera image of a wolf pup taken during the summer of 2025. Source: Colorado Parks & Wildlife.
🦫 Wildlife Watch 🦅
The News:Colorado Parks and Wildlife last week thanked New Mexico wildlife officials for successfully capturing gray wolf 2403, a member of Colorado’s Copper Creek pack that had roamed over the state line. The wolf was re-released in Grand County, Colorado, where officials hope it will find a mate.
The Context: WTF!? Are these folks trying to bring an extirpated species back to a state similar to the one that existed before it was systematically slaughtered — i.e. the “natural” state — or are they running a zoo?
The CPW said that the wolf’s capture was in compliance with an agreement with bordering states that is purportedly intended to “protect the genetic integrity of the Mexican wolf recovery program, while also establishing a gray wolf population in Colorado.”
I’m no wildlife biologist, but it sure does seem to me that if a gray wolf from Colorado heads to New Mexico in search of a mate, as is their instinctual tendency, then that’s a good thing. And trying to confine the wolves to artificial and arbitrary political boundaries is counterproductive.
“Historically, gray wolf populations in western North America were contiguously distributed from northern arctic regions well into Mesoamerica as far south as present day Mexico City” explained David Parsons, former Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in a written statement. “The exchange of genes kept gray wolf populations both genetically and physically healthy, enhancing their ability to adapt and evolve to environmental changes.” He added that 2403’s walkabout, along with that of “Taylor,” the Mexican gray wolf that has defied attempts to constrain him to southern New Mexico by traveling into the Mt. Taylor region, were “simply retracing ancient pathways of wolf movements. Rather than being viewed as a problem, these movements should be encouraged and celebrated as successful milestones toward west-wide gray wolf recovery efforts.”
Amen to that.
It’s clearly very tough to run a predator reintroduction program in the rural West, fraught as it is with political and cultural complications. And I respect and admire the folks that are running the project, and understand they are working within serious constraints. Still, there has to be a better way to let nature run its course.
Aldo Leopold, Colorado River delta, Baja California, Mexico Credit: Courtesy Aldo Leopold Foundation and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Archives
Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral.com website (Brandon Loomis). Here’s an excerpt:
December 15, 2025
Key Points
Seven states and 30 tribes that depend on the Colorado River are looking for ways to share a shrinking resource, but environmental groups fear little will be left for the river itself.
A wetlands at the end of the river and a fishery at its midpoint show what can happen when water is managed to preserve nature’s needs.
Growing demand on the river and competing interests, including electric power providers, could force negotiators for the states to confront difficult decisions.
CIÉNEGA DE SANTA CLARA, Mexico — The rusty observation tower at the edge of this wastewater-fed marsh offers an osprey-eye view of two possible futures for the parched and overworked Colorado River. To one side, the marsh spreads across more than 20 square miles of pools and islands choked with cattails and phragmites, convoys of pelicans descending and splashing down for a rest on their journey south from the Great Salt Lake or other western waters. Dragonflies hover below, while a fish hawk circles above, scanning the open water between the reeds. This is a vision of a future in which partners across the Western United States and Mexico save enough water that they can spare some for nature, even if it means irrigating it with the salty dregs. On the tower’s other side, boundless flats of sand and cracked mud spread to the horizon across what was, prior to the river’s damming a century ago, one of Earth’s great green estuaries.
Colorado River Dry Delta, terminus of the Colorado River in the Sonoran Desert of Baja California and Sonora, Mexico, ending about 5 miles north of the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California). Date: 12 January 2009. Source http://gallery.usgs.gov/photos/10_15_2010_rvm8Pdc55J_10_15_2010_0#.Ur0mcvfTnrd. Photographer: Pete McBride, U.S. Geological Survey
Jennifer Pitt leaned against a rail atop the tower and scanned that dusty horizon. A century ago, she said, the river had meandered so widely and soaked so much verdant ground there that the naturalist Aldo Leopold had written in “A Sand County Almanac” that “the river was nowhere and everywhere,” unable to “decide which of a hundred green lagoons offered the most pleasant and least speedy path to the Gulf (of California).”
Now the Grand River’s delta supports just a handful of green lagoons, all fed either by wastewater or by targeted environmental irrigation. Pitt leads the Audubon Society’s Colorado River program. She has toiled for decades alongside American and Mexican conservationists to rebuild slivers of living delta from what’s left of the water after dams, farm ditches and growing cities divert most of the great river along its 1,450-mile route from the Rocky Mountains toward its dry mouth on the Sea of Cortez near here. A century ago, the river would have wandered a soaked delta teeming with birds, jaguars and legendary biodiversity. Now, a wastewater marsh must do the ecological heavy lifting.
Jennifer Pitt and Brad Udall at the Getches-Wilkinson Center/Water and Tribes Initiative conference June 5, 2025. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
“If we can’t prioritize taking care of a place like this, I fear for our ability to take care of ourselves,” Pitt said.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
The next few months will be a turning point in efforts to preserve a measure of nature here and across the river’s length, as the seven U.S. states that split the bulk of the water struggle to reach a new deal among themselves that could also determine how much water is available to nurse a remnant of the river’s own environment. Federal officials have said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is prepared to impose his own cuts if the states can’t reach their own deal, and have said they need a negotiated plan by late winter to avoid that outcome. More than two decades of “megadrought,” unprecedented in U.S. history, have left little wiggle room for year-to-year operations. Reservoirs that were near their 58.48 million-acre-foot capacity in 2000 began the 2026 water year on Oct. 1, with just 21.8 million acre-feet behind the dams. Each acre-foot contains about 326,000 gallons and is roughly enough to support three households for a year, though the bulk of the water flows to the region’s farms.
Jennifer Pitt, the National Audubon Society’s Colorado River program director, paddles a kayak through a restoration site. (Source: Jesus Salazar, Raise the River)
The rhetoric of the so-called sagebrush rebels, members of the Wise-Use movement, the anti-federal land management crowd, public lands ranchers, and the like gives a certain impression: They are salt-of-the-earth folks who are just trying to eke out a meagre living and feed the nation from the hostile land of the Western U.S., and they are doing battle with the coastal elites and moneyed environmentalists who have the federal bureaucrats in their pockets.
There are certainly instances in which this holds true, when a rancher can’t afford pasture of their own, so they rely on the public lands, the public forage, and the taxpayer-subsidized fees to stay afloat. But just as often, these “cowboys” are actually millionaires — sometimes even billionaires — who are accumulating even more cash with the help of the American taxpayers. (And sometimes the public land ranchers and the moneyed environmentalists are one and the same).
Two recent pieces from the folks over at Public Domain — which is run by long-time public lands reporters Jimmy Tobias and Chris D’Angelo — shed more light on this phenomenon. Tobias and ProPublica’s Mark Olalde looked into how ultra-wealthy ranch-owners were benefitting from absurdly low federal grazing fees for High Country News. When you get a chance, check it out.
And it turns out one of those millionaires is high-ranking Interior Department official Karen Budd-Falen. Public Domain managed to pry her financial disclosure from the Trump administration and they posted it online. The Land Desk dove into it and followed a few segues to find not only that Budd-Falen and her husband Frank have done quite well for themselves, amassing large amounts of acreage in the process, but that their ranches have also benefitted from federal subsidies — even as they battled the federal government.
As Land Desk readers are likely aware, Wyoming attorney Budd-Falen built a career fighting federal and state land management agencies on behalf of sagebrush rebels and members of the Wise-Use movement. She and her husband, Frank Falen, once argued that a public lands grazing permit actually conveyed a “private property right” protected by the Constitution. She described land-management agencies as part of “a dictatorship” and in the 1990s helped draft a New Mexico county’s resolution declaring that federal and state land-management officials “threaten the life, liberty, and happiness of the people of Catron County … and present danger to the land and livelihood of every man, woman, and child.”
But Budd-Falen has also been a part of the federal land-management bureaucracy. She worked in Ronald Reagan’s Interior Department under James Watt, and then signed on as deputy Interior solicitor for wildlife and parks under the first Trump administration. Now she is the department’s associate deputy secretary, which gives her plenty of power and influence without the need to be confirmed by the Senate. Notably, she headed up a closed-door meeting early this month aimed at giving Utah more sway over national park management.
The financial disclosure, which is missing the usual signature from an Interior ethics official to verify it is in compliance with the law, shows that Budd-Falen’s firm — which is now owned entirely by her husband — continues to represent clients that her department may regulate. She holds stock in oil and gas companies that operate on public land. And she and her husband own millions of dollars worth of land in Nevada and Wyoming.
Here’s a rundown of their land-holdings, per the disclosure:
A ranch in Big Piney, Wyoming, valued between $1 million and $5 million, leased out to a 3rd party for between $50,000 and $100,000 annually. Karen Budd-Falen owns this several-thousand-acre spread with her siblings and says they reinvest the proceeds back into the property
Home Ranch LLC in Orovada and UC Cattle Company LLC in McDermitt, Nevada, each valued at over $1 million, and each with a livestock operation that brings in over $1 million in income annually. Together, Home Ranch and UC Cattle Company cover about 11,740 acres in northwestern Nevada.
The ranches were previously owned by Frank’s parents, John and Sharon Falen. The late John Falen, who once leased nearly 300,000 acres of public land for grazing, was featured in a 1991 Newsweek story titled “The War for the West” due to his conflict with the BLM for requiring him to fence off streams that provided habitat for imperiled Lahontan cutthroat trout. “I never figured I’d be fighting my own government to defend my way of life,” he told the reporter.
But they also relied pretty heavily on the feds for their livelihood. Not only did they pay well below-market rates for grazing on public land, but the elder Falens’ livestock operation received over $1.3 million in USDA subsidies between 1995 and 2015, according to the EWG Farm Subsidy Database.
Home Ranch LLC in Nevada received an additional $580,000 in federal farm subsidies between 2016 and 2024, while Home Ranch LLC and UC Cattle Company — both registered by Frank Falen at the Budd-Falen law office’s address in Cheyenne — received yet another $871,000 from 2022-2024.
Both Home Ranch and UC Cattle are listed as grazing permittees under the BLM’s Humboldt River Field Office. And in 2020, Home Ranch applied for a grazing permit renewal on the 106,000-acre Jordan Meadows allotment, but after a rangeland health analysis found that several categories did not meet standards, the process was canceled. Currently the allotment is listed as active and permitted for 11,720 animal unit-months, with 8,939 suspended AUMS.
L-F Enterprises LLC, a cattle operation and rentals, in Cheyenne, Wyoming, valued at $1 million to $5 million that brings in between $100,000 and $1 million annually. A note on the disclosure says Budd-Falen is a “passive” owner of this entity.
Divide Ranch, a cattle operation covering about 2,800 acres in Wheatland, Wyoming, valued at $1 million to $5 million. There is a lot of loopy stuff in this disclosure: This one has a footnote that says L-F Enterprises grazes cattle on land owned by Divide Ranch, meaning the Budd-Falens are leasing land from themselves.
Five residential properties in Cheyenne and Laramie, Wyoming, each valued between $250,000 and $500,000 that together bring in a rental income of between $50,000 and $165,000 annually.
Two commercial properties in Cheyenne, each valued between $500,000 and $1 million, that together bring in between $115,000 and $1.1 million annually.
And then there are the stocks:
Budd-Falen has held between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of shares in Enterprise Products Partners L.P. That’s the midstream oil and gas company that owns and operates the pipeline that spilled about 97,000 gallons of gasoline near Durango, Colorado, last December. The spill contaminated groundwater, forced people to move out of their homes, and is still being cleaned up — recently the EPA joined the effort.
And she held between $15,000 and $50,000 shares in Exxon Mobil Corp., the oil and gas giant that drills on the same public lands Budd-Falen oversees.
I know it’s cliche, but I can’t help but think that this is yet another example of the foxes guarding the henhouse, something that the Trump administration seems to specialize in.
🤖 Data Center Watch 👾
The Big Data Center Buildup continues, with larger and larger projects put on the table every day, many in places that one wouldn’t expect. This has sparked a backlash of growing intensity, both among those worried about the centers’ electricity and water consumption, and those who see AI — which is driving much of the growth — as a threat.
This week, a group of more than 200 environmental, social justice, and consumer organizations sent a letter to Congress calling for a nationwide ban on new data centers. It says, in part:
Given the Trump administration’s fondness for AI, and donations from Big Tech, I don’t see the GOP-dominated Congress acting on this.
More news tidbits:
As if to verify the opposition groups’ concerns, the developers of the massive proposed Project Jupiter data center complex near Santa Teresa, New Mexico, recentlyy asked state regulators for permission to generate more power than the state’s largest utility and emit more greenhouse gases than both Albuquerque and Las Cruces combined, according to a Source NMreport. The latter figure was so high that many observers assumed it was a typo. But then, given its purported size — developers say the complex will cost $165 billion — and ginormous energy consumption, fueled by methane, it surely will emit a lot of carbon, typo or not.
Then there’s Beale Infrastructure’s Project Blue, the hyperscale data center planned for 290 acres outside of Tucson that was originally slated to be occupied and operated by Amazon Web Services. From the outset, it has run into stiff local opposition, nixing plans to annex it into Tucson so it could use recycled wastewater for cooling. The developers shifted gears, saying they would use air-cooling instead to save water in the very water-constrained area. But that was a no-go for Amazon, which pulled out of the deal last week. Beale says other tenants have lined up in the tech giant’s stead. Meanwhile, the Arizona Corporation Commission approved the data center’s power purchase deal with Tucson Electric Power.
And in the places-you-wouldn’t-expect-a-data-center beat: An obscure UK-based developer has proposed building a $10-billion, 1-gigawatt data center on 500 acres of land it plans to purchase from the city of Page, Arizona.
The purple dot in the green grid marks the approximate location of the proposed data center in Page, Arizona. Local opposition is growing, based on power use, water use, noise, and proximity to Horseshoe Bend.
Details remain sketchy: It’s not clear who, exactly, the developer is; a land-purchase agreement indicates the data center might generate its own power, but no fuel source is listed — and 1 GW is the capacity of a big coal or natural gas plant; they plan to “acquire, develop, construct, and use water in a sufficient quantity and quality to continuously serve the Data Center and Energy Project,” yet don’t say where they would get this water; and the developer said the project would create 500 permanent jobs, which is a rather large staff to oversee a bunch of computer processing units. A majority of the city council has supported the $7 million land sale, which is contingent on a successful feasibility study, and the attendant tax revenues and jobs. That is not a surprise given the economic blow dealt by Navajo Generating Station’s 2019 closure and lower visitor numbers at Lake Powell and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. But local opposition is growing and may derail the plans — if the lack of water doesn’t.
A shuttered uranium mine and its waste dump just below the burn scar left by the July 2025 Deer Creek Fire near old La Sal, Utah. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
Another uranium project is coming to the Lisbon Valley in southeastern Utah, though this one is a bit unconventional. Last month, Mandrake Resources signed onwith Disa technologies to use its “high-pressure slurry ablation,” or HPSA, technology to “recover saleable uranium and other critical minerals” from old mining waste piles on Mandrake’s 94,000 project area south of La Sal.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s environmental review of the Disa’s proposal to remediate abandoned mine dumps with HPSA describes the technology as involving …
Because the process is separating uranium and thorium fines from ore, it is considered a form of milling, not mining. And that’s an important distinction, because when you mill uranium ore, you leave behind mill tailings, which must be disposed of according to NRC and Environmental Protection Agency standards. Instead, the “coarse material,” as the waste is described, would be reintegrated into the mine site — even though it may contain radioactive and other harmful materials.
Nevertheless, the NRC granted Disa a license to use HPSA to remediate waste rock at abandoned uranium mines. “The NRC failed to define and regulate the wastes that would be produced by the HPSA process at former uranium mine sites in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act and NRC and EPA regulations applicable to the wastes from the processing of any ore for its uranium content,” said Sarah Fields, of Uranium Watch.
Also of concern is water use: Disa says it would obtain water from offsite, trucking it in at volumes between 10,000 and 40,000 gallons daily. Most likely this would come from a nearby municipal water supply, but it’s not clear which municipality that would be for the Mandrake/Lisbon Valley project.
Mandrake originally acquired and staked hundreds of mining claims on federal and state lands in the Lisbon Valley to extract lithium. But when its drilling samples showed high levels of uranium — and when lithium prices crashed — the Australian company switched gears, or perhaps just broadened their scope. The firm’s website still refers to the land-holdings as its “Utah Lithium Project.”
🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭
This is a pretty cool tool released by the U.S. Census Bureau a little while back. It shows how many housing units were added (or lost), along with the percent change, from each state, county, town, and even census tract between 2020 and 2025. Assuming it’s accurate, it could really help inform discussions about housing supply and demand, about the drivers of the housing affordability crisis, and whether land-use regulations and NIMBYism are really shutting down housing construction.
Check it out here and play around with it a little. Here are some screenshots of more detailed views of Phoenix and Durango.
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
December 12, 2025
New ‘book’ explores the evolving thoughts about an increasingly dire situation
To put that into perspective, the Colorado River Compact assumed an average 16.5 million acre-feet at that site, Lees Ferry. The river this century has produced far less. Since 2020, the river flows have declined even more, to an average of 10.8.
September 21, 1923, 9:00 a.m. — Colorado River at Lees Ferry. From right bank on line with Klohr’s house and gage house. Old “Dugway” or inclined gage shows to left of gage house. Gage height 11.05′, discharge 27,000 cfs. Lens 16, time =1/25, camera supported. Photo by G.C. Stevens of the USGS. Source: 1921-1937 Surface Water Records File, Colorado R. @ Lees Ferry, Laguna Niguel Federal Records Center, Accession No. 57-78-0006, Box 2 of 2 , Location No. MB053635.
Might it get worse?
“Dancing With Deadpool,” a new product from the Colorado River Research Group, delivers the short answer.
“Another year or two of low inflows and we will completely blow through the cushions provided by reservoir storage,” says the document’s executive summary. The word “crisis” litters the 64-page production. It has eight chapters written by 22 authors from Colorado and three other Colorado River Basin states.
The Colorado River has fascinated journalists since at least the 1980s. Then, the river was still delivering water to Mexico’s Sea of Cortez but troubles were evident on the horizon. The river now, except for specially engineered releases from upstream dams, disappears entirely after crossing into Mexico.
Since 2022, the Colorado River had become a national story. Empty seats at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas have disappeared, press credentials harder to secure.
The tension even in the last year has grown. The river runoff this year was only 55% of long-term average. The seven basin states remain at an impasse about solutions proportionate to the problem.
“We have now entered a new era: Dancing with Deadpool,” says the report.
Deadpool is the point at which reservoirs can release no water. In 2022, that moment seemed imminent as sandstone walls of Glen Canyon were exposed directly to sunlight after being submerged since shortly after Lake Powell began filling. Then a miracle winter arrived, water levels in the two big reservoirs, Powell and Mead, rose once again, the emergency receded.
Now the crisis is back — and looming larger.
You can scare yourself to death with what-ifs, but we may need something akin to a miracle to avoid full-blown crisis. We cannot have another winter and then runoff like 2002-2003. Or, as several authors point out, runoff like we had in 2025.
As it is, we need another miracle winter, something akin to what diehard Denver Broncos fans remember as “the drive” in a 1987 playoff game. John Elway led his football team 98 yards down the field in Cleveland to tie the game with 37 seconds left. They won in OT.
Brad Udall and Jonathan Overpeck warn against too much optimism. Mother Nature can be stingy. She has been in the past, with one drought period as long as 80 years during the last 2,000 years. Now, the evidence grows that our monkeying with Mother Nature has produced this drought.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
In 2017, Udall and Overpeck issued the results of their study that showed that warming alone was responsible for roughly half of the reduced natural flows of the Colorado River, at that point 17%. They delivered a new phrase: “hot drought” as distinguished from “dry drought.” The warmer temperatures were robbing the Colorado River Basin of water.
Precipitation in the basin has also declined 7% in the 21st century, as compared to the 20th century. In their chapter, Udall from Colorado State and Overpeck now at the University of Michigan (but with a summer cabin in San Miguel County), cite two new studies that together provide evidence “suggesting” complicity of humans. Greenhouse gases explain the declined precipitation, too.
As science is never 100%, Udall and Overpeck use cautious language. The studies, they say, “strongly suggest we are in for extended dry periods in the Colorado headwaters in the decades ahead.”
If there is less water, then isn’t the solution simple? Use less!
Easy to say. And for the last 20 years, efforts have been made to nibble away at uses. Cities have been working to make less water-intensive urban landscapes popular. But the far larger story lies in agriculture.
In Colorado and the three upper basin states, for example, about 70% of all the Colorado River water (after trans-basin diversions for irrigation are accounted for) goes to agriculture. How can ag use less water?
Two of the chapters work on this. A trio of academics from Wyoming and one from Colorado take aim specifically at the upper basin states. “The relevant questions are not whether or when cuts will happen, but how deep will they go, how will they be distributed, and how well can the consequences be mitigated?” they ask.
The four upper-basin researchers argue that evidence already exists for success. With creativity and collaboration, they say, farmers and ranchers can sustain crop and livestock production even as water becomes scarce. They get into the details, talking about adjustments of cow-calf operation, for example, to reduce water-dependent needs. They call for more research into limited irrigation, crop switching and other practices.
Two other academics, both from Arizona State, take a somewhat broader view, acknowledging the challenge.
“In a landscape of poor choices, in a failing river system in which all solutions are deeply unpopular to some or other powerful constituency, potentially harmful to one community or another or inordinately expensive and founded on unreliable funding, it is at least worth considering another option,” write Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter.
They see cuts of up to 4 million acre-feet in the basin annually being necessary. Again, that’s about 25% of what those who created the Colorado River Compact expected would be annual flows for the seven basin states.
How to get there? They introduce a new concept, “economic water productivity,” a measure of the value of water. Instead of buy and dry programs, they see need for a federally financed effort to pivot uses through incentives to reduce water use on those agricultural lands.
Similar buy-down of high-volume irrigated agriculture is underway in two groundwater depletion areas in Colorado, the San Luis Valley and the Republican River Basin. Some federal money is providing help in the latter basin. They contend federal money will be needed, and lots of it, to pay for this big pivot in the Colorado River Basin. That, they say, would be fitting, because it was federal money that financed the infrastructure for this hydraulic empire.
GRACE TWS trend map. (a) The time series of nonseasonal GRACE/FO TWS (km3/year) over UCRB and LCRB for the period (4/2002–10/2024). (b) Spatial variation in TWS trends for the Colorado River Basin for the investigated period (mm/year) (c) Time series comparison of the change in storage ΔS/Δt derived from the water balance equation (Equation 1) and GRACE/FO. ΔS/Δt calculated from GRACE/FO TWS anomalies in km3. The light shading represents uncertainties.
As for groundwater, that part of the Colorado River story has been generally overlooked. A study released several months ago found that nearly two-thirds of storage — both surface and groundwater — lost from 2002 to 2024 in the Colorado River actually came from groundwater depletion, mostly in Arizona.
Whoa!
“Simply shifting unsustainable surface water uses to unsustainable groundwater uses does nothing to address the core mismatch of supplies and demands,” observes Doug Kenney, who directs the Western Water Policy Program at University of Colorado Law School.
Other contributors dissect the complexities of what would seem to be simple, common sense solutions. For example, Eric Kuhn, the former general manager of the Colorado River District, works through the concept of water sharing among the states based on a percentage basis. The Colorado River Compact divides water between the upper and lower basins, a mistake in retrospect although even in 1922, when it was adopted, there had been an argument for using a percentage.
Later, when the upper-basin sates adopted a compact among themselves, they did use a percentage basis.
Kuhn goes deep into the history, as he has done with book-writing (“Science be Dammed,” 2019, with John Fleck) to sort through the thinking of this idea over the last century. It came up again earlier this year as the seven basin states tried to figure out how to share the river given the changed realities. The states, however, could not agree on what percentages should be used for sharing. It may have been just too much of a transformational change for some states to accept, he says.
However, the idea may come back if the stalemate between the upper and lower basins of the Colorado River ends up in the federal courts. Or failing that, what exactly would federal intervention look like? That’s an impolite question, but one of those what-ifs that must be wondered about. (For the record, the water people I know seem to have high regard for people in the Department of Interior in charge of looking after the Colorado River).
The large story here is that the states, with enormous aid from the federal treasury, created the infrastructure and expectations of water that no longer exists and, as per the studies of scientists, will almost certainly not return within the lifetimes of any of us. What, then, should be the federal role in defining the future balance? Once again, might the dismantling of Glen Canyon Dam be such a wild idea after all?
Thoughts in this book will likely be part of the conversations next week in Las Vegas when representatives of the seven basin states gather, as they always do, at the Colorado River Water Uses Association conference. Might a hallway conversation lead to a breakthrough?
Like huge snowstorms in the Rockies and then cool temperatures during runoff, there might be miracles, but I wouldn’t count on it. This deadpool dance might end sooner than anybody actually likes.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Graphic credit: Colorado River Research Group from the report “Dancing with Deadpool”
Click the link to access the report Dancing with Deadpool on the Getches-Wilkinson Center website (Doug Kenney1):
The rapid loss of storage in Lakes Mead and Powell is certainly deserving of the attention and angst it has generated and continues to generate, but it is the tip of larger trends altering the landscape of risk in the basin. The dismantling of many other “safety nets,” defined broadly, is happening at a pace far surpassing the already unprecedented declines in reservoir storage. Presumably that’s not an immediate problem if new post-2026 rules are able to recover and protect storage in Mead and Powell (and some of the other upstream facilities), but does anyone have that much faith in the power of new reservoir operating rules to combat the forces that have brought us to this point? What about when we have a 10 million acre-feet/year river?
GRACE TWS trend map. (a) The time series of nonseasonal GRACE/FO TWS (km3/year) over UCRB and LCRB for the period (4/2002–10/2024). (b) Spatial variation in TWS trends for the Colorado River Basin for the investigated period (mm/year) (c) Time series comparison of the change in storage ΔS/Δt derived from the water balance equation (Equation 1) and GRACE/FO. ΔS/Δt calculated from GRACE/FO TWS anomalies in km3. The light shading represents uncertainties.
From Groundwater to Governance
Perhaps the most obvious of those other diminishing safety nets is groundwater. Data on groundwater reserves throughout the basin is spotty at best. One approximation of a truly regional assessment comes from a creative use of satellite-based tools—namely NASA’s GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) system that can detect tiny changes in gravitational forces associated with the fluctuating mass of aquifers losing (or gaining) storage. Those findings paint a truly disturbing picture. Despite the familiar (and troubling) images of bathtub rings emerging at Mead and Powell, researchers using GRACE data now estimate that, from 2002 to 2024, nearly two-thirds of storage—both surface and groundwater—lost in the Colorado River Basin actually came from groundwater depletions.2 Significant groundwater losses have occurred throughout the basin, but the problem is particularly acute in Arizona and is likely to accelerate as shortages in Central Arizona Project (CAP) deliveries are likely offset by groundwater pumping—an ironic outcome given that CAP was originally proposed as the solution to groundwater mining in the region. Simply shifting unsustainable surface water uses to unsustainable groundwater uses does nothing to address the core mismatch of supplies and demands.
A very different and multi-faceted trend undercutting the regional safety nets is happening within the federal government, where federal agencies, programs and science programs are being systematically dismantled under the guise of “efficiency.” It’s hard to understate the significance of these actions, as it is the federal government that, presumably, has the scope, mandate and resources to oversee the entirety of the River and the full diversity of its roles and values. Interior Department agencies in 2025, like much of the overall federal bureaucracy, have been tasked to achieve significant staffing reductions, and to eliminate (or significantly scale back) spending on key water conservation programs—including programs under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and WaterSMART.3
Additionally, agencies across the federal landscape have mobilized to coerce and shut down climate-related science and scientists, despite the nearly universal acknowledgment among water managers of the central role of climate change in the unfolding crisis.4 Collectively these efforts constitute a systematic effort to discredit and hide the primary cause of the broken water budget, while sabotaging the most effective coping mechanisms available. As members of the research community, the Colorado River Research Group (CRRG)unfortunately has a front-row seat to this culling of the people and programs essential to long-term data collection and analysis. It defies logic, and is dangerous.
Unfortunately, hostility toward the people and programs essential to responding to the Colorado River crisis is not the full extent of federal obstruction. One largely unappreciated threat to the water budget resulting from federal policy shifts comes from efforts to “re-carbonize” (and accelerate) water-intensive energy generation, in part to meet the demands of AI, a particularly troubling trend given that the previous emphasis on renewable energy generation and enhanced energy conservation was one of the few positive trends working to repair the regional water budget.5 Attempts to weaken or dismantle bedrock environmental laws, such as NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, are an additional wildcard likely to inflict irreparable harm on already strained species and ecosystems.6
Given the turmoil at the federal level, it’s tempting to absolve the States for stubbornly clinging to a policy making system reliant on 7-state dealmaking, but that would ignore the reality that the governance of the river has been a problem for decades. A seemingly never-ending series of crisis-inspired negotiations, held in largely secretive forums without direct tribal involvement or tools for meaningful public or scientific engagement, is an uninspired way to manage and protect the economic, cultural and environmental heart of the American Southwest. The river is too big and too important to govern in such an ad hoc and primitive manner. [ed. emphasis mine]
That this approach mostly ”worked” to keep deliveries flowing for so long—except, of course, for the tribes and the environment—rested, in part, on the accepted norm that decisions would emerge collaboratively from the States and would not spill over to the federal courts. But even that governance safety net is eroding, as the States seem to be increasingly resigned—and almost “comfortable”—with the notion that the resolution of existing conflicts may not emerge from a negotiated 7-state agreement. For those parties and viewpoints that have historically been left out of the state-dominated processes and the resulting agreements, then maybe this prospect is welcome. But all would concede that would be a stunning outcome with ramifications that are difficult to predict.
Ever since the Arizona v. California experience, the use of litigation to resolve interstate (and/or interbasin) conflicts in the basin has been a third rail issue, and for very good reasons. As shown by the basin’s earlier foray into Supreme Court action, the process would undoubtedly be lengthy, expensive, and likely to create as many issues and questions as it resolves. It certainly wouldn’t reduce risk, as the states, and the water management community more broadly, would lose control over the process of managing the shared resource. In fact, judicial intervention might be the impetus to trigger yet another traditionally feared decision pathway to be invoked—a Congressional rewrite of river allocation and management—either before or after the litigation concludes. In this setting, the extreme disparity in political influence—as measured by the number of Congressional representatives—between the Upper and Lower Basin is an obvious concern, as is the realization that congressional involvement means the future of the Colorado now becomes a national issue and, potentially, a bargaining chip to be used in the political logrolling necessary to enact legislation in dozens of otherwise unrelated areas.
Screenshot from Kestrel Kunz’s presentation at the CRWUA 2023 Annual Conference.
Rowing in the Wrong Direction
Managing water in the arid and semi-arid West is often more about risk than water. From the seniority concept in prior appropriation to the sizing of infrastructure based on low probability events, the goal of water management is often to clearly define and then minimize the risks of running out. Given that, you’d think that the communities dependent upon Colorado River water would be more committed to protecting (and enhancing) the safety nets that are increasingly critical as storage in Lakes Mead and Powell—the basin’s primary risk management tools—increasingly flirt with deadpool. But at the basin scale, that’s typically not what I see. Sure, individual water managers serving major cities or districts have their own risk management plans focusing on everything from new infrastructure to market solutions, but that’s far from a comprehensive or integrated approach, and safety nets designed by and for the “established players” only deepen the inequities that increasingly divide the Colorado River community.
There’s a lot of work left to do in this basin, both prior and after the 2026 deadline. Viewing the problems through the lens of risk management is not a bad place to start. But if doing so, it’s also not a bad idea to remember that poor risk management often comes at expense of diminished equity—an indispensable element of an equitable apportionment. Numerous examples around the world remind us that water scarcity can be the impetus for joint problem-solving in a spirit of camaraderie and mutual support, or it can sharpen and refine alliances that further distance the powerful from the weak. In this regard, I’m inclined to think we are rowing in the wrong direction. ●
Footnotes
1 Director, Western Water Policy Program, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School; and Chair, Colorado River Research Group.
2 Abdelmohsen, K., Famiglietti, J. S., Ao, Y. Z., Mohajer, B., & Chandanpurkar, H. A. (2025). Declining freshwater availability in the Colorado River basin threatens sustainability of its critical groundwater supplies. Geophysical Research Letters, 52, e2025GL115593. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL115593.
3 Finding accurate data on federal workforce reductions is challenging; see Competing numbers emerge on federal workforce reductions. Between “incentivized retirements,” RIF (reduction in force) layoffs, recently resumed terminations of employees losing court-ordered protections, remaining planned cuts, and the ongoing hiring freeze, the total workforce of the Department of Interior could drop by over a third in 2025. The Interior Department is taking steps to implement layoffs – Government Executive. Similarly, data on efforts to reduce agency budgets is difficult to compile, particularly given the complex back and forth between the administration, Congress, and, increasingly, the courts. The President’s 2026 budget request cuts Reclamation’s budget approximately by a third (Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf (see page 28 and Table 2); Briefly: Budget proposal defunds Western water conservation grants – Water Education Colorado). Overall, proposed cuts to the Department of Interior total over $5 billion, or 30.5% of the 2025 enacted budget (Table 2). To this point, that request has not been embraced by Congress.
4 For example, within NOAA, the administration’s 2026 budget request “terminates a variety of climate-dominated research, data, and grant programs,” and “cancels contracts for instruments designed for unnecessary climate measurements,” while also cutting National Science Foundation support of research “with dubious public value, like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios” (Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf; see pages 24-25, and 38).
5 Data Center Energy and Water Use Trends Explained – Circle of Blue
6 Regulatory Tracker – Environmental and Energy Law Program
Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
In a collection of essays and research summaries, eleven members of the Colorado River Research Group (with eight guest contributors) touch on issues as diverse as plummeting reservoir storage, climate change trends, risk management, agricultural water conservation, equity, and governance, all against the backdrop of the need to fashion post-2026 reservoir operating rules.
Chapter 1. Colorado River Reservoir Storage – Where We Stand Jack Schmidt, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Kathryn Sorensen, and Katherine Tara
Chapter 2. Think Natural Flows Will Rebound in the Colorado River Basin? Think Again. Jonathan Overpeck and Brad Udall
Chapter 3. The Erosion of the Colorado River “Safety Nets” is Alarming Doug Kenney
Chapter 4. Water Equity in the Colorado River Basin Bonnie Colby and Zoey Reed-Spitzer
Chapter 5. The Tale of Three Percentage-Based Apportionment Schemes Eric Kuhn
Chapter 6. A Humbly Proffered Proposal to Aid the Colorado River System: Conservation Easements & Land Purchases Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter
Chapter 7. Facing the Future: Can Agriculture Thrive in the Upper Basin with Less Water? Kristiana Hansen, Daniel Mooney, Mahdi Asgari, and Christopher Bastian
Chapter 8. Towards a Basinwide Entity: Moving from Vision to Action Matthew McKinney, Jason Robison, John Berggren, and Doug Kenney
Contributors
Colorado River Research Group (CRRG) Members
Bonnie Colby, Professor, University of Arizona.
John Fleck, Writer in Residence, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.
Kristiana Hansen, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.
Doug Kenney, Director, Western Water Policy Program, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School; and Chair, Colorado River Research Group.
Eric Kuhn, Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District.
Matthew McKinney, Co-director, Water & Tribes Initiative; Senior Fellow, Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy, University of Montana; Fulbright Specialist 2025-2027.
Jonathan Overpeck, Dean, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan.
Jason Robison, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Gina Guy Center for Land & Water Law, University of Wyoming.
Jack Schmidt, Director, Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, and former Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.
Kathryn Sorensen, Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University; and former Director, Phoenix Water Services.
Brad Udall, Senior Water and Climate Research Scientist/Scholar, Colorado Water Center, Colorado State University.
Guest Contributors
Mahdi Asgari, Postdoctoral Scholar, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.
Christopher Bastian, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.
John Berggren, Regional Policy Manager, Western Resource Advocates.
Anne Castle, Senior Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School; former US Commissioner, Upper Colorado River Commission; and former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, US Department of the Interior.
Daniel Mooney, Associate Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University.
Sarah Porter, Director, Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University.
Zoey Reed-Spitzer, Research Assistant, North Carolina State University (formerly University of Arizona).
Katherine Tara, Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.
Here’s the preface:
Welcome to the Colorado River Research Group’s (CRRG) inaugural Colorado River Insights report. This publication marks a new (and still evolving) direction for the CRRG, transitioning away from the group-authored policy briefs of the past to more personal “Individual Submissions” that allow members to be more focused, direct and sometimes prescriptive than in the past efforts authored jointly and requiring unanimous consent. While each of the Individual Submissions (i.e., Chapters) that follows is unique in structure and tone and detail, each member was given the same charge: to speak directly about issues on the river where they have been directing much of their current focus, and where feasible, to identify a path forward on those issues. Given this approach, each Individual Submission is truly individual—or, in several cases, the product of small groups—and thus should not be attributed to the entire body, although in practice there is usually very little internal conflict on any of the major themes featured throughout these pages. One byproduct of this approach is that it shines a light on some of the CRRG’s most glaring holes in terms of disciplines and substantive expertise, helping to steer us to new potential members (and guest contributors) and, perhaps, new approaches. Unless or until that happens, we readily acknowledge that our collective snapshot of current and emerging basin issues is far from comprehensive. But how could it be? That’s an impossible standard for a river as vast in size, importance and complexity as the Colorado.
We are hopeful that this new approach can be helpful in better funneling the knowledge emerging from the research community into the hands of decision-makers, journalists, NGOs, water users, and other concerned parties in a more hands-on position to implement the changes needed to restore the economic and environmental sustainability of the River. Clearly, we are in an era screaming for new ideas and new approaches; the status quo isn’t working. — Doug Kenney, CRRG Chair
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Negotiations among the Magnificent Seven representing the seven states of the Colorado River region begin to resemble the ongoing negotiations between the military and diplomatic representatives for North and South Korea, where negotiations for something beyond an armistice have been going on for more than sixty years. Here, as there, the negotiations have reached a stalemate, and both sides are now engaged in an information war. Between the two Koreas, this war takes the form of everything from huge arrays of speakers blasting pop music across the demilitarized zone to smuggled USB drives with movies and TV shows. Here, it is mostly just propaganda bombs tossed over our ‘DMZ,’ the Grand Canyons, about each side’s virtue and the other side’s obstinacy, depending on their regional media’s love of conflict and tendency to support the home team. The missed November deadline has been seamlessly replaced – as we all suspected it would be – by a February deadline. But otherwise – nothing new on that front. We can just hope it doesn’t go on for another fortysome years.
So I’m going to take advantage of the stalemate to ask the reader to think about a bigger picture that may be more interesting. It stems from a comment from my partner Maryo, from whom I learn too much to dismiss anything she says. ‘Why are you “romancing the river”?’ she asked the other day. ‘Romance is such a cheapened concept today – bodice-ripping stories of ridiculous antagonistic love. You’re undermining the value of your work, calling it a “romance.”’
‘Well,’ I said – figuring that if she feels that way, maybe my readers raise the same question – ‘maybe one of the things a writer ought to try to do is restore the value of words and the concepts they once represented that have become devalued through misuse.’ Spoken like a true Don Quixote, another old man who took arms, sort of, against abuse of the concept of ‘romance.’
I do think that one of the things that ‘civilization’ does in civilizing us is to simplify things for us, including words whose complexity and depth embrace concepts, ideas and feelings that can be inconvenient to an orderly civilized society. A ‘romance,’ from the medieval era on into the early 20th century, was a story of an adventure in pursuit of something mysterious, exciting, challenging, something beyond everyday life. That could be the pursuit of a love relationship that was life-changing (and maybe life-endangering) for its participants – Tristan and Isolde, Launcelot and Guinevere, Romeo and Juliet, Bonnie and Clyde.
But on a much larger scale, the romantic adventure can be establishing a relationship with anything outside of ourselves that intrigues or challenges us. The relationship can emerge with a place, a house, a horse, a car, a continent, a river, an idea, as well as another person, anything that intrigues us, wakes up our imagination – arational or prerational relationships that make the civilizing forces nervous. The relationship can run the quick dynamic spectrum from arational love to its flip side arational hate, through all the intermediary love-hate variations. It can also have a mythically selective or even creative attitude toward the gray-zone relationship between ‘truth’ and fact. Which leads those trying to develop an orderly civilization to dismiss anything (ad)venturing into the mythic as a lie. It just seems simpler that way.
The Powell survey on its second trip down the Colorado River, 1871. Photo credit: USGS
The first comprehensive study of the Colorado River region was uncivilized enough to state upfront its romantic origins: Frederick Dellenbaugh’s Romance of the Colorado River. Dellenbaugh’s book (available online for a pittance) delved as deeply as was possible at that time into both the First People prehistory in the region and the early history of the Euro-American invasion, from the Spanish trying to work their way up the river from its contentious confluence with the Gulf of California (‘Sea of Cortez’ to them) to the trappers imposing the first major Euro-American change on the river, stripping its tributaries of their beavers which increased the size and violence of the river’s annual spring-summer runoff of snowmelt. But the heart of the book is John Wesley Powell’s explorations to link the upper river and the lower river through its canyons.
Dellenbaugh, as a seventeen-year-old, accompanied Powell on his second Colorado River expedition, a ‘baptism under water’ (often literally) that shaped his ‘romantic’ vision. In his ‘Introduction,’ after observing that most of the great rivers that humans encountered in exploration and settlement gradually became like foster parents to those who settled along them, carrying goods for them and generally watering and growing their settlements, he says of the Colorado:
Dellenbaugh’s Romance was published in 1903. That same year, another great southwestern writer, Mary Hunter Austin came out with her Land of Little Rain, a fascinating collection of her explorations in the deserts of the lower Colorado River region. In that book she offered what might be a cautionary note about ‘romancing the river,’ in an observation about a small Arizona tributary of the Colorado River, ‘the fabled Hassayampa… of whose waters, if any drink, they can no more see fact as naked fact, but all radiant with the color of romance.’
I will now indulge my tendency to take a ‘tectonic’ look at history – looking for large chunks colliding or grating together or subducting under each other. I see the history of our engagement with the Colorado River dividing into three ‘tectonic romances’: first, the Romance of Exploration, which is chronicled in a couple different ways by those two explorers, Dellenbaugh and Austin; their 1903 publications summarize that age and put a semi-colon at the end of the period, as it were.
Second, the Romance of Reclamation: 1903 also marks the year the U.S. Reclamation Service came into being, an organization created almost specifically for settling the Colorado River deserts. Civilized people on both sides of the question would deny that there was any ‘romance’ to reclamation, but one early Bureau engineer would publicly disagree, writing in 1918 about ‘the romance of reclamation’:
C.J. Blanchard of the U.S. Reclamation Service authored that steaming verdure. The Service at that time was under the U.S. Geological Survey, a scientific organization disciplined to the ‘look before you leap’ methods of science, discerning the reality of a situation and adapting to that; but the Reclamation Service, frustrated by the seasonal flood-to-trickle flows of the Colorado, thought that changing that reality (through storage and redistribution) was a more promising route than adapting to it, and so was on its way to becoming independent of the USGS when Blanchard wrote his ‘romance of irrigation’ for an educational journal called The Mentor(thanks, Dave Primus, for calling it to my attention).
Members of the Colorado River Commission, in Santa Fe in 1922, after signing the Colorado River Compact. From left, W. S. Norviel (Arizona), Delph E. Carpenter (Colorado), Herbert Hoover (Secretary of Commerce and Chairman of Commission), R. E. Caldwell (Utah), Clarence C. Stetson (Executive Secretary of Commission), Stephen B. Davis, Jr. (New Mexico), Frank C. Emerson (Wyoming), W. F. McClure (California), and James G. Scrugham (Nevada) CREDIT: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY WATER RESOURCES ARCHIVE via Aspen Journalism
The best-known document of the Romance of Reclamation was of course the Colorado River Compact – a document in which the romance of reclamation overrode any relationship to ‘naked fact’ about the river and its flows, a situation that is now biting our collective ass.Yet an Arizona water maven said recently that any Bureau of Reclamation solution to the seven-state impasse would have to cleave closely to the Compact…. The history of the Romance of Reclamation has been written in the gaggle of Congressional acts, court decisions, treaties, regulations and directives that make up the ‘Law of the River’ (recitations of which never seem to include the 1908 Winters Doctrine allocating assumed water to federal reservations, including to the First Peoples).
The end of the Romance of Reclamation would be in the 1960s, pick your date: publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, passage of the Environmental Policy Act in 1969 – a decade in which the general American perception of the West underwent a sea change, from seeing it as a workplace for producing the resources to feed the American people and industries, to seeing it as a great natural playground to which America’s predominantly urban population could go to recharge, with a resulting desire to protect it from the very industrial consumption that supported the American ‘lifestyle.’.
This was the dawn of the third romantic epoch in our relationship with the river (and the continent in general) – the Romance of Restoration and Revision, driven by a belief that we have sinned against capital-N Nature – with many naked facts as evidence – and can only expiate our sins by preserving what remains of the nonhuman environment, restoring what we can of the damage we’ve done, and revising our own systems for consuming nature (e.g., renewable energy).
Aesthetics are at the root of our romance with capital-N Nature, aesthetics best served by the (increasingly rare) opportunity to be alone with and ‘silent on a peak in Darien,’ as Keats put it. We have a large (and growing) number of excellent writer[s] who work to elaborate on that aesthetic – Ed Abbey first, Craig Childs, Heather Hansman, Kevin Fedarko, to name a few.
But the aesthetic yearning to ultimately ‘put it back the way it was’ does not extend to other equally naked facts, like the dependence of the outdoor recreation industries on the creation of big mountain-highway traffic jams pumping big quantities of carbon and nitrogen gases into the already overladen atmosphere, as we all load up our cars with expensive gear to go off to commune with Nature. Or the naked fact that maintaining civilization-as-we-know-it for 300 million people involves a lot of nonrewable extraction from Nature that it will be very difficult to move away from entirely – unless we figure out how to control our breeding.
Just as significant achievements were achieved under the Romance of Reclamation, so significant achievements have been achieved under the Romance of Restoration and Revision – the setting aside of millions of acres of still-sort-of-wild land, instream flow laws, increasingly responsible forest management, et cetera. But we are clearly still in the early transition – half a century later – to a more realistic romance with restoring and revising to a kinder gentler relationship with the nonhuman systems of nature. And right now, we are experiencing a major counter-attack from the societal forces whose aesthetics still imagine a ‘working landscape’ of derricks, mines and other industrial-scale harvests, all suffused with the ‘smell of money,’ societal forces that believe the best of times were before we woke up to the increasingly fragile finitude of our planet under the burden of us. Let’s all go back and make America great again!
The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo. Annotations: Jonathan P. Thompson
I cannot now imagine when and how this third epoch of our romance with the river will end. I think this aesthetic romance might peak with the ‘breaching’ of Glen Canyon Dam, an action that has taken on a somewhat mythic quality for today’s river romantics. I don’t think we will tear it down – let it stand as a monument to…something. But I suspect that even the Bureau of Reclamation is exploring some way of tunneling around it at river level, as we continue to flirt with the disaster of dead pool behind the dam. It will not be easy, due to the silt already piled up at the dam – but really, nothing is going to be easy anymore; that blessed civilization is now in the rear-view mirror.
I’m going to take advantage of the lull in the short-term news about the river’s management for maybe the next decade, to take a look at each of these three epochs of ‘romancing the river’ and their relationship to the ‘naked facts’ of the river – mostly see if there might be something there we’ve overlooked that might help us move forward in our ever-emerging relationship of this ‘First River of the Anthropocene.’ Onward and outward.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Click the link to read the article on the KUER website (David Condos). Here’s an excerpt:
December 3, 2025
Price Mayor Michael Kourianos drew an imaginary line in the air between two scrubby desert hills. His hand traced the path of a planned 100-foot dam for a new reservoir just north of the city in Carbon County. The project, which Kourianos described as vital to the area’s future, would provide irrigation to farmers and shore up the city’s water supply. It’s a big deal in a drought-prone area, and it could be built within five years, he said — if the federal funding that’s supposed to pay for it doesn’t disappear.
“I’m very much worried about that,” Kourianos said. “That could be at risk. That’s the unknown.”
To finish the project’s environmental impact study by next spring, he said the city and county had to scrape together about $215,000. That was after they were told there were no more federal funds to help with it due to the Trump administration’s recent cuts. The next step will be designing the reservoir, which he said is supposed to be paid for by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency is set to pay 75% of construction costs, too. In all, the project will cost around $200 million. For a city of 8,216 people, that’s just not in the budget…
Price’s reservoir isn’t the only one threatened. In January, for example, the Biden administration awarded more than $70 million to 10 proposals in Utah and another $50 million to four on the Navajo Nation and Ute tribal land within the state’s watersheds. The projects range from improving wetland habitat for endangered fish to removing invasive plants, such as Russian olive trees, from riverbanks. It was part of a $388.3 million effort to improve drought resilience across the Colorado River Basin with money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Just a few days after the money was awarded, however, President Donald Trump took office and paused it. Several months later, recipients are still waiting…One of the impacted proposals is a collaboration between the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and conservation organizations Trout Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy that would pay people to voluntarily leave water in the Price River rather than use it.
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
December 2, 2025
Changing a name is simple enough, if somewhat expensive and time-consuming, at least in the case of businesses.
But what to make of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s new name? Is the change all bad for the laboratory and for its mission of the last 34 years?
It became National Laboratory of the Rockies as of Monday. It had been known as NREL since 1991 and before that had been the Solar Energy Research Institute since its founding in 1977 during the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
The laboratory has become one of the nation’s — and perhaps the world’s — seminal institutions devoted to engineering an energy transition. As of October, it had 3,717 employees after a reduction of 114 during May.
“Clearly an effort is underway (by President Donald Trump)‚ to downplay renewable energy as a premier, viable energy source in the United States. So it is hard to separate the politics from this given the timing,” said David Renee, who worked at the laboratory from 1991 until his recent retirement.
Renee said that in part he was very disappointed to see the words “renewable energy” deleted from the name but does see the new name allowing the institution to broaden its mission to reflect needs of the ever-more-complex electrical grid.
“I can see some good, long-term benefits from this. It gives the laboratory flexibility to have a broader scope,” he said. “A lot of the work is not exclusively related to renewable energy but more related to grid reliability and expansion, of which renewables play an important part. So one could argue that the name change was overdue anyway in order to be consistent with other national laboratories, which are mostly named for their locations and not the technology.”
The United States has 17 national laboratories engaged in energy and other research, and most are named for their local geographies. New Mexico, for example, has the Sandia and Los Alamos labs, the former named for a mountain range and the latter a town. Renee arrived in Golden from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and retired after running the solar resource assessment program.
Ron Larson, one of the earliest employees of the solar institute who arrived in 1977, a time when solar was 100 times more expensive than it is now, also tends toward a charitable view of the name change.
A possible reason, and a valid one, he said, could be that other national labs wanted more to do on renewable energy topics and are qualified to do so. “Too, maybe some at NREL have wanted to expand into other sectors, including fossil fuels and nuclear.”
Peter Lilienthal, an NREL employee from 1990 to 2007, when he formed an energy-related business, was less charitable. He was incensed by a statement from Audrey Robertson, the assistant secretary of energy, in Monday’s announcement.
“The energy crisis we face today is unlike the crisis that gave rise to NREL,” Robertson said. “We are no longer picking and choosing energy sources. Our highest priority is to invest in the scientific capabilities that will restore American manufacturing, drive down costs, and help this country meet its soaring energy demand. The National Lab of the Rockies will play a vital role in those efforts.”
Lilienthal called that statement gaslighting. “That is just not true,” he said of Robertson’s assertion about no longer picking energy sources. He points to the promises of President Donald Trump on the campaign trail and elsewhere to restore fossil fuels and discourage renewable energy. This, he said, will slow the energy transition away from fossil fuels, he believes.
Jud Virden, the director of the renamed laboratory since October, said the new name “embraces a broader applied energy mission entrusted to us by the Department of Energy to deliver a more affordable and secure energy future for all.”
That statement clearly fits in with the narrative of Chris Wright, the Colorado-born director of the Department of Energy. A graduate of Cherry Creek High School, in south Denver, Wright was a rock climber and skier before going to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to study engineering, first mechanical and then electrical. He also later studied at the University of California at Berkeley.
In April, Wright returned to Colorado to tour NREL. Afterward, he met with reporters, where he said that he had worked on solar energy during graduate school and then geothermal. Only later, needing a paycheck, did he begin work in the oil and gas industry. In Denver, he founded Liberty, an oil and gas field services company, in 2011.
In his remarks, Wright did not dismiss renewable energy, but he did — as he had done before — dismiss “climate alarmism.” He said the science does not support the perception of risk that has, in part, driven the work to make renewable energy affordable and integrated into the electrical grid.
Wright sees the need for more energy being paramount and climate change worries a hindrance to archiving that plentitude that will result in higher standards of living.
“The biggest barrier to energy development the last few decades is people, for political reasons, calling climate change a crisis,” he claimed.
He went on to cite 3 million people dying every year because they don’t have clean cooking fuels or the 4 or 5 million people dying because they don’t have sufficient food as well as the disconnect notices to American consumers for non-payment.
“If you call climate change a crisis and you don’t look at any data, you can pass laws to do anything.
Chris Wright has argued that energy scarcity poses a greater threat to quality of life than climate change. Here, he speaks to reporters in April 2025 while Martin Keller, then the director of NREL, looks on. Photo/Allen Best. Top image/National Laboratory of the Rockies.
In an essay published in The Economist in July, Wright said much the same thing.
Wright also talked about the need to deliver plentiful energy and lowering energy prices. He talked about the drive to integrate artificial intelligence data centers into the U.S. economy.
“Artificial Intelligence is critical. This is a phenomenal new technology. People are seeing the great consumer services it provides, the business efficiencies it provides, and we are very early on.”
And again, he talked about the need to expand electrical production as necessary to support artificial intelligence. Even without strong demand for data centers, he said, electricity prices have been rising.
“We’ve seen 20 to 25% rise in the price of electricity over the last four years. Americans are mad and angry and upset about that, which is why they’re all worried about AI — ‘No, we don’t want new demand on our grid that’s just going to make our prices more expensive.’ — We need to show them we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We’ve got to grow our electricity production capacity without raising the prices to consumers, and we’ve got to keep our grid stable, not just the complicated system stable, but the increasing cyber threats of people that want to do us harm on our grid.”
Chuck Kutscher took a broad view of the change. A mechanical engineer by training, he began working at NREL in the 1980s before retiring in 2018.
“NREL is widely viewed as the leading renewable energy laboratory in the world. In the U.S. and throughout the world, solar and wind dominate the new electricity generation being deployed because they are now the lowest in cost and are also the fastest to deploy, in addition to avoiding air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. China is clearly the world leader in renewable energy development and deployment, but NREL has played a critical role in keeping the U.S. competitive,” he said in a statement.
“As a Department of Energy lab, NREL takes direction from DOE. The current administration made it clear in the last election that it would support fossil fuels. DOE does have a lab that focuses primarily on fossil fuels, the National Energy Technology Lab, so continuing to have a lab that performs R&D on renewables makes perfect sense, especially given the transition to renewable energy happening around the world. I’m sure the new lab director is working hard to preserve NREL’s tremendous expertise and important work in renewable energy while at the same time being responsive to DOE directives to strengthen the lab’s portfolio in areas such as AI and data centers.”
The Crossing Trails Wind Farm between Kit Carson and Seibert, about 150 miles east of Denver, has an installed capacity of 104 megawatts, which goes to Tri-State Generation and Transmission. Photo/Allen Best
