Many eyes on the #ColoradoRiver. The #RioGrande may be more urgent: New study of river from headwaters in #Colorado to the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates need for changes — Allen Best (BigPivots.com)

San Luis Valley farm. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

November 20, 2025

In November 2023, I stopped by the office of Cleave Simpson, then (and still now, at least for a brief time more), the general manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservancy District.

There, in Alamosa, he shared with me his observation that the Rio Grande during the 21st century has had water declines parallel to those of the Colorado River.

Both rivers originate in Colorado, and neither river has been able to deliver the water assumed by any number of diversion projects. Problems began in the 20th century but have intensified greatly in the 21st century because of drought but also rising temperatures.

The Rio Grande has had 17% reduced flows since 2000. The Colorado River flows have declined 20%.

Of the two rivers, the Rio Grande is longer, at 1,900 miles but carries less water, 9.1 million acre-feet/year. The Colorado flows 1,450 miles and has been carrying an average 15.4 million acre-feet. Neither river has delivered water into oceans with any reliability in decades.

Sandhill cranes and a few mallard ducks roost at sunset on a sandbar of the Rio Grande in Albuquerque during January. Photo(and copyright)/WWF-us, Diana Cervantes. Top: The San Luis Valley near Del Norte. Photo/Brian Richter

Despite these parallels, the Colorado has received far more attention, as is pointed out in a new report by Brian Richter of the World Wildlife Fund and nine others from academic institutions in Arizona, California, and other states.

Why is that? The Colorado provides drinking water for about 40 million people compared to 15 million for the Rio Grande. In irrigated agriculture, it’s a similar story: 22,300 square kilometers in the Colorado River Basin vs. 7,800 square kilometers in the Rio Grande.

“However, the water crisis facing the Rio Grande Basin is arguably more severe and urgent than the Colorado River Basin,” Richter and his colleagues contend. They argue for some rethinking and institutional alignments to help ratchet water use down to sustainable levels.

The study is the first full accounting of how water is consumed across the entire Rio Grande Basin. Mexico calls it the Rio Bravo.

Doesn’t Colorado also have a strong accounting system, as necessary to meet requirements of the 1938 compact among states that share the Rio Grande?

Yes, says Richter. However, he adds a “but.” He reports difficulty in getting estimates of how much water is being consumed by each sector and by each crop. He believes he has succeeded.

“To my knowledge, nobody has laid out the numbers at the level of clarity and accuracy that we were able to accomplish,” he said.

Another major contribution of the paper is the estimation of the degree to which water consumption is unsustainable, he said.

“We estimate that 11% of water consumption in Colorado is unsustainable. Natural replenishment from snowmelt runoff, precipitation, and groundwater recharge supplies only 89% of the water being consumed; the remainder (deficit) is being met by depleting groundwater.”

“The Rio Grande basin is at a tipping point, and everyone needs to be part of the solution,” said Enrique Prunes, a co-author and the World Wildlife Fund Rio Grande manager. “These findings will help us rethink how we manage water to secure a future for everyone.”

For the second time in the 21st century, this segment of the Rio Grande in Albuquerque went dry, leaving this image of cracked sediment on a blistering afternoon on Aug. 7, 2025. Photo(and copyright)/WWF-us, Diana Cervantes

Dry cracked sediment from the Rio Grande on a blistering afternoon on Aug. 7, 2025 in Albuquerque, N.M. For the second time in the 21st century the Rio Grande has gone dry in the Albuquerque stretch. (TC) (EDITOR’S NOTE:
T/C, to fact check).

Agriculture uses 99.9% of the water in Colorado’s San Luis Valley and 87% in the basin altogether.

Dramatic declines in reservoir storage illustrate the scope of problem. Altogether, 12% of reservoir storage has been lost in the 21st century. The decline is most severe in New Mexico, where 71% less water was stored at the end of 2024 compared to 2002.

Groundwater depletion has been even more drastic. Roughly 15 times more groundwater has declined compared to surface storage. The two are coupled. As surface water supplies decline, groundwater mining grows.

Draining of aquifers has been a particularly vexing problem, as was explained in a story published in Headwaters magazine in June (and published in installments at BigPivots.com during July). See in particular 20th century expansion and 21st century realities in the San Luis Valley

“In the San Luis Valley of Colorado, diminished river flows and aquifer recharge have led to continued over-pumping, causing aquifers levels to decline,” Richter and his team write. “The Colorado state engineer has threatened to shut off hundreds of groundwater wells if the aquifer supporting irrigated farms cannot be stabilized.”

The San Luis Valley is famous for its potatoes as well as the barley to make Coors beer, but potatoes use just 7% of the water and barley 9%. The vast majority of water in the valley produces feedstocks for livestock: 47% for alfalfa, 27% for other hay, and 6% for pasture lands.

The study finds that groundwater in the San Luis Valley has been depleted at a rate of 89,179 acre-feet/year, equivalent to 11% of the annual average of direct water consumption in the valley.

What can be done? Large cities have done more with less. Albuquerque’s population grew 40% while its water use declined by 17%. However, municipal and commercial water consumption account for only 7% of all direct consumption in the three-state and two-country basin.

Strategies for reducing consumption in irrigated agriculture have been proven but must be rapidly deployed at sufficient scale and financially sustained by governments, companies, and credit institutions to rebalance the basin’s water budgets, state, and binational levels.

At the same time, water shortages have contributed to the loss of 18% of farmland in the river’s headwaters in Colorado, 36% in New Mexico, and 49% in the Pecos River tributary in New Mexico and Texas.

Strategies being embraced to curb groundwater drafting in the closed basin of the San Luis Valley have been controversial. A key case is likely to go before the Colorado Supreme Court. In Mexico, cutbacks have led to violence. One protestor died.

The study points to several strategies that could reshape how water is used in the basins. These include restoring river habitats, adjusting dam operations to better support seasonal flows, improving water-sharing agreements, and helping farmers switch to crops that require less water.

That effort to encourage crop-switching has been underway in the San Luis Valley, but with successes only at the margins.

Rio Grande and Pecos River basins. Map credit: By Kmusser – Own work, Elevation data from SRTM, drainage basin from GTOPO [1], U.S. stream from the National Atlas [2], all other features from Vector Map., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11218868

In burned forests, the West’s #snowpack is melting earlier: As blazes expand to higher elevations, the impacts cascade downstream — Mitch Tobin (WaterDesk.org)

A high-severity burn in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. Wildfires are altering the snowpack, a crucial source of water in the West. Photo by Arielle Koshkin.

Click the link to read the article on the Water Desk website (Mitch Tobin):

November 13, 2025

As the American West warms due to climate change, wildfires are increasingly burning in higher-elevation mountains, charring the watersheds where the region’s vital snowpack accumulates.

A new study has found that in the immediate aftermath of fires across the region, the snowpack disappears earlier in burned areas. This change can threaten forest health and affect the downstream farms, cities and species that rely on the snowpack for their water, according to other research.

Scientists who study the effects of wildfires on the snowpack and streamflows are finding that the story is complex and nuanced. The impacts can vary greatly across the West’s diverse ecosystems and topography. Plus, each wildfire burns differently, so the severity of the blaze is another critical factor.

While streamflow volume typically increases after a wildfire, the peak flows come earlier in the season, and the water may be clogged with sediment that can harm wildlife and water infrastructure.

The new study, published in the September 17 issue of Science Advances, used satellite data to track when the snowpack disappeared each season and examined how that timing changed after a fire burned through forests. The research also concluded that warming temperatures due to climate change will further accelerate post-fire melting.

In the first year after a fire, the researchers found that under average winter conditions, snow melts earlier in 99% of the snow zone. “Postfire snow cover loss is more extreme in relatively low-elevation, warm environments compared to that in high-elevation, cold regions,” wrote the researchers from the Colorado School of Mines and the University of Colorado Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research.

The loss of the forest canopy due to a fire can actually increase snow accumulation on the ground below because scorched trees that are missing branches and needles intercept fewer falling snowflakes. But opening up the canopy changes the flow of energy in the forest by exposing the underlying snowpack to more solar radiation that can melt the snow.

Wildfires also cause soot and darkened debris to fall on the snowpack, which reduces its reflectivity, allows more heat to be absorbed and leads to quicker melting. Burned forests are also more susceptible to wind, which can further erode the snowpack.

“It’s basically just a big energy balance puzzle, but it seems like that increase in sunlight and decrease in the reflectivity of the snow are both leading to (an) earlier snow disappearance date,” said lead author Arielle Koshkin, a doctoral candidate in hydrologic science and engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. “Even if we do see more snowfall in the forest, it’s not overriding those energy balance changes.”

The study notes that previous research has found that the acreage of Western forests burned in the seasonal snow zone increased by up to 9% annually between 1984 and 2017, with the biggest rise in burned area occurring above an elevation of 2,500 meters (8,202 feet).

“Fire is burning higher and higher in elevation, which increases this overlap between where burned forests are and where it snows,” Koshkin said.

Stephanie Kampf, a professor of watershed science at Colorado State University who wasn’t involved in the study, said the findings are “pretty consistent with prior research” showing that snow disappears earlier after a fire and that lower-elevation locations with more “transitional” snowpacks are more vulnerable. “This study shows it really nicely with a big dataset,” Kampf said.

Climate change speeds up melting

Looking ahead, the authors project that post-fire melting will accelerate further as the West gets hotter due to rising atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. If warming increases by 2 degrees Celsius—something that’s possible by the middle of the 21st century under some emissions scenarios—“73% of the snow zone would experience more extreme earlier postfire snowmelt compared to historically average conditions,” according to the paper.

“Under two degrees (Celsius) warming, the areas that already showed large changes are going to show even larger changes,” Koshkin said. “That warming is going to really have (an) impact on those warmer snow climates. So think maritime, Cascades, Sierras, comparative to the higher, colder, Rocky Mountain West.”

Previous research has also looked at what happens to the snowpack after a fire and found that the snow disappearance date moves up four to 23 days. Some of those studies have used ground-based observations, but the papers typically focused on one to three fires. Other research has examined snowpack readings from the automated SNOTEL network, but those snow sensors are usually placed in gaps in the forest canopy and may not capture the diversity of the West’s landscapes.

This new study relies on images captured by the MODIS instruments aboard two satellites to provide a Westwide look at wildfire’s effects. Currently, satellites cannot measure the water content of the snowpack, known as the snow water equivalent. But repeated satellite imagery can detect whether snow is present on the ground, allowing researchers to measure when the snowpack disappears during the year.

“I was really interested in seeing if we could leverage remote sensing to look at it on a pixel-by-pixel scale across the whole Western United States to really try to understand, are we seeing the same responses in the Pacific Northwest as in Colorado?” Koshkin said.

Each pixel in the MODIS satellite imagery represents a square on the ground with 500-meter (1,640-foot) edges. That’s a somewhat coarse resolution for measuring the snowpack, which can vary dramatically over very short distances, but the satellites provide daily or near-daily coverage.

While satellite data offers broad coverage of the region, it has significant limitations.

“The satellites can’t really peek underneath the forest canopy,” said Anne Nolin, a professor in the geography department at the University of Nevada, Reno, who wasn’t involved in the study. (Koshkin is a former student of Nolin’s.) “The other issue is that the satellite data can’t measure snow at times when there’s rain occurring or anytime there’s cloudiness. And so if you have a rain-on-snow event that’s changing your snowpack, which we’re having more and more, and which we would anticipate to occur more frequently, then you’re probably missing short-term changes in snowpack.”

Nolin said that the satellite-based estimates of the snowpack were “likely to be inaccurate in places where you have remaining forest, and especially in low-elevation snow zones and under warmer winter conditions.” That’s because previous studies have found that in warmer forests, the snow melts off under the canopy early, but it’s retained in the gaps between the trees, so the algorithm used to process the satellite imagery can overestimate the amount of snow in the pixel. “There’s less snow there than you think,” Nolin said.

Stark regional differences

Elevation, temperature, burn severity, vegetation type and the amount of incoming solar radiation are among the drivers explaining when the snow disappears. The variability of these factors across the West may help explain why previous studies have found such a wide range in the timing of the snow disappearance date.

“Everywhere we looked was disappearing earlier, but there were these kind of hotspots that disappeared way earlier,” Koshkin said. “I think the disruption in streamflow from these earlier melting-out pixels will be much more significant in Oregon, Washington and California.”

Wildfires had the biggest effect on the snowpack during the first five years after the blaze. In the first year after a fire, the snow disappearance date advanced by an average of 3.3 days. That might not sound like much, but the figure is just an average for the entire West—in some parts of Northern California and Oregon, the snow disappeared up to two weeks earlier.

Over time, the effects of fire declined. Ten winters after a blaze, for example, the average snow disappearance date moved up by less than a day.

While the advance of the snow disappearance date was most pronounced at lower elevations, the snowpack actually persisted slightly longer in some burned areas in Colorado and Utah, where the colder temperatures at higher elevations can insulate the snowpack from changes.

The finding that some higher elevation locations had a later snow disappearance date “would definitely be something to explore because everything that we know so far suggests that snow disappearance should be earlier after a fire,” Kampf said.

Higher elevations may be less vulnerable to an early disappearance of the snowpack due to late-season storms. “Here in Colorado,” Kampf said, “we get a fair amount of spring snow, and so that’s one of the reasons why we’re not as sensitive because sometimes that snow just comes in May and it resets everything and you don’t see the big change in snow disappearance date.”

Another factor in explaining the regional differences is the West’s diversity of vegetation.
“The forests are different in places that are colder, so you have different tree species and different densities of forest and different ecosystems in general,” Nolin said. “The northern tier of states and the high country—that’s where you would be probably seeing the least amount of change. It doesn’t mean, though, that you have the least amount of fire because some of these places, especially in places like Idaho and Washington state, have significant amount of fire, and there’s some interesting studies that have shown earlier snowmelt in those locations as well.”

A large burn scar in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Post-fire changes to the snowpack vary significantly across the West’s diverse landscapes. Photo by Arielle Koshkin.

How wildfires change streamflow

Previous research has found that wildfires can significantly alter the timing and magnitude of runoff in burned watersheds, but scientists are still unraveling the details.

“If you burn down the forest, you don’t have as many trees that are using that water,” Nolin said. “You probably expect the streamflow to be earlier because the snow’s melting off earlier.”

Fires can not only kill trees and ground cover that would absorb water—they can also eliminate organic material in the soil, which causes the ground to become more water repellent and makes the snowmelt more likely to run off into streams.

A 2022 study that examined 72 forested basins that burned across the West found that average streamflow was significantly higher after a wildfire for an average of six years. The increase in streamflow was greater in areas where the extent of wildfire was larger. That study also found that the annual acreage burned by wildfires in the West skyrocketed by more than 1,100% from 1984 to 2020.

Kampf said more research is needed to understand how streamflow changes after a fire. “We don’t have all those interactions figured out yet, but there have been some studies that have shown that streamflow actually decreases after fire,” Kampf said. “We certainly know it will affect streamflow timing, but the amount of streamflow we’re less sure.”

Fire intensity is one key determinant of subsequent streamflow.

“If the forest is totally torched, then the increased solar radiation that’s coming into the snowpack is going to have a much bigger effect than if the trees still have live branches on them,” Kampf said. “Similarly, when you get down to the soil, if the soil is totally burned to a crisp, then its infiltration impacts will be much greater than if a lot of the litter and other stuff in the soil is still there.”

Nolin said she would have liked to see the authors distinguish between areas of high, moderate and low burn intensity.

“When you see photographs of burned areas, we tend to show the photos that are most dramatic with just charred trunks that have (been) left behind, but in fact, most fires are mainly low to moderate burn severity that maintain the forest canopy,” Nolin said. “To not distinguish between different burn severities and to indicate that it’s all about the canopy being burned off and all of this carbon shedding on the snow—I think that stretches the results.”

The speed of vegetation recovery also shapes how the snowpack and streamflows respond to wildfire over time.

“If it’s a forest type where the vegetation can respond quickly and come back, that’s going to be a really different response than if the vegetation is slow to grow,” Kampf said. “Here in Colorado, we have some fires where it’s not coming back as forest at all, and where there are just no seedlings, and so we would expect the fire effect on snow to persist for a long time because we just don’t have trees coming back.”

The post-fire effects on streamflow tend to be localized, so it can be difficult to detect their effects on major river basins.

“Even though the fires we’ve been experiencing have been really large, they’re still not huge compared to the size of the watershed as a whole,” Kampf said. “If you looked at something like the Colorado River Basin, it might be hard to detect the fire effect on the flow because there’s such a huge area that’s contributing to that flow. So in terms of how water is managed in forecasting and dam operations, I don’t think we’re there yet in terms of knowing how to account for fire.”

A major worry for water managers is the threat of high-intensity fires burning through dense stands of forest in the watersheds above their systems.

“Those are places that water managers are concerned about because if the forest burns, then they experience problems with post-fire erosion and sedimentation and harms to water infrastructure, so it’s kind of a different side of the water management issue,” Kampf said.

Impacts on ecosystems

Besides posing challenges for water managers, wildfires can have profound effects on wildlife and forest health.

For aquatic ecosystems, “having a shift in the timing of when flow is coming in could also have an impact,” Kampf said, but “probably the greater impact is when that flow is bringing in with it a lot of sediments that are changing the habitat more profoundly.”

More rapid melting of the snowpack after a fire can also lead to a longer dry season for forests.

“If the snow disappears earlier, plants will start greening up sooner,” Kampf said. “If they’re not getting a lot of summer rain, they may find drier conditions later in the growing season that can stress plants.”

In addition to snow disappearing earlier due to fires, Nolin said the weather in November is getting drier. “If you have an earlier snow disappearance date and a later snowfall date, that dry season’s really getting quite a bit longer, and so it means that you have a decline in forest health and you also have an increase in the potential” for a longer fire season, Nolin said.

How burned ecosystems will respond to fire remains an open question as the climate continues to warm. In many parts of the West, decades have passed since flames swept through a forest, but trees have yet to return.

The burned trees may be centuries old, “and the climate was different than when those little seedlings sprouted and became the big trees that ultimately were involved in the fire,” Nolin said. “They grew initially under a different climate, and we don’t have that climate anymore, so we might see a lot more shrubs.”

Nolin said the paper “used a very simplistic approach to looking at future impacts on snow” by only examining what will happen under 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Climate change will also alter such factors as relative humidity and precipitation, so including these other effects “would’ve been more nuanced and perhaps a little more supportable,” Nolin said. She would have liked to see the results for various temperature increases up to 4 degrees Celsius, noting that mountains are warming faster due to climate change, and a key question is whether rain or snow will fall under warmer conditions.

“Just having a single temperature change to look at helps us understand the impacts of temperature, and that’s great, but there is a lot more to be done in this area,” Nolin said.

This story was produced and distributed by The Water Desk at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Center for Environmental Journalism.

#Colorado Basin River Forecast Center Water Year in Review, An Overview of Operational Changes, Improvements, and Investigations over the course of Water Year 2025 #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the report on the NOAA website. Here’s an excerpt:

1.2.2 Water Year 2025 Snowpack Accumulation and Water Supply Forecast Evolution

Early season snowpack accumulation through the first week of January throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin and Great Basin ranged from near to slightly above normal throughout much of central Colorado and the headwaters of the Green River Basin and much of far northwestern Utah. Snowpack accumulation values were below normal in the San Juan and Dolores River Basins. In the Lower Colorado River Basin, early season snowpack accumulation was essentially non-existent, with the highest snowpack amounts observed in the northern portion of the Virgin River Basin at 10% of average. Other areas were at, or very close to, 0% of normal (Figure 4).

Snowpack is a dominant driver of seasonal water supply forecasts. As a result of relatively near normal snowpack conditions throughout much of the Upper Colorado River Basin and Great Basin regions and generally dry soil moisture conditions, official January Forecasts ranged from near average throughout much of the wetter portions of Colorado to approximately 70% of average throughout much of Utah and the San Juan River Basin (Figure 5).

Generally dry conditions continued through February, with numerous NRCS SNOTEL stations located in the southern portion of the Upper Colorado River Basin and Great Basin regions their lowest precipitation accumulation on record for the December through February period. These record setting conditions corresponded with generally well below average water year precipitation values from October through February (Figure 6).

It is important to note that while some areas saw beneficial It is important to note that while some areas saw beneficial precipitation, particularly in the Green River Basin, warmer than normal temperatures at the end of January and into early February resulted in snowmelt at lower elevation zones (Figure 7).

These generally dry conditions resulted in below normal water supply forecasts throughout the CBRFC’s area of responsibility. Snowpack accumulation over the Colorado River Basin and Great Basin region typically peaks near April 1st. Snowpack conditions varied throughout the Colorado River and Great Basin regions, but were generally near to slightly above average in the northern portions of the Green and Yampa River Basins, and Colorado River headwaters. Drier conditions were apparent throughout much of the Gunnison and San Juan River Basins, as well as central and southern Utah. Lower Colorado River Basin snowpack conditions remained essentially at zero. Many NRCS SNOTEL locations indicated snow water equivalent (SWE) amounts that were near average (Figure 8).

However, while peak SWE values at NRCS SNOTEL locations generally located at higher elevations indicated near normal peak snowpack conditions, CBRFC modeled SWE at lower and middle elevation zones over major contributing areas showed below to well below normal SWE conditions (Figure 9).

As a result of generally below normal SWE conditions and dry soil moisture conditions, April official forecasts ranged from near normal in portions of the Colorado River Headwaters, to approximately 50% of normal in the Dolores and San Juan River Basin. The official April forecast for Lake Powell was 67% of normal.

Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

The #ColoradoRiver is Not Going to Wait for Politics — John Berggren (WesternResourceAdvocates.org) #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Western Resource Advocates website (John Berggren):

November 21, 2025

The states that share the Colorado River have failed to agree on how to protect it, leaving 35 million people without a clear path forward. We still have a chance to protect the river – but we must act now. Our communities need a plan that responds to climate change, proactively prepares for water shortages, promotes conservation across the Basin, and protects river health.

One in 10 Americans depend on a healthy Colorado River. For the last two years, their future has been hotly debated behind closed doors.

The states that share the river have failed to agree on how to protect it, missing a critical deadline to provide a plan for managing the river – leaving our communities high and dry.

It’s time to put the river before politics. Our communities need results and a plan that saves water across the West.

One in 10 Americans, along with countless fish and wildlife, depend on a healthy Colorado River. For years, our future has been hotly debated by a handful of state officials behind closed doors. The river has faced escalating threats from climate change and unsustainable water demands. River flows are declining, and our two major reservoirs are less than one-third full. That is why it was so disappointing when officials finally emerged from two years of negotiations empty-handed.

The guidelines for managing the Colorado River expire in 2026, and the Bureau of Reclamation has been working with the Basin states, Tribes, and stakeholders on a new plan for the dry years ahead. Reclamation gave the states until Nov. 11 to outline their framework for the new guidelines with the details due Feb. 14.

Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

What is the hold up? The Colorado River Basin states are divided into two camps — the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) and the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming). The two Basins are at odds over a variety of fundamental issues, including who should take water shortages, how much these should be, and whether shortages are mandatory or voluntary. The Lower Basin has agreed to take the majority of the shortages in most years, but there is significant disagreement over who bears responsibility for the remaining shortages. Both Basins argue that the other is responsible. The threat of interstate litigation over the river looms large. These court battles would take decades to resolve, cost millions of dollars, and plunge the region into a state of uncertainty — all while the river system continues to crash.

The states held numerous confidential meetings in an attempt to reach an agreement while communities throughout the West anxiously awaited the outcome. On Nov. 11, the states released a joint statement that offered a commitment to continue negotiating, but little else.

The Colorado River is not going to wait for process or politics. Drought and climate change are reshaping the West. The window to secure the river’s future is closing fast.

Decision makers need to start making real progress. If we have another dry year like this one, water demands could exceed the river’s natural flow by 3.6 million acre-feet, which is enough water to sustain over 7 million families for an entire year. Such a shortfall could mean water levels in Lake Powell drop so low that Glen Canyon Dam can no longer produce hydropower and it raises serious concerns about whether the dam can safely operate at all.

This problem is too big for one state or sector to solve on its own. Everyone in the Basin must do more to save water and protect the river. Every drop matters.

Decision makers are trying to solve a complex problem with difficult trade-offs, but the challenges will only grow with each passing day. We simply can’t do our best work if we wait until the last minute. A plan that is hastily put forward at the eleventh hour leaves little room for public input or creative solutions. Instead, it risks perpetuating a status quo that hasn’t been working for anyone.

We must allow time to incorporate input from the 30 Basin Tribes, many of whom have long been excluded from key negotiations and lack access to clean water. We also need to leave room to build in solutions that protect the health of the river that sustains the West.

The future of our region — from families in Denver to raft guides in Moab to communities on the Navajo Nation to farmers in Yuma — depend on a healthy river.

We need a plan for the dry years ahead, and we need it now. While state negotiations remain important, the Bureau of Reclamation cannot let the ongoing impasse stand in the way of meaningful solutions. Reclamation must press on and work with Tribes and stakeholders across the West to develop robust and equitable guidelines that protect the river we all depend on.

At WRA we are continuing to advocate for policies that:

Base management decisions on the best available science, including how much water is actually flowing in the river

Expand water conservation efforts across the Basin and create flexible water storage accounts so that we can store water to protect river health and meet our needs in dry years

Ensure Tribes have meaningful opportunities to shape decisions on the river and can access their fair share of the river’s water

Invest in projects to maintain the river’s infrastructure, incentivize water conservation, build water security, and restore irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat

Enable ongoing collaboration across the region

Adopt policies that prioritize the health of the river so that future generations can build a life in the West

The next few months will determine the future of the river for years to come. By the end of this year, Reclamation is expected to publish a draft environmental impact statement analyzing alternatives for managing the river. This will be followed by a public comment period where you can make your voice heard. Reclamation’s final record of decision is expected late next summer.

We are up against hard deadlines enforced by the federal government and Mother Nature. The clock is ticking. We still have a chance to protect the river — but we must act now.

The #Colorado Water Conservation Board Approves Historic Agreement to Safeguard #ColoradoRiver Water Rights — Lindsay DeFrates (Colorado River District) #COriver #aridification

This historical photo shows the penstocks of the Shoshone power plant above the Colorado River. A coalition led by the Colorado River District is seeking to purchase the water rights associated with the plant. Credit: Library of Congress photo

Click the link to read the release on the Colorado River District website (Lindsay DeFrates):

The acceptance of the Shoshone water rights marks a landmark partnership between the State of Colorado and the western slope.

Today, Wednesday, November 19, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) voted unanimously to accept the joint offer by the Colorado River District and Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) of a perpetual interest in the use of the Shoshone Water Rights for instream flow purposes.

Once confirmed by water court, this acquisition will create the largest environmental water right in the state’s history and permanently protect the historic flow of the Colorado River.

“The importance of today’s vote cannot be overstated as a legacy decision for Colorado water and the western slope. It secures an essential foundation for the health of the Colorado River and the communities it sustains,” said Andy Mueller, General Manager of the Colorado River District. “We continue to be impressed by, and thankful for, the broad coalition of voices that have come together in support of protecting the Shoshone Water Rights. Without them, we would not have been able to meet this historic milestone.”

“Today, the CWCB demonstrated its deep commitment to Colorado’s water security by taking bold, permanent action to protect our namesake river. We are proud to stand with the State and with our many partners across the West Slope in securing these flows for the benefit of all Coloradans,” said Sen. Marc Catlin, president of the Colorado River District Board of Directors. “This agreement strengthens water security for hundreds of communities within our state and represents a proactive, durable solution for the 40 million people who rely on the Colorado River downstream. The Shoshone Water Rights Preservation Project keeps the river as whole as possible, keeping water in its natural basin and safeguarding this lifeline for generations to come.”

The board’s decision today was the final step in the instream flow acquisition process that began with the formal offer in May 2025. Following a contested hearing in September – requested by four Front Range water entities – the Colorado River District and PSCo granted the CWCB additional time to continue deliberations and fully consider the historic proposal and partnership at their November meeting.

35 entities filed for party status in support of the Shoshone Water Rights ISF proposal. These include West Slope towns and counties, water districts, as well as local and regional non-profits. Over 400 positive public comments were also submitted over the summer.

“Today’s decision by the CWCB is a tremendous step forward for the health of the Colorado River and the communities that rely on it,” said Senator Dylan Roberts. “The Shoshone Permanency effort reflects years of collaboration and a shared commitment to protecting our headwaters, and I’m grateful to all the partners who brought us to this point. There is still important work ahead, but this vote positions Colorado to take advantage of the years of effort and protects these flows for generations to come.”

“The Shoshone water rights are a lifeline for western Colorado,” said Mesa County Commissioner Bobbie Daniel. “Our farmers, ranchers, recreation enthusiasts, and energy producers depend on this water, and we are proud to see the CWCB support this project. These flows are the future of our families and communities, and now, more than ever, it is critical that we are doing everything we can to protect them.”

Xcel Energy provided the following statement: “Xcel Energy recognizes the significant collaboration and effort that brought us to today’s decision by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. We appreciate the engagement from all parties throughout this process and look forward to continuing the work ahead. This agreement represents an important step in ensuring reliable, clean energy for the communities we serve while supporting responsible stewardship of Colorado’s water resources.”

The CWCB also issued their own press release, which is available on their website here: https://cwcb.colorado.gov/category/news-articles

In December 2023, the Colorado River District and Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, entered into a $99 million Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) to acquire the historic Shoshone Water Rights, senior (1902) and junior (1929) non-consumptive rights that stabilize flows on the upper Colorado River. The PSA is the product of decades of work by the statewide Shoshone Water Right Preservation Coalition.

To close the transaction, the PSA requires four conditions: execution of an Instream Flow Agreement with the CWCB (approved today), receipt of a water court decree approving the change of water rights, securing commitment of full project funding ($99 million), and approval from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. So far, the Shoshone Water Rights Coalition has secured commitments of over $57 million from West Slope entities, the State of Colorado, and the Colorado River District’s Community Funding Partnership. The Bureau of Reclamation awarded the project $40 million through the Inflation Reduction Act Funds in January 2025 – those funds remain under review by the current administration.

Today’s CWCB decision fulfills that critical Instream Flow Agreement requirement, moving the project significantly closer to final completion and the permanent protection of the Shoshone flows. The River District, PSCo, and the CWCB will be initiating the water court process to add instream flow use to the Shoshone water rights. The River District and its full coalition of supporters will also be turning their focus on fully securing the previously awarded federal funds.

Colorado River Basin in Colorado via the Colorado Geological Survey

The #Colorado Water Conservation Board votes yes on Shoshone: The #ColoradoRiver District will retain some control over management of powerful water rights — Heather Sackett (AspenJournalism.org) #COriver #arification

River District General Manager Andy Mueller speaks to the Colorado Water Conservation Board in front of a packed house Wednesday. The board voted unanimously to accept water rights tied to the Shoshone hydropower plant to benefit the environment. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):

November 20, 2025

In a historic move Wednesday evening, the state water board voted unanimously to accept water rights tied to the Shoshone hydropower plant, a major step toward securing those flows in perpetuity for the Western Slope.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board said the Shoshone water rights, which are some of the oldest and most powerful on the mainstem of the Colorado River, can be used to benefit the environment.

“The Shoshone acquisition makes a lot of sense to me, and I’m very proud to be a part of the work that everybody’s put into it,” said Mike Camblin, who represents the Yampa, White and Green river basins on the CWCB. “I hope that our children and our grandchildren look back and realize we made the right decision on this.”

The Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District plans to purchase the Shoshone water rights for $99 million from Xcel Energy, but the district first needed the approval of the CWCB, which is the only entity in the state allowed to hold instream-flow water rights to benefit the environment. Because the water is returned to the river after it runs through the hydroplant’s turbines, downstream cities, irrigators, recreators and the environment all benefit.

River District General Manager Andy Mueller called it a fantastic day in Colorado history.

“I think that was the right decision for the Colorado River and the right decision for our whole state,” Mueller said. “I think the state for generations to come, centuries in the future will benefit from having that water in the Colorado River.”

Importantly, the instream-flow agreement approved by the board says that the Western Slope, along with the CWCB, will retain some control over exercising the rights. The River District and its constituents drew a hard line in the sand regarding this point and said they would walk away from the deal if they had to cede control solely to the CWCB.

Though not totally unprecedented, co-management is a departure from the norm, as the CWCB has never shared management of an instream-flow water right this large or this powerful with another entity.

In attendance at Wednesday’s CWCB meeting in Golden were representatives of ditch companies, elected officials and water managers from across the River District’s 15-county area. Some of the attendees said during their public comments that if the River District didn’t retain some control over the water rights, they would pull their funding and withdraw their support from the Shoshone campaign.

Mesa County Commissioner Bobbie Daniel said the joint-management proposal is a safeguard that ensures that Western Slope interests are not pushed aside. Mesa County has committed $1 million toward the purchase of the water rights.

“The Shoshone call is one of the great stabilizing forces on the river, a heartbeat that has kept our valley farms alive, our communities whole and our economy steady, even in lean years,” Daniel said. “If a joint management is not adopted, Mesa County will withdraw its support for this acquisition. It’s not out of anger or politics, but because anything less would fail the people that we serve.”

The Shoshone hydropower plant in Glenwood Canyon has some of the oldest and most powerful nonconsumptive water rights on the Colorado River. A broad coalition of Western Slope entities support the River District purchasing the rights. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Blow to the Front Range

The CWCB’s decision was a blow to Front Range water providers, who objected to the River District’s having a say over how to manage the water rights, even though they supported the overall goal of protecting flows for the environment. Denver Water, Northern Water, Aurora Water and Colorado Springs Utilities argued that the CWCB has exclusive authority over the rights, according to state statute.

Critically, because the Shoshone plant’s water rights — one that dates to 1902 for 1,250 cubic feet per second and another that dates to 1929 for 158 cfs — are senior to many other water users, they have the ability to command the flows of the Colorado River and its tributaries upstream all the way to the headwaters. This means that the owners of the rights can “call out” junior Front Range water providers with younger water rights that take water across the Continental Divide via transmountain diversions and force them to cut back.

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.

The Shoshone call pulls water west much of the time. But the Front Range parties wanted assurances that during extreme droughts or emergency situations, the call would be “relaxed,” allowing them to take more water to their cities’ millions of customers.

Alex Davis, assistant general manager with Aurora Water, said the CWCB should retain the ability to relax the call as a “backstop” under extremely rare circumstances.

“It is asking that in those emergency situations, the board has the ability to step in and say: We’re going to do what we think is best for the state of Colorado,” Davis said.

The agreement approved by the board lays out a collaborative process to consider a call relaxation, with a stakeholder panel of water managers from both sides of the divide. The specific wording of this agreement was hashed out during Wednesday’s meeting, with lawyers representing the CWCB and River District conferencing to tweak language and make edits.

Colorado Water Conservation Board member representing the Arkansas River basin Greg Felt, left, talks with River District General Manager Andy Mueller Wednesday after the board voted to accept the Shoshone water rights for instream flow purposes. The move represents a major step toward securing those rights in perpetuity for the Western Slope. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

The CWCB had been set to decide on the Shoshone rights at its meeting in September, but the River District granted an eleventh-hour 60-day extension so they could address issues raised by the board and try to negotiate a consensus with the Front Range parties.

Despite all the detailed arguments laid out by the parties, thousands of pages of technical and legal documents, and hours of testimony and public comment over the September and November CWCB meetings, the board’s scope of decisionmaking remained narrow: Should the CWCB accept a perpetual interest in the Shoshone water rights and will these rights preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree?

In the end, the board decided yes, and also determined that it did, in fact, have the authority to allow the River District to co-manage the Shoshone water rights alongside it.

“I really think it’s pretty incredible that there’s no objection to the environmental aspects of this flow and the purpose of this water right for environmental purposes,” said CWCB Director Taylor Hawes, who represents the mainstem of the Colorado River where the Shoshone plant is located. “(The River District is) donating that water right. It seems like they should have a say. And while I realize this case is unique, I don’t see anything in the statute or the rules that prohibits us from doing this.”

But the fight to keep Shoshone flowing west is not over for the River District. The CWCB, River District and the water rights’ current owner, Xcel, now plan to file a joint application in water court to make the deal official by adding the instream-flow use to the water rights.

The water court process will decide another contentious issue that is sure to again highlight disagreement between the Western Slope and Front Range as they compete for the state’s dwindling water resources: precisely how much water is associated with the water rights, a number based on the plant’s past use.

“I also very much understand the concerns of both sides of the divide in not wanting the other side to have a windfall,” Hawes said. “That has been kind of the heart of all of this. And I hope we can all trust that the water court’s process will give us a result where we don’t have to worry about that. Everyone’s concerns will be addressed in that process.”

View of Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant construction in Glenwood Canyon (Garfield County) Colorado; shows the Colorado River, the dam, sheds, a footbridge, and the workmen’s camp. Creator: McClure, Louis Charles, 1867-1957. Credit: Denver Public Library Digital Collections

The #Colorado Water Conservation Board says “yes” to $99M Western Slope plan for Shoshone Power Plant’s water rights — Shannon Mullane (Fresh Water News) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Shoshone Falls hydroelectric generation station via USGenWeb

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Shannon Mullane):

November 20, 2025

In a momentous decision for the Western Slope, state water officials unanimously approved a controversial proposal to use two coveted Colorado River water rights to help the river itself.

Members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board voted to accept water rights tied to Shoshone Power Plant into its Instream Flow Program, which aims to keep water in streams to help the environment.

The decision Wednesday is a historic step forward in western Colorado’s yearslong effort to secure the $99 million rights permanently. But some Front Range water providers pushed back during the hearings, worried that the deal could hamper their ability to manage the water supply for millions of Colorado customers.

For the state, the two water rights will be a crown jewel in its five-decade environmental effort to help river ecosystems. It’s one of several steps in the agreement process, and it could take years before the river feels that environmental benefit.

“The Shoshone acquisition makes a lot of sense to me, and I’m very proud of the work that everybody’s put into it,” said Mike Camblin, who represents the Yampa and White river basins on the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “I hope that our children and our grandchildren look back at this and realize we made the right decision.”

Over 100 Colorado water professionals and community members gathered in Golden for a six-hour hearing about the environmental proposal, brought forward by the Colorado River District, which represents 15 counties on the Western Slope.

The small hydropower plant off Interstate 70 near Glenwood Springs has used Colorado River water to generate electricity for over a century. But the aging facility has a history of maintenance issues, and Western Slope water watchers have long worried about what happens to the rights if it were to shut down for good.

The Colorado River District wants to add the environmental use as part of a larger plan to maintain the “status quo” flow of water past the power plant, regardless of how long it remains in operation.

Western Slope communities, farms, ranches, endangered species programs and recreational industries have become dependent on those flows over the decades and broadly supported the district’s proposal.

From left, Hollie Velasquez Horvath, Kathy Chandler-Henry, and Andy Mueller, general manager of the River District, at the kickoff event Tuesday [December 19, 2023] for the Shoshone Water Right Preservation Campaign in Glenwood Springs. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

“I’m good. I’m much more relaxed now,” Andy Mueller, the district’s general manager, said after the vote Wednesday. “The reality is, we have set up our state, through this instream flow agreement, for success for centuries on the Colorado River.”

Some powerhouses in Colorado water support the general permanency effort but oppose parts of the agreement. Northern Water, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water and Aurora Water said the proposal would give the Colorado River District too much sway in decisions that would impact them.

These water managers and providers are responsible for delivering reliable water to millions of people, businesses, farms and ranches across the Front Range. Any change to Shoshone’s water rights could have ripple effects that would affect over 10,000 upstream water rights, including some held by Front Range water groups.

The negotiations over the agreement continued throughout the meeting. Board members had about 24 hours to review a stack of documents marked with tweaked phrasing and proposed edits.

Both sides are concerned that the other could get a water windfall through the agreement, said Taylor Hawes, who represents the Colorado River on the board. Those concerns can be addressed in the next step of the process: Water Court.

“That has been the heart of all of this,” Hawes said. “I hope we can all trust that the water court’s process will give us a result where we don’t have to worry about that.”

Who will control the flow of water?

The Colorado Water Conservation Board was supposed to make its final ruling on the environmental use proposal in September. Then Public Service Company of Colorado, the Xcel subsidiary that owns the rights, and the Colorado River District filed an 11th-hour extension to delay until the meeting Wednesday.

That’s, in part, because they needed more time to address a central conflict in the agreement: Who makes the final decisions when managing the powerful rights?

Shoshone uses two rights to access the Colorado River: one for 1,250 cubic feet per second that dates back to 1905, and a right to 158 cubic feet per second that dates back to 1940.

They amount to a big chunk of water. Plus, these rights can be used year-round, and they supersede more recent, junior rights like several held by Front Range water providers.

Under the agreement, the water rights will be co-managed by the Colorado River District and the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Western Slope parties were adamant about this. Several speakers said they would pull their funding, and there would be no agreement if the River District did not have a say in how the water rights would be used.

“If joint management is not adopted, Mesa County will withdraw its support for this acquisition,” Bobbie Daniel, Mesa County Commissioner, said. “It’s not out of anger or politics, but because anything less would fail the people that we serve.”

The Front Range groups said the state should make the final decision if Colorado River District staff and CWCB staff disagreed over how to manage the water rights. They argued the board has exclusive authority under state law.

Alex Davis with Aurora Water said her team was pushing for a “hammer” — an entity, preferably the state, that could force water providers on either side of the Continental Divide to come to the negotiating table or that could make the final decision, especially in times of crisis.

Aurora pulls about 25,000 acre-feet of water from the Western Slope, through mountain tunnels and into its water system each year, she said. (An acre-foot of water is about what two to three households use in a year.) But when Shoshone is using its 1905 water right to its fullest, nearly all of Aurora’s transmountain diversions are turned down or turned off.

The city might want to ask Shoshone to use less water to provide some relief in an emergency. The agreement seems to give the Colorado River District a veto, Davis said.

“By the River District having that decision-making power, it may lead to less incentive on the West Slope side in those emergency situations,” Davis said in an interview with The Sun. “That’s what we were worried about.”

Colorado Water Conservation Board members decided to continue with the co-management approach, saying they were not giving up authority or working outside of state statute by doing so.

Mueller said the agreement is a win for the river and the entire state. It will protect endangered fish and a critical 15-mile stretch of habitat near Grand Junction. It includes exceptions that will protect cities during multi-year droughts and emergency situations, he said.

“The CWCB and the River District can act together for the best interest of the state,” Mueller said in an interview. “We’ll have to earn some trust in that realm over the years, but I’m quite convinced we can do it.”

About that $99 million bill…

The Colorado River District has entered into a $99 million agreement with Xcel Energy to buy the Shoshone water rights.

The state’s decision to accept Shoshone’s water rights into its environmental program met one of four key closing conditions of that purchase agreement, Amy Moyer, chief of strategy for the Colorado River District, said.

The deal still needs approval by Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission. It’ll be weighed in Water Court, where Western Slope and Front Range representatives will wade through another thorny issue: What has Shoshone’s “status quo” water use been over the last century?

The Colorado River District and its Western Slope supporters need to pay up. Although they’ve pulled together over half the asking price, they’re still waiting to hear about whether a request for federal funding will be approved.

If the deal passes those hurdles, then the resulting purchase and instream flow agreement will go on indefinitely. It will provide more predictability for water users across the state, and it will continue to factor into how Colorado communities grow, officials said Wednesday. “We’re making some very far-reaching decisions here,” Nathan Coombs, the board’s Rio Grande Basin representative, said. “I still think this is the right choice right now with the information we have.”

More by Shannon Mullane

Photo: 1950 “Public Service Dam” (Shoshone Dam) in Colorado River near Glenwood Springs Colorado.

The #Colorado Water Conservation Board Votes to Advance Shoshone Water Rights #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant back in the days before I-70 Library of Congress

Click the link to read the release on the Colorado Water Conservation Board website:

November 19, 2025, Golden, CO – This evening, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) voted to approve the long-anticipated Shoshone water rights acquisition, to secure two water rights associated with the Shoshone Power Plant, including one of the state’s most significant Colorado River water rights, for permanent instream flow protection. The vote launches the next phase of the process, including water court, and begins the work of preserving and improving the 2.4-mile reach of the Colorado River between the Shoshone Power Plant Diversion Dam and Tunnel and the Shoshone Power Plant Discharge Outlets.

“Securing one of the state’s most significant Colorado River water rights for permanent instream flow protection is a momentous achievement,” said Lauren Ris, CWCB Director. “This outcome reflects a tremendous amount of work, from extensive technical analysis and stakeholder engagement to thorough regulatory review and legal preparation. This careful evaluation ensures our investment delivers long-term benefits for the river and for Coloradans.”

The agreement passed on a unanimous vote, with two directors recused. The decision follows the Colorado River District’s authorization of an extension from the September hearing to the November Board meeting, allowing additional time for review of the information presented and continued efforts to achieve a negotiated resolution of contested issues.

“I want to thank all the people who have worked so hard to inform this decision for the Board and the diverse range of stakeholders who earnestly engaged,” said Dan Gibbs, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources. “Acquiring the Shoshone water rights for instream flow use is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to preserve and improve the natural environment of the Colorado River. But I also want to stress that the state is committed to ensuring that the historical use of the water rights is maintained at the status quo and we are committed to participating in any process to settle and resolve these issues for all water users. I am confident in our ability as a state and as a water community to come together in a way that is beneficial to all.”

Over the last two months, the CWCB and the Colorado River District met with Front Range entities and other interested parties to work toward resolving the issues raised at the September hearing. The next step in the process is the filing of an application in water court, for approval of the change of water rights to include instream flow use in a way that will not cause injury to decreed water rights.

This milestone follows significant commitments from the Colorado River District, local partners, and the CWCB, including the State’s $20 million Projects Bill contribution, to secure the long-term future of the Shoshone water rights.

This map shows the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River near Grand Junction, home to four species of endangered fish. Map credit: CWCB

Muddied waters in Glenwood Canyon: Purchase of Shoshone hydroelectric water rights might get snagged by messy realities of state water law — Oliver Skelly (BigPivots.com) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant. Photo/Allen Best

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Oliver Skelly):

November 18, 2025

Colorado water transfers rarely come easily. State water law ensures that every last drop of water is accounted for, litigated, and litigated some more.

It is no surprise then that the attempted Shoshone purchase by the Colorado River Water Conservation District has snagged on a couple of thorny legal and policy issues. Whether those issues will prove fatal to the purchase will be taken up at a meeting tomorrow afternoon, Nov. 19, in Golden.

The Shoshone rights

The transferred water rights from Xcel Energy to the Glenwood Springs-based River District have huge implications. Xcel uses the water rights for hydroelectric production at the Shoshone plant in Glenwood Canyon. The hydro plant produces relatively little power. As in real estate, though, location matters entirely.

Xcel’s water rights of 1902 and 1929 are senior to most other water rights upstream of Glenwood Canyon. They are also high-volume water rights, at 1,250 and 158 cubic feet per second, respectively. Additionally, they are entirely non-consumptive, meaning that all water taken out of the river (to spin the turbines) soon returns to the river for downstream use. As such, they have tremendous power to influence flows along the entirety of the Colorado River through Colorado.

If Xcel were to cease making electricity there, junior users upstream could divert more water. Many of those users would be the state’s transmountain diversions, which extend from Rocky Mountain National Park to Independence Pass. They benefit farmers and now mostly cities from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs. Any water that is diverted to the Front Range, however, is water that does not flow westward.

Because of this, both the River District and the Front Range diverters have had their eyes on those water rights for decades. What happens at Shoshone matters greatly both on the Western Slope, where the river naturally flows, and on the Front Range, where some of the river is now diverted.

Will the River District get that water right? It plans to keep the senior, high-volume hydropower water rights but also add an environmental instream flow right to the original decree, a class of water right approved by state legislators in 1973.

The district has already inked a purchase-and-sale agreement with Xcel and has raised $57 million of the $99 million price. It has been promised an additional $40 million from the Bureau of Reclamation, although the Trump administration has now frozen that money.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), a state agency responsible for water policy and funding, plays several major roles. In addition to agreeing to contribute $20 million, the CWCB has the sole authority under state law to own instream flow rights. For this deal to work, the River District also needs the agency’s board approval. That approval would seem to be a given because of the board’s commitment of $20 million to the purchase. But there are complications.

Not so simple

You are likely not shocked that Front Range water providers have not been thrilled with this pending transfer. In June, they asked the CWCB to hold a hearing to express their concerns.

At a September 19^th meeting held on the campus of Fort Lewis College in Durango, the two primary parties testifying fell along predictable geographical lines: the Front Range (water providers) and the Western Slope (River District). CWCB staff also presented findings.

The question before the CWCB was a simple one: Does the acquisition “preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree?” If the answer is yes, the water right is suitable as an instream flow right. By law, the board must consider 11 factors when making this determination. These factors are found in the instream flow law’s implementing regulations and range from whether this transfer will cause injury to other water users, the impact on interstate water compacts, and the cost of the transaction.

At the hearing, a host of messy realities surfaced. The first came after the CWCB staff presentation on the environmental importance of the 2.4-mile instream flow segment (i.e., whether the acquisition would in fact “preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree”) in Glenwood Canyon.

The Front Range and Western Slope parties then trumpeted the many but competing public benefits afforded by the Shoshone rights: rafting in Glenwood Canyon, orchard irrigation at Palisade, hospitals in Aurora.

Public interest…in Colorado?

Nearly all other Western states have incorporated some form of public interest requirement during water transfers. Although a difficult term to pin down, public interest reviews involve the consideration of public goods, such as healthy rivers or recreational amenities. The presiding bodies, when evaluating transactions, must weigh the private interests against the broader public benefits (or lack thereof).

Colorado has no requirement. In 1995, the Colorado Supreme Court found the public interest theory conflicts with the prior appropriation doctrine. Without any legislative developments or a judicial about-face, that is that.

So, if we don’t have a public interest review, why the parade of testimony?

The most obvious answer is politics. When seeking approval (or denial) from an administrative body, it’s not a bad bet to show pretty pictures and tell compelling stories. But “politics” in this context can also be seen as a sub-in for those public interest principles.

The eighth factor governing the CWCB’s deliberations requires consideration of the “effect of the proposed acquisition on the maximum utilization of the waters of the state.” Maximum utilization and the public interest, although not direct parallels, both share a principle of the “greatest good.”

This backdoor introduction of the public interest gave listeners a glimpse of what the judicially disapproved principle might look like in Colorado water transfers.

Whose right is it, anyway?

That introduction at the hearing spurred perhaps the trickiest legal and policy issue of the day: Who has authority to enforce the instream flow agreement? That is, who can make the legal call instructing other water users to forgo their diversion so that the instream flow right gets its full water allocation. Is that a Western Slope political entity, the River District, or the statewide agency, the CWCB?

And if it is the CWCB, does it have authority to grant its enforcement power to the River District? While the law appears to say yes, the River District can be granted authority, there is enough ambiguity in the 1973 law to perhaps send this to Colorado Supreme Court.

The policy question, however, quickly returned parties to the realm of the public interest.

The Front Range parties, arguably the most averse to any sniff of public interest requirements, ironically now found themselves supporting the idea that the broader public benefits should be under consideration.

They contended that the CWCB should preserve its discretion to use and operate the instream-flow right. That, they said, would be sound public policy. Or if you will, “in the public interest.”

Meanwhile, the River District, as the purchasing party and longstanding practitioners of Colorado water law, understandably wants to get what they are paying for: full control over exercising their water rights. Retaining enforcement powers under the agreement was, in fact, “the one sword that the West Slope” was prepared to fall on.

Filings from both parties on Monday suggest that there is ongoing disagreement on this issue, meaning the CWCB will have a big decision to make.

The Colorado River flows through Glenwood Springs, paralleled by Interstate 70 and the Union Pacific tracks, at sunset in March 2024. Photo credit: Allen Best

Can’t you just compromise?

The next display of messiness came when it was time for the Board to apply the 11 factors.

To those listening, it was quickly apparent that such a contested hearing had not been before these board members before. Few of the directors seemed to understand how each factor was to be applied to the proposal in front of them. Although no fault of the board members, the misalignment between their understanding of their roles and the consequences of the decision to be made felt almost incommensurate.

That unpreparedness may have resulted in the Board’s parting directive to the parties to “compromise”: surely a favorable idea aimed at inspiring creative strategies and good faith negotiating.

But in the adversarial world of Colorado water law, what might result from this directive?

Such directives are common enough in water disputes. Recently, in the case of the Gross Reservoir expansion, a federal court, the 10^th Circuit, told Denver Water and Save the Colorado to do the same.

In matters of purely Colorado domain, however, such directives are normally reserved as an outcome of the water court process. Ordering it before litigation seemed premature, perhaps even subversive.

The parties’ reactions were revealing here. The Front Range interests will certainly see it as a tally in their favor because it suggests the River District needs to move away from its hardline position. Perhaps their aversion to the public interest doctrine is not so set in stone, after all.

For the River District, it is hard not to imagine some frustration. This was a contracted-for acquisition under Colorado’s longstanding, private property water rights regime. But here, too, the water is muddy. Recall that the CWCB is providing 20% of the purchase price. What kind of leverage, tacit or otherwise, does that commitment provide?

Nov. 19^th hearing

These are all difficult questions, and they are being asked amidst a backdrop of high stakes, interstate Colorado River negotiations. Answering them will be no easy feat, and as the filings on Monday indicate, those questions remain unanswered. Whether it is indeed a “compromise” at the CWCB meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 19, or back to the drawing board for the River District is anyone’s guess. But the uncomfortable positions and contortions on display at the contested hearing gave an insightful glimpse into the messy realities of today and stress tests of the future for Colorado water law.

Oliver Skelly is a 2025 graduate of the University of Colorado Law School, a former river guide, and follower of Western water happenings. He has worked at various law practices around Colorado and is now clerking for a judge on the Western Slope.

Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office

#Utah, 6 other states hopeful to secure new #ColoradoRiver deal after missing key deadline — The Deseret News #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Deseret News website (Carter Williams). Here’s an excerpt:

November 12, 2025

Utah and the six other Colorado River states reached a tentative agreement to continue working together on a plan to share the river’s water, but failed to secure a consensus plan ahead of an important Tuesday deadline. Utah, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming, all of which rely on the river for water, agreed to continue to meet until they have a “framework solution” by mid-February 2026, said Gene Shawcroft, chairman of the Colorado River Authority of Utah.

“We were able to have enough of a framework put together that the federal government agrees with us that the framework can be continued to be refined in order for us to have a deal by the middle of February,” he told reporters in a negotiations update briefing on Wednesday…

The basin states have had agreements in place on how Colorado River water has been allocated for over a century, and the post-2026 plan seeks to be the largest operational update since a 2007 plan to address how water is stored and pulled from Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the nation’s two largest reservoirs. Its users agree that prolonged drought and low reservoir conditions remain persistent challenges facing the river, but there’s still division on how to handle the discrepancy between water needs and what’s available in the system within one of the fastest-growing regions of the country. Lower Basin states have called for mandatory reductions during dry years. In a public letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Tuesday, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and other Arizona leaders called it “alarming” that Upper Basin states, including Utah, “have repeatedly refused to implement any volume of binding, verifiable water supply reductions.”

[…]

Upper Basin states don’t believe those types of cuts are necessary because they use less water than Lower Basin states, largely because of how water rights are allocated, favoring senior rights holders like California, Shawcroft said. These are the types of arguments still holding up a long-term deal.

“The major sticking point is there’s a whole lot less water in the system than we anticipated, or there’s historically been,” he said. “The question is, how do you divide a pie that’s significantly smaller than it has been, when everyone’s used to getting that big piece of the pie?”

The Colorado River Compact divided the basin into an upper and lower half, with each having the right to develop and use 7.5 million acre-feet of river water annually. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey via The Water Education Foundation)

#ColoradoRiver Basin states miss another deadline to agree on water plan — AspenPublicRadio.org #COriver #aridification

Colorado River near Moab, Utah. Photo: Mitch Tobin/WaterDesk.org

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Public Radio website (Caroline Llanes). Here’s an excerpt:

November 12, 2025

There’s still no plan for how the seven states that use water from the Colorado River will allocate the scarce resource after 2026. Tuesday, November 11, marked a deadline set by the federal government for the states to share a framework for new operating guidelines—another deadline that’s come and gone with no agreement. The river’s supply has drastically decreased since the original Colorado River Compactwas signed in 1922, due to climate change and overallocation of water. In 2007, the states agreed to interim operating guidelines, but those expire in 2026. Because Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the basin’s two biggest reservoirs, are federal projects managed by federal agencies, those agencies will need to do an environmental review and public comment period, as required by law. The federal government needs input from the states in a timely fashion to complete the review and public comment process, in order to have new rules in place by October 2026. On Tuesday night, the seven states, along with the Department of Interior and Bureau of Reclamation, issued a statement on the negotiations…

“A supply-based proposal is the only way to move forward,” [Becky Mitchell] told attendees at the Colorado River District’s Across Divides conference on October 3. “We all have to be responding to supply.”

That means that the new guidelines should be based on actual streamflows, rather than demand from water users.

“We need to set aside building an operations plan that meets the needs as they are currently,” she said. “We need to let go of that dream and be able to figure out how to respond, and I think that’s been a bit of a struggle.”

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

No deal on #ColoradoRiver: Seven states fail to reach agreement by feds’ Nov. 11 deadline — Heather Sackett (AspenJournalism.org) #COriver #aridification

Lake Mead and the big “bathtub ring” as seen from next to Hoover Dam. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):

November 12, 2025

Water managers from the seven states that share the Colorado River have blown a deadline given to them by the federal government to come up with a rough plan on how the drought-stricken river will be shared in the future.

The Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) still cannot find agreement with the Lower Basin (California, Arizona and Nevada) about how the nation’s two largest reservoirs — Lake Powell and Lake Mead — will be operated and how cuts will be shared in dry years.

In June, Scott Cameron, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s acting assistant secretary for water and science, said federal officials would need to know the broad outlines of a plan from the states by Nov. 11. Despite frequent meetings in recent months, negotiators were unable to hammer out a deal by Tuesday, leaving future management for the water supply for 40 million people in the Southwest cloaked in uncertainty.

Instead, the states, the Interior Department and the federal Bureau of Reclamation released a short joint statement Tuesday afternoon, noting that serious and ongoing challenges face the Colorado River.

“While more work needs to be done, collective progress has been made that warrants continued efforts to define and approve details for a finalized agreement,” the statement reads. “Through continued cooperation and coordinated action, there is a shared commitment to ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience of the Colorado River system.”

Wahweap Marina at Lake Powell when water levels were at near-historic lows in 2021. The seven states and the federal government must figure out how to share the Colorado River after the current guidelines expire in 2026. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Environmental groups disappointed

The failure to come up with a plan by the deadline has sparked criticism from the basin’s environmental groups.

“I’m really disappointed with how yesterday played out; the states did not have anything to meet the Nov. 11 deadline,” said John Berggren, a regional policy manager with Western Resource Advocates. “The fact that they didn’t have a basic framework for how to manage the system after 2026 is really unfortunate, and I think they missed a good chance to put forward something that we can all consider and examine as a basin.”

Representatives from the seven states have been in talks for two years about how to manage the river after the current guidelines expire. After a long standoff without much progress throughout 2024, state representatives in June offered a glimmer of hope for a way forward, floating a concept for sharing the river based on natural flows at Lee Ferry, the dividing line between the Upper and Lower basins, instead of water demand. But that hope evaporated like water off Lake Mead, with negotiators reportedly deadlocked again by the end of the summer.

A statement from environmental groups Great Basin Water Network and Living Rivers called the Nov. 11 deadline arbitrary and ineffectual, and said the inaction symbolizes the overall dysfunction on the river and in government. They chastised the states and federal government for the lack of transparency and lack of public participation surrounding negotiations.

“The states don’t deserve the kid-glove treatment any longer,” Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, said in a prepared statement. “They have a behavioral problem as much as they do a hydrology problem. Any entity that wants to increase use is unfit to manage our most precious resource.”

A group of influential environmental organizations, including American Rivers, National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited and Western Resource Advocates, released a joint statement Wednesday saying that they were deeply disappointed the states did not find consensus and that federal leadership will be essential.

The statement called for solutions that ground management decisions in the best available science, expand conservation programs, modernize infrastructure and ensure that Native American tribes — which have underutilized rights to a large share of the river’s water — play a meaningful role in shaping the river’s future.

“We understand the extraordinary complexity of this challenge and the difficult tradeoffs the states are working hard to navigate — but the river isn’t going to wait for process or for politics,” the statement said. “Drought, intensified by increasingly extreme conditions, is reshaping the basin, and the window to secure the river’s future and move beyond crisis-driven policymaking is closing fast.”

Since the turn of the century, the Colorado River basin has been locked in the grip of a megadrought. Climate change has robbed Western rivers of their flows, with the basin seeing a 20% decline from the 20th century average, according to scientists. Those factors, as well as unrelenting water demands, have pushed Lake Powell and Lake Mead to record-low levels in recent years and thrown river management into crisis mode.

The current negotiations between the seven states are aimed at replacing the 2007 Interim Guidelines, which lay out how the reservoirs will be operated and shortages shared, and which expire at the end of 2026. New guidelines would need to be in place by the beginning of the next water year, Oct. 1, 2026, leaving little time to complete the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process.

The 2007 guidelines set annual Powell and Mead releases based on reservoir levels and do not go far enough to prevent them from being drawn down during consecutive dry years. In 2022, Lake Powell flirted with falling below a critical elevation to make hydropower, and may be headed there again next year if conditions don’t improve.

(Left to right) John McClow, Rebecca Mitchell, Gene Shawcroft, Tom Bucshatzke at the Colorado Water Congress 2022 Annual Summer Conference. Colorado representative Becky Mitchell, second from left, and Arizona representative Tom Buschatzke, farthest right, speak on a panel at Colorado Water Congress in 2022. The positions of the two states have emerged as one of the main sources of disagreement between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Sticking points

Over the past few months, the positions of two of the states — Colorado and Arizona — have emerged as one of the main sources of disagreement. Water from the Colorado River has fueled the exponential growth in recent decades of Arizona’s cities, which are the economic and political powerhouse of the state, along with some of the most productive farmland in the basin. But Arizona’s reliance on the junior water rights of the Central Arizona Project means it is first on the chopping block for cuts.

Arizona representatives have said that the deepest cuts should be shared basinwide, including by the Upper Basin. Gov. Katie Hobbs and other state lawmakers said in a Nov. 11 letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum that Arizona’s Colorado River allocation is important to the nation’s growth and independence and that Colorado River reliability is a matter of national security. The letter highlighted how the state plays a critical role in manufacturing semiconductors and information-technology products.

“With such high stakes for Arizona and the nation, we find it alarming that the Upper Basin states have repeatedly refused to implement any volume of binding, verifiable water supply reductions,” the letter reads. “This extreme negotiating posture — four of the seven basin states refusing to participate in any sharing of water shortages — has led to a fundamental impasse that is preventing the successful development of a seven-state consensus plan for the management of the Colorado River.”

The Lower Basin has committed to a 1.5 million acre-foot reduction, which accounts for evaporation and transit losses.

This shows that Colorado’s Western Slope is the biggest supplier of water to the Colorado River. Source: David F. Gold et al, Exploring the Spatially Compounding Multi‐Sectoral Drought Vulnerabilities in Colorado’s West Slope River Basins, Earth’s Future (2024). DOI: 10.1029/2024EF004841

Water managers from Colorado — which is the de facto leader of the Upper Basin with a 51.75% share of the water allocated to the four Upper Basin states — have pushed back on the notion that their states should contribute to cutbacks in water use since their water users already suffer shortages in dry years and the four states have never used their entire allocation of the river, while the Lower Basin overuses its share. Colorado representative Becky Mitchell has repeatedly said that any cuts the state makes must be voluntary, not mandatory.

However, the Upper Basin states have been experimenting for years with conservation programs that pay water users to cut back, most recently in 2023 and 2024 with the federally funded System Conservation Pilot Program. In a proposal submitted in March 2024, the Upper Basin states offered up a potential conservation pool in Lake Powell of up to 200,000 acre-feet a year, and most water users accept that some type of future conservation program for the Upper Basin is inevitable.

What happens now?

Federal officials had previously set a second deadline of Feb. 14, 2026, for the states to present details of a plan. They have repeatedly said that if the seven states fail to come up with an agreement, Reclamation will exercise its authority to protect critical reservoir levels. That could include releases from upstream reservoirs to prop up Powell and Mead, including releasing water from Colorado’s Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River.

Reclamation is moving forward with its NEPA process and said in early October that it plans to have a draft environmental impact statement by the end of the year. Representatives from the bureau were not available for comment Wednesday due to the government shutdown. Cameron has said that the alternatives analyzed in the EIS will be broad enough that they would capture any seven-state agreement, which they could then plug in as the preferred alternative — assuming the states come up with something.

“The basin states remain committed to collaboration grounded in the best available science and respect for all Colorado River water users,” Mitchell said in a prepared statement. “We are taking a meaningful step toward long-term sustainability and demonstrating a shared determination to find supply-driven solutions.”

#ColoradoRiver: States miss their deadline on a deal, but they’re still talking, #Utah and the federal government aren’t giving details or a new timeline — Annie Knox (UtahNewsDispatch.com) #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Utah News Dispatch website (Annie Knox):

November 11, 2025

Utah and six other states along the Colorado River blew past their deadline Tuesday to reach a new deal on managing the dwindling river, but negotiations aren’t over.

“We will continue to engage with our partners across the Basin to develop a framework that protects water users and the system as a whole,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said Tuesday afternoon on the social media site X.

The river contributes 27% of Utah’s water supply, and provides water to 40 million people across the U.S. and Mexico. Drought, overuse and hotter temperatures tied to climate change have all combined to shrink its flow.

The federal government had said it would step in and make its own plan if states failed to reach broad consensus by Tuesday, but the states agree they don’t want that to happen, Cox said.

“While the Basin States did not finalize an agreement today on post-2026 Colorado River operations, our commitment to a state-led path remains,” the governor said.

The U.S. Department of the Interior did not respond to questions from Utah News Dispatch Tuesday evening about the timeline and whether it would intervene. The current agreement runs through late 2026.

The federal agency and Utah’s negotiator Gene Shawcroft issued the same prepared statement, saying the talks yielded “collective progress.” They did not give any details on sticking points.

The seven states, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages water in the West, all “recognize the serious and ongoing challenges facing the Colorado River,” their statement says. “Prolonged drought and low reservoir conditions have placed extraordinary pressure on this critical water resource that supports 40 million people, tribal nations, agriculture, and industry.”

They said the states and federal agencies share a commitment to ensuring the river’s long-term sustainability.

“While more work needs to be done, collective progress has been made that warrants continued efforts to define and approve details for a finalized agreement,” the statement says.

The four Upper Basin states — Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming — and the Lower Basin states of Nevada, Arizona and California presented competing plans to the federal government last year.

The Upper Basin states have sought to fend off mandatory cuts in dry years, saying they generally use much less than they’re allocated. The Lower Basin states have insisted that all seven absorb cuts in dry years.

In part to prepare for the possibility of mandatory cuts, Utah has been investing in measuring and monitoring water use in recent years.

In 2023, the Legislature set aside $1 million for a Colorado River measurement infrastructure project and $650,000 in ongoing yearly funding, according to the Utah Division of Water Rights.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern #California issues statement on continued efforts to negotiate new rules for #ColoradoRiver operations #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the release on the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California website:

Nov. 12, 2025

Metropolitan General Manager Deven Upadhyay issues the following statement regarding the seven Colorado River Basin states continued efforts to reach consensus on post-2026 rules governing operation of the Colorado River:

“The only path to developing a sustainable Colorado River is through collaboration and consensus. We are grateful that the seven states that rely on the river remain at the table, along with the federal Department of Interior, but more work needs to be done, and quickly.

“The work ahead will require every state and water user to look beyond just their own needs and work toward the greater good of the Southwest. If reductions in water use are shared equitably across the Basin, no one state or sector will bear the burden alone.

“Metropolitan remains committed to forging such a consensus, and we look forward to the opportunity to participate in the ongoing discussions in a meaningful way. An agreement that includes tools allowing for smart water management, like flexible storage in Lake Mead and opportunities for shared investments across states, will minimize the pain of living with the new, lower flows of the Colorado River. If we focus on building solutions – rather than legal arguments – we can develop new guidelines that allow water users to have access to the water they need, when they need it most.”

“Metropolitan is preparing to live with less imported water in urban Southern California, building on decades of lower water use. But we cannot solve the problem alone. We cannot lose our access to the Colorado River entirely. Our region – home to half of the people and half of the economic activity in the Basin – relies on the river. And we are committed to its success.”

Learn more about Metropolitan and the Colorado River.

The #ColoradoRiver is nearly out of time — and excuses: If the seven basin states can’t lead, Washington and the courts will — James Eklund (BigPivots.com) #COriver #aridification

People at Lake Powell May 25, 2022. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (James Eklund):

November 11, 2025

If the seven basin states can’t lead, Washington and the courts will. The West deserves better than to surrender its future out of inertia and pride.

The River at a Crossroads

Today, November 11, the seven states that share the Colorado River face a deadline they’re unlikely to meet. The Department of the Interior has asked them to agree on the bones of a post-2026 management plan — the rules that will decide who gets cut, when, and by how much as the river keeps shrinking.

If they fail, Washington will write the rules for them. And if Washington falters, unelected judges will. Either way, the West loses control of its own destiny. That’s not leadership; that’s abdication.

The Lower Basin is braced for federal action. The Upper Basin is bracing for blame. Both are right to be worried — and both are missing the point. The river doesn’t care about politics or priority dates. It only responds to snow, sun, and science.

Hydrology Has Changed; Leadership Hasn’t

We built the Colorado River system for a climate that no longer exists. Reservoirs that once promised endless growth now sit half-empty — Lake Powell at roughly 29%, Lake Mead near 31%. The math is unforgiving: less water is coming in than going out.

Yet our governance still pretends otherwise. The Law of the River — that tangled mix of compacts, decrees, and deals — assumes a river of at least 16.5 million acre-feet. Nature is now giving us perhaps 12, maybe less. We’re overdrawn every year, and the overdraft is accelerating.

This isn’t a failure of hydrology; it’s a failure of adaptation. The West has always been proud of its self-reliance, but we’re behaving like a bureaucracy waiting for someone else to make the hard call. We need leaders, not hall monitors.

And if you want to know what failure of adaptation looks like, glance halfway around the world. Tehran, Iran, a city of more than eight million, is on the brink of evacuation. Its reservoirs are nearly dry, some below 10% capacity. Rainfall has fallen 40% below average. Iran’s president recently warned that if the skies don’t open, the capital may have to be moved. Moved. Imagine Washington, D.C. abandoned because the Potomac went dry. That’s not science fiction — that’s what happens when water governance waits too long to face reality. The Colorado River isn’t there yet, but the trajectory rhymes. Tehran is a mirror we should study before it shows our reflection.

The Blame Game vs. Shared Responsibility

At Arizona State University’s recent Law of the Colorado River: The View from the Lower Basin conference, one thing was clear: the Lower Basin has its legal arguments loaded and ready. So does the Upper Basin. Both are preparing for a fight neither side can win.

Arizona’s governor calls the Upper Basin’s stance extreme; the Upper Basin counters that it can’t conserve water that isn’t there. California points to its billions in saved water and asks why others won’t match it. Colorado replies that it’s already living within its snowpack. Every argument is technically correct — and collectively disastrous.

Finger-pointing won’t refill a reservoir. The real crisis isn’t between the basins; it’s between the past and the future. The river is shrinking faster than our imagination.

The Case for State-Led Solutions

We know how to do this. We’ve done it before. In 2019, when both Lakes Mead and Powell were circling the drain, the Basin States pulled together the Drought Contingency Plan. It wasn’t perfect, but it kept the system alive long enough for the recent recovery years to matter. That’s proof we can still ride together when it counts.

Utah and Wyoming are finally taking first steps toward real demand-management programs — voluntary, compensated conservation that could bank water in Powell. They’re six years too late, but they’re at least facing forward. The Lower Basin, to its credit, has cut deeply — usage there is down to about 5.9 million acre-feet, the lowest since 1983. The economies of Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles didn’t collapse. They adapted. That’s the model.

A state-led deal is the only way to keep Western hands on the reins. Federal control would be blunt; court control, brutal. Every day we delay, we invite both. The West should never outsource its destiny to Washington or to a judge in black robes who’s never stood in an irrigation ditch with a shovel.

The Call of the Saddle

This river built the modern West. It carved our canyons, powered our farms and ranches, lit our cities, and defined our sense of possibility. But it can’t survive our paralysis.

The next agreement — whatever we call it — won’t be about dividing abundance. It will be about managing scarcity with grace and intelligence. That means each state giving up a little sovereignty to save the system that sustains us all. It means governors and commissioners finding the courage to sign something imperfect but real.

Our basin remembers how to ride — hell, we practically invented it. The horse is saddled. The trail is narrow. And the storm is moving in fast.

Either we climb back on together, or we’ll watch someone else take the reins.

L to R, Anne Castle, Don Coram, James Eklund, and Jim Pokrandt

James Eklund is a Colorado water lawyer, rancher, former director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and formerly Colorado’s Colorado River principal. He advises public and private clients across the West on water, land, and natural-resources issues at Taft/ Sherman & Howard.

Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=65868008

Rainfall brings #ColoradoRiver drought relief, but concerns for next year’s water supply remain — Cassie Sherwood (WaterDesk.org) #COriver #aridification

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 Water Desk website (Cassie Sherwood):

November 4, 2025

This story is produced and distributed by The Water Desk at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Center for Environmental Journalism.

Heavy autumn rains brought relief to drought-plagued portions of the Southwest, but across the Colorado River basin ongoing water supply concerns still linger amid tense policy negotiations and near record-low reservoir storage.

Even after accounting for the heavy rain, 57% of the Colorado River watershed remains in severe drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. More than 11% of the basin is in extreme drought.

A less than average upcoming snow season combined with a dry spring or early summer in 2026 could create conditions for another low runoff year. The Colorado River’s headwaters saw a weak snowpack last winter, which contributed to one of the worst spring runoff seasons on record in 2025. Drought conditions spread and worsened into summer throughout the southern Rocky Mountains.

Peter Goble, Colorado’s assistant state climatologist, explained that the recent rainfall “certainly recharged soils,” in some watersheds.

Flows on the Animas River at Durango. Water Year 2026 is shown in black in comparison to past years. From https://climate.colostate.edu/drought/#streamflow

Streamflow in the Animas River and Rio Grande increased significantly following the October rains and flooding. Rain in southwest Colorado, particularly around Pagosa Springs, brought flooding that damaged homes and downtown businesses. Rain gauges near the San Juan Mountains recorded 7 to 10 inches of precipitation from October 9-15.

“We would love to see this rain come over a more steady incremental period,” Goble said. “But oftentimes it is these flooding events that kind of put the kibosh on a drought more locally.”

The flooding erased drought designations on the Drought Monitor map in those localized areas, but basinwide drought conditions tell a different story. Dry soils, depleted reservoirs and winter weather forecasts continue to cause water managers to worry.

Even with the recent rain, soils in many parts of the Colorado River basin remain dry. Soil absorbs moisture almost like a sponge. When the soil moisture is low, spring runoff soaks into the soil, saturating the ground first. Soils that are more saturated lead to more water filtering into streams and reservoirs when runoff occurs, making the process more efficient.

“We’re still going to need a good snowpack in order to be set up nicely, but this (rain) improves our outlook for the efficiency of that snowpack,” Goble said.

La Niña causes the jet stream to move northward and to weaken over the eastern Pacific. During La Niña winters, the Southwest tends to see warmer and drier conditions than usual. Since La Niña conditions are more common during the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a negative PDO is likewise associated with warmer, drier conditions across the Southwest. (Image credit: NOAA)

Federal forecasts show the possibility of a mild La Niña through February. The climate pattern occurs when Pacific Ocean waters cool down and alter global weather conditions. La Niña patterns often impact the amount of snowpack accumulation in the coming year. The southern part of Colorado is often drier in a La Niña year while northern areas, around Steamboat Springs, typically see snowier conditions.

The stakes for an above average runoff next year are high. The two biggest reservoirs in the country, Lake Powell and Lake Mead have steadily declined over the last 25 years. Powell is currently at 29% of its capacity and Lake Mead is at 32%. A lessened runoff could push them dangerously low.

While the rain slightly alleviates local drought, it’s “only a drop in the bucket when it comes to refilling Lake Powell and Lake Mead,” Goble said. “We’re still going to see those regional water shortages persist.”

Glen Canyon Dam holds back the waters of Lake Powell, which has reached critically low levels in the last three years. The reservoir serves downstream water use in Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico. (Mitch Tobin/The Water Desk)

If water levels continue to decline in these larger reservoirs, the dams’ infrastructure is threatened and the hydropower turbines can’t be used. Lake Powell, for example, has different outlets installed so water can be released in low conditions, however they are not designed to be the main outlet source. New federal projections show it’s possible Powell’s levels could drop low enough to cease hydropower production as early as October 2026, if conditions remain dry.

“They could reach levels they have never reached before and potentially reach catastrophic levels,” said John Berggren, regional policy manager for Western Resource Advocates.

In response to extremely low water conditions, it’s possible water from upstream reservoirs in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico could be released to support Powell’s hydropower turbines.

“We are seeing a new normal because of climate change, because of aridification,” Eric Kuhn said, former general manager of the Colorado River District, on the state’s Western Slope. In 2022, the basin saw similar drought conditions.

“We are back where we were just a few years later,” Kuhn said. “The system is slipping away.”

The basin states are also engaged in negotiations for new operating guidelines for the Colorado River, set to be in place by 2027. Given the ongoing drought conditions, water experts say the two reservoirs cannot wait for new guidelines.

“Don’t forget the short term problem while you are focused on a long-term agreement,” Kuhn said. A recent research paper, co-authored by Kuhn, highlights the need for urgent consumptive cuts basinwide. “We have got to figure out what’s going to happen next year if next year happens to be dry.”

#Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs rips Upper Basin States’ ‘extreme negotiating position’ on #ColoradoRiver — Tucson.com #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Tucson.com website (Tony Davis). Here’s an excerpt:

November 5, 2025

Gov. Katie Hobbs blasted officials of the four Upper Colorado River Basin states for what she called their “extreme negotiating position” in refusing to offer curbs on their water use to help save the depleted river.

“This river is shared by seven states, and it benefits seven states. Therefore there must be water conservation efforts in all seven states within the Colorado River Basin,” Hobbs said Wednesday in Tucson at a gathering of the National Water Resources Association Meeting Leadership Forum.

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs. Photo credit: Arizona Office of the Govenor

“Yet as I stand before you today, after years of negotiations and meeting after meeting after meeting, and time running short to cut a deal, we have yet to see any offer or real, verifiable plan to conserve water from the four Upper Basin States who rely upon this shrinking river,” Hobbs said in a talk at Loew’s Ventana Canyon resort on the northeast side…

The seven states this century have been using far more river water for farms, homes and businesses than is provided by Mother Nature, with the overuse now reaching 3.6 million acre-feet a year, or more than one-fourth of the river’s annual average flow. Those annual flows have declined at least 20% since the turn of the century due to drought and human-caused climate change, many scientists have said. The Upper Basin states have so far not retreated from their position that they see no reason to conserve any additional water because they say many of their farmers, in particular, have already suffered many shortages in recent years when flows in the river and its tributaries aren’t enough to satisfy demand. The Upper Basin states also note that they use significantly less water than they have rights to use under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, while the Lower Basin states typically use more than their allocated rights, particularly when evaporation of water in the Lower Basin’s stretch of river and its tributaries is considered…In a brief interview Wednesday, Hobbs noted that Arizona has one of the fastest growing economies in the US and that could be undercut by an unfavorable CAP allotment. Hobbs went on to say the state maintaining a leadership role in the chip manufacturing industry is not only an economic issue, but also one of national security because some of the most advanced computer chips in the U.S. are being manufactured here. In her speech Hobbs said, “We see time and time again, Arizona, California and Nevada coming to the table, offering significant water cutbacks, and seeing nothing from the Upper Basin.

Fig. 1. The Colorado River Basin covers parts of seven U.S. states as well as part of Mexico. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey

Deadline closing in for #Utah and 6 other states hammering out a new water plan: Upstream and downstream states have less than two weeks to power through sticking points — Annie Knox (UtahNewsDispatch.com) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

The Colorado River is pictured where if flows near Hite, just beyond the upper reaches of Lake Powell, on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)

Click the link to read the article on the Utah News Dispatch website (Annie Knox):

October 31, 2025

Utah and six other states along the Colorado River are pushing up against a deadline to figure out as a group how to manage the river and its reservoirs.

If they can’t reach an agreement by Nov. 11, the federal government is set to intervene and make its own plan. The existing agreement expires at the end of next year.

“There’s still hope,” Marc Stilson, principal engineer for the Colorado River Authority of Utah, said Thursday. “They’re working hard, and they’re close.”

The upstream Upper Basin states — Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming — and the Lower Basin states of Nevada, Arizona and California pitched competing plans to the federal government last year.

Now, in the home stretch of negotiations, the seven states are working through questions including which reservoirs would be managed under the new agreement, how they’ll measure water use and whether the plan will include mandatory cuts to water allocations, Stilson said.

The Upper Basin states have resisted the idea of mandatory cuts in dry years, saying they typically use much less than their yearly allocation.

Lower Basin states have said all seven should share water cuts during dry years under the new plan, warning if they don’t, downstream states could face cuts that aren’t feasible for them to absorb, the Nevada Current reported.

The river provides water to 40 million people across the U.S. and Mexico, and contributes 27 percent of Utah’s water supply. Hotter temperatures tied to climate change have mixed with drought and overuse to reduce its flow.

Utah isn’t waiting to prepare for potentially significant changes to how it manages water, said Michael Drake, deputy state engineer with the Utah Division of Water rights.

It’s been investing in expanding its use of tools to better measure and monitor water use since 2023, Drake told reporters Thursday.

That year, the Legislature poured $1 million into a Colorado River measurement infrastructure project and approved $650,000 in annual funding to monitor water use, according to the division.

Whether the state ends up facing cuts as part of the new plan or just working toward new targets, Drake said, it sees a need “to be able to manage water better, and you can’t regulate what you can’t measure.”

“As we get close here, I think reality is starting to hit and so we want to put out the messaging, you know, we can do this,” Drake told Utah News Dispatch.

He noted the possibility of forced cuts is troubling to many of the state’s farmers.

“What we’re going to be asking people to do is to see water running in a stream, and to not take it, to leave it there,” Drake said. “It’s a hard pill to swallow.”

Scott Thayn, who farms alfalfa and the grain sorghum in unincorporated Carbon County, agreed.

“If something happens with this new treaty and they drop it 10, 15, 20%,” Thayn said, “most of the years we’re going to be hurting.”

What’s holding up the #ColoradoRiver negotiations? Experts break down the sticking points — Shannon Mullane (Fresh Water News) #COriver #aridification

The back of Glen Canyon Dam in 2023 when the surface level was about 3,522 feet above sea level. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Shannon Mullane):

October 30, 2025

Seven states in the Colorado River Basin are days away from a Nov. 11 deadline to hash out a rough idea of how the water supply for 40 million people will be managed starting in fall 2026. And they’re still at loggerheads over what to do.

The rules that govern how key reservoirs store and release water supplies expire Dec. 31. They’ll guide reservoir operations until fall 2026, and federal and state officials plan to use the winter months to nail down a new set of replacement rules. But negotiating those new rules raises questions about everything from when the new agreement will expire to who has to cut back on water use in the basin’s driest years.

And those questions have stymied the seven state negotiators for months. In March 2024, four Upper Basin states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — shared their vision for what future management should look like. Three Lower Basin states — Arizona, California and Nevada — released a competing vision at the same time. The negotiators have suggested and shot down ideas in the time since, but they have made no firm decisions.

As the clock ticks down, onlookers have been increasingly frustrated and critical of the lack of progress in the closed-door negotiations.

“They seem to have been stuck basically on the same stuff for the last two-plus years,” said Jim Lochhead, former CEO/manager for Denver Water, the state’s largest water provider. “Part of why it’s so frustrating is they keep circling around to the same conversations over and over again.”

The Department of the Interior is managing the process to replace the set of rules, established in 2007, that guide how key reservoirs — lakes Mead and Powell — store and release water.

The federal agency plans to release a draft of its plans in December and have a final decision signed by May or June. If the seven states can come to agreement by March, the Department of the Interior can parachute it into its planning process, said Scott Cameron, acting head of the Bureau of Reclamation, during a meeting in Arizona in June.

Colorado River Storage Project map. Credit: Reclmation

If they cannot agree, the feds will decide how the basin’s water is managed. The federal government already has significant authority in the Lower Basin. But federal officials have also said they could leverage their authority over federal water projects in the Upper Basin, like Blue Mesa and the Colorado River Storage Project, to manage water in coming years.

The states could also take the matter to court, which could take decades to resolve and would put water management in the hands of judges instead of Colorado River communities, experts say.

“I think, if the definition of failure is that they don’t come to an agreement, we’ll know on Nov. 11,” said Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University. “My sense is that they’ve all tried really hard.”

So what exactly is holding up progress? [Shannon Mullane] reached out to nine water professionals, from state negotiators to water experts, to break down the sticking points.

Water cuts in the Upper Basin (yes, that includes Colorado)

One of the top sticking points in the negotiations is whether the four Upper Basin states will commit to making firm water cuts or conservation goals during the basin’s driest years, experts said.

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming officials say the states regularly do not use their full legal allocation of Colorado River water, about 7.5 million acre-feet per year. The four states’ usage usually hovers closer to 4.5 million acre-feet per year and can fall to 3 million acre-feet in drier years, according to Upper Basin accounting.

They’re already cutting off junior water users early in dry years, like 2022. Water sharing is based on “first in time, first in right,” which means more recent, or junior, water rights are cut off before older, senior rights.

The officials argue that they’re already cutting back, and using less than their share, so why commit to cutting more? Conserving more water is also dependent on how much water is flowing through rivers and streams in any given year, Commissioner Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s governor-appointed negotiator, said.

“We cannot conserve water that is not there,” she said.

In March 2024, the states proposed voluntary, temporary cuts, but that doesn’t work for the Lower Basin officials.

The downstream states proposed in March 2024 that they could take the first cuts — up to 1.5 million of their 7.5 million-acre-foot legal allocation — if reservoir storage is 38% to 69% of its capacity. After that, the Upper Basin and Lower Basin could evenly split additional cuts, according to the Lower Basin proposal.

That was a nonstarter for the Upper Basin officials, who balked when the Lower Basin asked them to cut up to 1.2 million acre-feet, or about a quarter to a third of the typical water use in the upstream states. Some of the Upper Basin states also say they do not currently have the legal authority to impose mandatory water cuts within their states when it comes to interstate water sharing agreements. [ed. emphasis mine]

This is one of two major disagreements in the negotiations, according to California Commissioner JB Hamby. The other is how and when water is released from the Upper Basin at Glen Canyon Dam to the Lower Basin, he said.

“There’s been lots of proposals bandied about back and forth between the basins and the feds,” Hamby said. “We’re not any closer at this point in time because those are the two most critical sticking points.”

Arizona officials declined to comment for the story. Nevada’s representative did not respond to requests for comment.

The political sticking point

Each of the seven negotiators is accountable to their home state. They have to be able to sell a deal to their water users and state lawmakers in a way that feels like a win, Porter of Arizona State University said.

In Arizona, Commissioner Tom Buschatzke must strike a deal that water users and the state legislature can get behind.

“There may be a situation where no deal is better than trying to sell a deal to your water users that you know they will utterly hate,” Porter said.

There are certain nonstarters for Arizona: Everyone expects to see water cuts for communities, like Phoenix, that rely on the Central Arizona Project, a 336-mile federal system that supplies Colorado River water to the most populated regions in Arizona. But it’s hard to see a benefit for Arizona in a deal with no water, or not enough water, for the project, Porter said.

And water users can sue if they don’t like the seven-state deal or if senior water users are asked to cut back on water to help junior water users. That would run counter to how the legal priority system has worked for over a century. Such lawsuits would tie up Colorado River water management in court for years, Porter said. [ed. emphasis mine]

“We’re really on the precipice of significant new, bigger shortages, and so the likelihood of a water user bringing legal action because of cuts outside of the priority system … is much higher than it was in 2019,” Porter said.

In past meetings, Cameron of the Bureau of Reclamation has called on water users to be more flexible so their state commissioners have room to negotiate.

“I urge you to continue to work with Tom (Buschatzke), embrace his leadership and give him the freedom to maneuver to strike an appropriate deal with his six colleagues in the other states,” Cameron said during an Arizona Reconsultation Committee meeting in June.

In Colorado, Mitchell said she is still working closely with water users within the state.

“We have firmly sat in the negotiating room with the principles we have always had,” she said. “That is something I have promised Coloradans: The principles that we developed are still the principles that I am taking into the room with me. Those are factored in as we are negotiating.”

What experts want to see

Water experts and professionals have been stuck on the outside of the closed-door negotiations, waiting on updates with greater frustration as the deadline draws near.

Now the states have less than two weeks to agree, at a high-level, on how to manage the water supply for millions of people, two countries, 30 Native American tribes, key food supplies and multibillion-dollar industries.

“They have the most thankless task that anyone in the Colorado basin could have,” Porter said.

Lochhead, formerly of Denver Water, said it seems impossible to reach any kind of comprehensive agreement before Nov. 11. They might be able to reach a conceptual outline, he said. They might be able to find a way forward if they were less entrenched in the Upper Basin versus Lower Basin dynamic, he added.

Jennifer Pitt and Brad Udall at the Getches-Wilkinson Center/Water and Tribes Initiative conference June 5, 2025. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

Jennifer Pitt, Colorado River Program Director for the National Audubon Society, suggested that states work toward making the most out of water supplies instead of legal questions that are tough to resolve.

“Once the rules of the game become clear, people are going to lean hard into those solutions,” she said. “And there are many of them.”

John Berggren, regional policy manager for Western Resource Advocates, said the basin needs to see compromise as a win, not a loss. Officials need to educate their constituents that compromising empowers people to choose their destiny, instead of having courts or the federal government dictate it for the basin.

“A compromise is not a bad thing,” Berggren said. “Coming to agreement, coming to the table is actually a good thing for us.”

10 sticking points

The Colorado River water experts and negotiators highlighted 10 key sticking points:

The term of the agreement: The negotiators have weighed different options for how long the new agreement should last and whether there should be a short-term period for states to ramp up conservation programs and water use reductions. This is a lower-level sticking point where states might be able to find consensus more easily.

Reservoir management: The states have also debated which reservoirs will be managed under the new agreement. The Lower Basin wants to include upstream reservoirs, including Blue Mesa Reservoir in Colorado. The Upper Basin only wants Lake Mead and Lake Powell involved and worries that including upstream reservoirs will change how water flows through the basin or encourage Lower Basin overuse.

Rebuilding reservoir storage: Commissioner Mitchell of Colorado was adamant that the new plan needs to prioritize rebuilding reservoir storage, since key reservoirs — Lake Mead and Lake Powell — are falling closer to critical levels. Commissioner Hamby of California said the states can figure out how to handle reservoir storage, and other issues, like water cuts, pose a greater challenge.

Operating Lake Mead and Lake Powell: The current operational rules are mainly based on reservoir levels and river forecasts. When Lake Mead reaches a certain water level, it triggers adjustments in Lake Powell. The state officials agree these rules did not work. Colorado wants to prioritize the health of Lake Powell and base operations on real water levels — not forecasts. The states almost came to an agreement on how to do this earlier in the summer, but the idea was re-shelved.

Cutting back on water: This is a particularly thorny issue. Would the Upper Basin commit to firm water conservation goals or mandatory cuts? Is the Lower Basin doing enough to address the Upper Basin’s concerns about overuse in the three downstream states? Officials in both basins say large cutbacks to their water supply would be an existential threat to their communities now and in the future.

Basic accounting: The states disagree on key numbers. How does each state count its water use, shortages and conservation efforts? How much water is the Upper Basin supposed to send down to Mexico, or is that the Lower Basin’s job? How do downstream states count water use from tributaries, like the Gila River?

100-year-old issues: The states are also bolstering their legal arguments when it comes to unclear language in the Colorado River Compact of 1922, which laid out how the two basins were supposed to share water. Does it say the four upstream states are required to deliver a certain amount of water to the three downstream states? Or does it say the upstream states aren’t supposed to cause the water deliveries to go below a certain level? Some Upper Basin lawyers say they can argue that climate change, not the states’ water use, is the cause.

Distrust: The basin states have thrown plenty of barbs at each other during the negotiations. Each has accused the other of gaming the system in some way. Lower Basin and Upper Basin officials have said other states could time reservoir releases from lakes Mead or Powell to benefit their state. The Lower Basin has questioned whether the Upper Basin has inflated shortage calculations. The Upper Basin has long complained about Arizona’s practice of taking Colorado River water out of Lake Mead and storing it underground.

Group dynamics: The basin has split into Team Lower Basin and Team Upper Basin. Could states make more progress if they operated more independently, threw out ideas, formed coalitions and convinced others to join?

In-state politics: Even if the state officials can work out the details of an agreement, they still have to take it home and convince their states it’s a good idea. That can be complicated. In Colorado alone, there are decades-old conflicts over water between the Western Slope and Front Range, farmers and cities, tribal and non-tribal water users.

More by Shannon Mullane

Save-the-Date / 2025 #ArkansasRiver Compact Administration Annual Meeting December 9, 2025

Map of the Arkansas River drainage basin. Created using USGS National Map and NASA SRTM data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79039596

From email from the Kansas Department of Water Resources (Kevin Salter):

October 23, 2025

The 2025 ARCA Annual Meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at:

Historic Cow Palace Inn, 1301 N Main St, Lamar, CO 81052

Meetings of ARCA are operated in compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. The meeting room is on the second floor with no elevator access, if you will need accommodations to attend this meeting please contact Stephanie Gonzales at (719) 688-0799.

The ARCA committee meetings will be held on Monday, December 8, 2025 at this same location. Draft agendas for the ARCA Annual and committee meetings will be provided in advance of these meetings.

For those needing lodging at the Historic Cow Palace Inn, there has been a block of rooms reserved for $100 per night (plus taxes); just mention “ARCA” when making reservations. The hotel phone number is (719) 691-6167 and their website is https://www.historiccowpalaceinn.com/.

October rains stopgap worst flows: #RioGrande Water Conservation District quarterly meeting reviewed unexpected October rains, irrigation year end seems to be on schedule — AlamosaCitizen.com

Rio Grande in Del Norte, CO on October 14, 2025. Credit: Ryan Scavo

Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website:

October 22, 2025

The October rains that changed this water year in the San Luis Valley came at a particularly critical time.

In September the closely-watched unconfined aquifer hit its lowest level ever recorded since monitoring of the troubled aquifer began in January 2002, according to the Davis Engineering report given at Tuesday’s quarterly meeting of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District.

Knowing that, now imagine the conversations that would be happening in the Valley’s farming and ranching community had there been diminished or no October rains. The year was shaping up to be among the worst for flows on the Upper Rio Grande and readings on the unconfined aquifer reinforced it.

Then October delivered heavy rains across the southwest, which resulted in historic fall seasonal flows on the San Juan and into the Rio Grande and Conejos River systems. The Rio Grande grew by 80,000 acre-feet and the Conejos River by 20,000 acre-feet as a result of the rains, said Craig Cotten, division engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources.

Colorado is now estimating a total annual flow of 470,000 acre-feet on the Upper Rio Grande, up from its earlier estimates for the year at 390,000 acre-feet. Still, the irrigation year on the Rio Grande will likely end on Nov. 1 as scheduled, said Cotten.

“That’s a big amount of water in just a short amount of time,” he said in noting the latest accounting for Rio Grande Compact purposes.

2026 budget hearing set

The Rio Grande Water Conservation District set a 2026 budget work session for Nov. 24; then a public hearing to adopt next year’s budget on Dec. 11. The water conservation agency is proposing a year-over-year increase to its mill levy. It is proposing a 1.75 mill levy property tax, up from 1.6 mills in 2025.

#ColoradoRiver users are at a crossroads as two looming decisions hang over the West’s future: — The #Aspen Times #COriver #aridification #CRD2025

Click the link to read the article on The Aspen Times website (Ali Longwell). Here’s an excerpt:

October 8, 2025

The Shoshone water rights acquisition and negotiations on post-2026 Lake Powell and Mead operations dominate conversations at the Colorado River District’s annual water seminar

Western Slope elected officials, water managers, engineers, and conservationists met in Grand Junction on Friday, Oct. 3, all focused on one thing: the uncertain future of the Colorado River.

“Water users, as a lot, tend to crave certainty, and that certainty seems more and more elusive these days,” said Peter Fleming, general counsel for the Colorado River District, at this year’s annual seminar hosted by the River District.

While the seminar broached many of the challenges and opportunities facing those who rely on the Colorado River, most discussions came back to two looming decisions that will dictate how the future looks for the 40 million people, seven states, two counties, and 30 tribal nations that rely on the waterway. This includes the River District’s proposed $99 million acquisition of the Shoshone water rights and the interstate negotiations over the post-2026 operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Both decisions will have ramifications for all Colorado River users — including agriculture, recreation, and municipal water — but are stalled by competing interests, be it political, geographic, or otherwise…The River District is currently working through a multi-year process to purchase the Shoshone water rights from Xcel Energy for $99 million. The rights — established in the early 1900s — are the oldest, non-consumptive water rights on the Colorado River…The Shoshone water right is currently tied to the hydroelectric power plant in Glenwood Canyon, which returns 100% of the water used to produce electricity to the river. However, he said that uncertainty surrounding the plant’s longevity, given its age and location — which he called an “area of great geohazard” — led the River District to seek acquisition of the rights. Under the proposed acquisition, Xcel would continue to operate the plant…The district intends to purchase the right and reach an instream flow agreement with the Colorado Water Conservation Board — the only entity that can hold an instream flow water right in Colorado. Doing so would maintain the status quo of the river, the River District claims. Defining what the status quo looks like, though, has led to disagreements between the West Slope entity and East Slope water providers…

Water allocation on the Colorado River dates back to the 1922 compact agreement, which divided the river between the upper and lower basins. Right now, it’s not the compact, but the 2007 operational guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead that are being renegotiated. While the four Upper Basin states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming — rely predominantly on snowpack for water supply, the Lower Basin states — Arizona, Wyoming, and Nevada — rely on releases from Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The 2007 guidelines for the two reservoirs, which govern how they store and release water, are set to expire in 2026. The seven states have until Nov. 11 to try and reach a consensus on the reservoirs’ post-2026 operations; otherwise, the federal government will step in and impose its own plan.

Becky Mitchell, who has been negotiating on Colorado’s behalf, said on Friday that she is “hopeful” for this seven-state consensus “because the alternative is not great.” “I think we’ve kicked the can and we’re at the end of the road,” Mitchell said…Throughout the negotiations, the Lower Basin states have advocated for basin-wide water use reductions. The Upper Basin states, however, have pushed back on the idea, claiming they already face natural water shortages.

“In Western Colorado, it happens every year,” [Andy] Mueller said.

Click here for Coyote Gulch’s Bluesky posts from the seminar (Click on the “Latest” tab.)

What exactly is #Nebraska’s dispute with #Colorado about? — Allen Best (BigPivots.com) #SouthPlatteRiver

South Platte River south of Brush. Photo/Allen Best

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

October 16, 2025

Colorado say this is really an effort by Nebraska to renegotiate the 1923 South Platte River Compact. But is the core of this story about water for metropolitan Denver?

Mark Twain in July 1861 traveled through the northeast corner of what was then Colorado Territory, stopping briefly at a place called Overland City. It’s now called Julesburg. It lies along the South Platte River no more than three or four miles from the Nebraska border.

After briefly serving in the Civil War, the young fellow was on his way to the gold mining riches of the Sierra Nevada. In “Roughing It,” his later recounting of that and other Western adventures, he called the encampment the “strangest, quaintest, funniest frontier town that our untraveled eyes had ever stared at and been astonished with.”

Governor Clarence J. Morley signing Colorado River compact and South Platte River compact bills, Delph Carpenter standing center. Unidentified photographer. Date 1925. Print from Denver Post. From the CSU Water Archives

Twain always was the master of overstatement. But then, you need to remember he had come of age on the Mississippi River when reading his description of the South Platte River. He called it a “melancholy stream” that was “only saved from being impossible to find with the naked eye by its sentinel rank of scattering trees standing on either bank. The Platte was ‘up,’ they said — which make me wish I could see it when it was down, if it could look any sicker and sorrier.”

Oh, that Clements fellow could milk a moment. He spent only an hour there before continuing west. I actually spent a night in Julesburg. The next morning I drove to the community cemetery. It’s located east of the town, the river, and Interstate 76. From the cemetery I made out an incision in the side of a hill. It was the remnant of the effort begun in 1894 to create a ditch. The ditch was to export water from the South Platte 13 river miles in Colorado and into Nebraska, there to irrigate farms in Perkins County.

Investors in that ambition, the Perkins County Canal, ran out of money. A compact governing the South Platte between Colorado and Nebraska negotiated in 1923 left Nebraska with the right to build the canal and divert up to 500 cubic feet per second from mid-October until April 1, according to Nebraska Public Media, and the idea was studied again in the 1980s. But again, it got no traction.

Three years ago, Nebraska set out again to realize the diversion. It has set aside $628 million, most of it received from the federal government as part of the Covid-19 pandemic stimulus. The state has taken steps to plan and permit the project through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In July, Nebraska asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that Colorado has violated the compact, both by not delivering enough water in the non-irrigation season and also by preventing Nebraska from building the canal. Colorado has said it is abiding by the compact and acknowledges Nebraska’s right to build a canal.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser, who hopes to succeed Polis as governor, announced yesterday that they had urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the case.

“Nebraska’s claimed violations rely on speculative and premature allegations. To the extent any legal issues arise in the future, there are alternative forums to resolve them. The Supreme Court need not take a case that would put the court and the parties on a long, time-intensive, and expensive path that might well, in the end, put the states right back where they were before Nebraska filed (its) proposed complaint,” said Weiser.

“Even if the court decides to take up part or all of Nebraska’s case. I’m confident that we will win on the merits. Both the facts and the law are on our side.”

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. The compact between Colorado and Nebraska speaks only to the lower basin. Image: U.S. Geologic Survey.

Colorado’s brief in response to Nebraska’s lawsuit is just that, at least by legal standards: 35 pages long. It opens with this statement: “Like every western state, Nebraska wants more water.” Colorado acknowledges Nebraska’s right to build a canal, it says, but the Cornhusker state has “only just begun to plan and permit its project.”

In other words, Colorado contends that whatever may eventually be disputed is not ready for prime time. The Supremes have better ways to spend their time.

Why the Supreme Court? Because interstate issues must go before the highest court. In such cases, it commonly appoints a “special master,” typically a retired judge, to hear the case and report findings to the Supremes.

For example, a special master was used in the dispute between Texas, New Mexico and Colorado involving the Rio Grande. A special master was also enlisted in the dispute between Kansas and Colorado involving the Arkansas River.

Colorado wants to avoid this battle.

A hard-working river

The South Platte may be among the hardest-working rivers in the United States. It arises in South Park, flanked by the Mosquito and Tarryall ranges, southwest of Denver, flow 380 miles through Colorado before entering Nebraska. Between 70% and 85% — seemingly authoritative sources differ substantially in estimates — of Colorado’s nearly 6 million residents live in the South Platte River Basin. The basin also has 30% of the state’s irrigated agriculture, well more than half coming from the flows of the South Platte or its tributaries.

What exactly is this dispute about?

Nebraska, says Colorado, “appears to be using the prospect of the canal and this request for Supreme Court action as leverage to renegotiate the South Platte River Compact.”

Oct. 15 was Colorado’s deadline for responding to the lawsuit filed by Nebraska against Colorado on July 15. The press conference where Nebraska’s politicos announced the lawsuit was full of rhetoric. “We’re going to fight like heck. We’re going to get every drop of water,” said Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. “We’ve been losing to Colorado on this issue for too long.”

He piled it on. “They want absolutely everything. They’re even stealing the water from their own farmers, for crying out loud,” he said according to a July 16 story in the Nebraska Examiner.

Pillen said Colorado is storing more water for its “upstream economy,” presumably reference to the Denver metropolitan area.

Polis, in his Oct. 15 comments, made no mention of metropolitan Denver, instead emphasizing the threat to “our robust agriculture industry and our rural communities in Northeastern Colorado.” He dismissed the lawsuit by Nebraska as “meritless.”

The South Platte River provides the water crucial for even a marginal economy in the lower South Platte River Valley of Colorado. Perkins County Canal Project Area. Credit: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

The Denver Post, in a Sept. 21 story, mined the agriculture component after reporter Elise Schmelzer followed Weiser to a meeting in Julesburg to meet with farmers there. Darrin Tobin, a Sedgwick County commissioner, said if the canal gets built, it will potentially turn everything in the last 20 miles of the South Platte River Valley to the state line into “almost an unusable wasteland.”

If the canal is built, Nebraska will use much of the winter river flow that Coloradans rely upon to fill ponds, which are used for augmentation. These augmentation ponds allow the farms to use more water during irrigation season.

Irrigated land produces more and hence has higher property values, which means a broader tax base. Sedgwick County ranks 44th among Colorado’s 64 counties in per capita income.

What is this dispute about?

Is this really about retaining the vitality of places like Ovid and Julesburg? I have to think it’s more — as the Nebraska governor insinuated — about the situation of metropolitan Denver and other northern Front Range communities.

The South Platte long, long ago ceased to be able to support a population this large and farms, too. Denver’s first major transmountain diversion began importing water from the Colorado River headwaters through the original bore of the Moffat Tunnel in 1936. Now, the headwaters of the Colorado River are all but plumbed out. Too, the Colorado River has its own problems.

In recent years, Front Range communities have started looking inward, to impose greater efficiencies. Denser populations enable that. Denver has actually expanded its population greatly in the last 20 yeas without using more water. The city has been rising, not expanding. The growth in demand comes from the outer rings of suburbs and the exurbs.

Platte Valley Water Partnership project overview. Credit: Parker Water

Revealing are the plans by Parker Water and Sanitation District, now joined by Castle Rock, to build a pipeline far down the South Platte River to the Sterling area. The plan would be to hold back water during winter or those occasional times of spring runoff when the river is carrying uncommitted amounts of water. This plan, called the Platte River Water Partnership, would involve some new impoundments of water.

The Lower South Platte Water Conservation District, which consists almost entirely of farmers, supports the plan in collaboration with Parker Water. They see some benefits to “new” water, courtesy of Parker’s checkbook, and an alternative to “buy and dry.” The broad outlines are explained in this story published in Big Pivots during July.

Ron Redd, district manager of Parker Water and Sanitation District, right, makes a point to Jim Yahn and Joe Frank at the structure used to divert water from the South Platte River to Prewitt Reservoir. Owners of Prewitt, who are part of Yahn’s organization, have decided they do not want to be part of Parker’s ambitions. Frank leads the South Platte River Water Conservancy District. Photo/Allen Best

The fundamental story is that the newer and more affluent cities on metropolitan Denver’s southern fringe rely heavily on unsustainable pumping of groundwater. They have started lessening that dependency in the last 20 years, and this is an effort to further reduce that dependency.

As you might expect, the issues in this dispute between the two states are somewhat complex. I found a Sept 24 essay by J. David Aiken, a professor in the Department of Agriculture Economics at the University of Nebraska — Lincoln, illuminating.

Aiken takes the story back to the drought of 2002, the year that Colorado was finally forced to address a long-festering issue about the impact of wells drilled for agriculture along the riverine aquifer in the South Platte Valley. That action yielded 4,000 (out of 9,000 total irrigation wells being required to cease pumping.

We then have a study in 2017 South Platte storage. It found that Colorado was allowing an average 332,000 acre-feet of water to flow into Nebraska beyond minimum compact compliance. That was followed by a study of how these “surplus flows” could be used by Denver instead. of buying agriculture land for its water rights, a.k.a. “buy and dry.”

Then came work by Denver metro water interests on a study about how to take advantage of the 332,000 acre-feet. Soon after came Parker Water’s plans to avoid buy-and-dry in its partnership with the lower-valley irrigators by figuring out how to retain the remaining uncontested water.

Who will this contest between Colorado and Nebraska?

Nebraska has some valid complaints about Colorado’s actions, says Aiken, but Colorado “will likely raise some very interesting legal issues of their own, which could lead to Nebraska’s not being able to pursue the Perkins County Canal project.”

Whooping Crane. Photo: Kenton Gomez/Audubon Photography Awards

A legal wildcard

One legal wildcard will be whether Nebraska could demonstrate that the Denver metro water supply projects in the South Platte Basin would reduce flows through the protected critical habitats in Nebraska used by whooping cranes. The species is listened as endangered by the federal government. This argument could strengthen Nebraska’s case.

Aiken makes many other points, and I won’t try to explain them all here. You can read for yourself here. Or watch the webinar from earlier in September which preceded his essay.

Here is Nebraska’s 55-page filing with the Supreme Court. And Colorado’s 35-page response can be found here.

When Nebraska first announced its renewed Perkins County canal plans, I shrugged it off as a minor tempest. But now I find it more interesting, part of the tightening vise on Colorado’s still rapidly-growing Front Range cities. Certainly, we’re not Las Vegas. Not even a Phoenix. In some ways, we are still luxuriant with water. But now, Colorado is seeing the bottom of the cup. This new reconciliation has been underway since the early 1990s.

As for the South Platte and the 1923 Colorado-Nebraska compact, remember that it allowed Nebraska to divert up to 500 cfs from Oct. 15 through March. On Wednesday night, the river was flowing 270 cfs at the Balzac Gage near Sterling. There are asterisks to this that we don’t want to get into, but the point is that there isn’t much river here and hence the quarrel.

Twain has often been credited with saying that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over. Actually, somebody else almost certainly made up that phrase now grown tiresome in its use. But if Weiser, is correct, there will likely be plenty of fighting. He told the Post in September that more than a billion dollars might be spent in litigation during the next decade, and he insisted that all the time in the courtroom will leave neither state better off.

The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Romancing the River: In Pursuit of the Real 1922 Compact — George Sibley (SibleysRivers.com) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #arididfication

Click the link to read the article on the Sibley’s Rivers website (George Sibley):

October 15, 2025

Wonk warning: I’ll be explicating the chart above. If this sort of thing bores you, or just gets you more, not less confused about what’s going on with the river today as the negotiators for post-2026 system management continue to negotiate with a November 11 deadline, then I’d say take a break until next post, when I’m going to try to explain why I call this stuff ‘Romancing the River.’

For those reading on here, remember my purpose from earlier posts: to show a reasonably equitable division of the consumptive use of the Colorado River waters among the seven states and Mexico, with no ‘temporary’ division into competitive Upper and Lower Basins – the Compact they really wanted to do in 1922. I present the table above as just a draft effort in that direction; there will be arguments about some of the specific figures, but the method to the madness might have some merit.

All the consumptive use information is from Bureau of Reclamation records accessible online, or from other cited historical documents going back to the 1922 Compact. The Bureau publishes consumptive use records every five years – eventually. (Figures for 2016-2020, for example, still have ‘Coming soon!’ where one would click to get them.) All quantities are expressed in millions of acre-feet (maf) or thousands (kaf).

To just jump into it, here’s a column-by-column explication of the chart. I suggest clicking on the image above to get an enlargable view of the table. If nothing else, this table is kind of a history-in-numbers of the Colorado River in the 20^th century CE. (It is important to remember too that, thanks to the 1952 McCarran Amendment, all the Indian tribal rights are negotiated intrastate, although suits and appeals go to the federal courts – a separate set of challenges from what the seven states are trying to negotiate right now.)

Column 1, River Users: I make no reference to the Upper and Lower Basin, but it does make sense to distinguish between the ‘hot desert’ states below the canyon region, and the ‘cold (orographic) desert’ states above the canyons, due to the significant difference in system losses – evaporation, transpiration, bank and aquifer storage and other losses. We will start with some analysis of those lines in the table, one for each set of desert states (considerably higher for the subtropical ‘hot desert’ region than the higher and cooler ‘cold (or steppe) desert’ region.

System Losses, Structural Deficit and Surpluses: These constitute the river’s wild card. Natural system losses were listed in the paragraph above – all the natural things that happen to water mixed with sun, wind and thirsty ground. Storage reservoirs are built on snowmelt rivers to increase the amount of water available for use through a longer period of time, storing the two-month snowmelt flood for use through the rest of the year. But increasing in reservoirs the amount of water available for use does not increase the amount of water; in fact, it decreases that, as the stored water spreads out in reservoirs under a desert sun that can evaporate annually as much as six acre-feet per acre off of open water in the lower Colorado River.

This was completely ignored in the Colorado River Compact, despite the fact, that as Eric Kuhn and John Fleck pointed out in their book Science Be Dammed, there were scientists who tried to advise the commissioners. Today, with two huge reservoirs, another half dozen big reservoirs and a lot of little ones, along with around 600 miles of large open aqueducts meandering through the hot deserts, somewhere between 12 and 16 percent of the river is lost to the system under the sun and wind.

The compact commissioners, thinking they had an 18 maf river, believed that evaporation would be covered by the surplus they anticipated above and beyond the quantities consumed by the seven states and Mexico. That was actually the case, well into the 1980s. But as more users materialized in the states above the canyons, and the Central Arizona Project began to draw from the mainstem, the ‘structural deficit’ from ignoring the system losses began to draw down the big reservoirs. These natural system losses were estimated at around 800,000 af annually from the mainstem for the states below the canyons, and between 400,000 and 500,000 from Powell and the other Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs.

Another element in the structural deficit was consistent provision for Mexico’s treaty allotment of 1.5 maf per year. The compact made the Upper and Lower Basin each responsible for half of whatever portion of that allotment which was not covered by surplus flow (up to 750 kaf). Beginning in 1971, however, under a 1970 reservoir management agreement, the Bureau began releasing the Upper Basin’s full half of the 1.5 maf each year, whether it was a ‘surplus year’ or not. A similar arrangement was not made for the Lower Basin share of the Mexican allotment; the Bureau apparently has just continued to charge it to ‘surplus’ – along with the Lower Basin’s system losses – whether or not there was actually that much surplus. These ‘structural deficits’ were almost as responsible for the big 21st-century reservoir drawdown as was the ‘millennial drought.’ A figure of around 2 maf was established for these natural and cultural commitments: 1.5 maf for the ‘hot desert’ states, 1.2 maf for the ‘cold desert’ states – those states having consistently delivered their 750 kaf share for Mexico (leaving the 450 kaf in the table). The three states below the canyons have apparently agreed to accept responsibility for their 1.5 maf after 2026, although they are not saying much yet about how that consumption will be divided up.

Back now to the columns.Column 2, Authorized Allotments: These are based on the 18 million acre-feet (maf) river we all believed we were working with back in the 1920s. The Colorado River Compact allotted 7.5 maf to each of its Basins. The Boulder Canyon Project Act made the Bureau water-master for the Lower Basin states, and set their individual allotments, contested by Arizona but confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the last Arizona v. California case (BCPA/SC). The Mexican allotment was set by the 1944 two-rivers treaty. And in 1948, the four Upper Basin states created the Upper Colorado River Compact. Knowing by then that it was not an 18 maf river, they gave themselves percentages ‘of whatever’s left’ (OWL) after compact obligations to the downriver states and their share of the Mexican treaty obligation were fulfilled. This column shows what that ‘% OWL’ would be if those states actually got 7.5 maf regularly. The cold-desert states have never even come close to those figures.

Column 3: This column shows the allotments for the 14.5 maf average of the river’s ‘natural’ flows for the 1930-2000 period, the period when all of the river’s major development took place. All of the ‘averaging’ fell on the states above the canyons. Allotments for Mexico and the three states below the canyons were legally and physically ‘set in concrete’ at 9 maf – legally by the Supreme Court affirmation of the BCPA allotments, and physically by the two big linked reservoirs, Mead and Powell. The four states above the canyons took their floating percentages from what nature provided, or didn’t – estimated natural flows for that period ranged between 5 and 24 maf. The average ‘of whatever’s left’ (OWL) after the obligatory quantity was sent to the states below the canyon and Mexico was assumed to range between 5 and 6 maf – if no attention was paid to the structural deficit and system losses. And for most of that period, there were no worries there; the states above the canyon were not using that much water until the substantial transmountain diversions (100 percent depletions) were completed. The table figures for those states (unlike the figures for the states below the canyons) amounted to wishful thinking for a future that will never happen.

Credit: Monica Byrne: https://monicacatherine.com/2025/03/18/a-beginning-is-a-delicate-time/

Column 4 gets real: a compilation of three columns with five-year consumptive use averages for three periods, covering the time when the physical development of the river storage and delivery systems was being completed, and consumptive use of the river was approaching full development too – but just on the edge of the trauma of the ‘millennial drought’ (which may last for a millennium) and the near-collapse of the storage system. The attempt at normal distribution for the 2001-2005 period might be considered just beyond that edge – like the roadrunner cartoons, when Wiley Coyote runs a few yards into the air beyond a cliff – then looks down…. These dates are bookended by two ‘reservoir coordination’ elements in the ‘Law of the River’: the 1970 ‘Criteria for the Coordinated Long-range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs’ and the 2007 ‘Interim Guidelines’ for coordinated operation of the Powell and Mead Reservoirs, set to expire next year.

The Bureau’s five-year compilation tables include, for the first time maybe, the system losses/structural deficit.

Something worth noting: California’s consumptive use during this 35-year period started well above the state’s 4.4 maf compact allotment, and then declined, while uses for all the other states were increasing. This is because California’s major users had decided, before Hoover Dam was even started, that they would ‘borrow’ 800,000 af of unused Upper Basin water until the Upper Basin needed it. They would, in other words, grow on borrowed water. The Bureau of Reclamation allowed this, because they assumed that the Colorado River would eventually be augmented by even greater public works from some larger river basin. Optimism is a sunny thing. On the strength of this, the Metropolitan Water District on the Southern California coast built its 250-mile aqueduct to carry twice the 500,000 af that was their share of California’s 4.4 maf allotment. They began decreasing their ‘borrowed’ usage during this 35-year period, in anticipation of the 2006 California Limitation Act – thanks mostly to the California State Water Project exporting water from Northern California.

Arizona’s jump in usage between 1971-75 and 1991-95 was due to the completion of the Central Arizona Project. To give a more accurate picture of ‘the completed river system,’ only its 1991-95 and 2001-2005 figures were used in compiling Column 5.

Column 5: A compiled average for the three five-year periods – resulting in the 14.5 maf river of 1930-2000.

Column 6: An attempt to divvy up the system losses/structural deficit (SLD) between the seven states and Mexico. My operating assumption is that the ‘hot desert’ states and the ‘cold desert’ states should share these losses proportionally to their consumptive use. This meant creating percentages of the 9.0 maf of decreed use for the four entities below the canyons; the four entities above the canyons were already operating on percentages.

I’m sure the state (guess which one) with a lot of pre-compact ‘senior’ water will object vehemently to this concept, wanting all the junior users to absorb those losses. This is a misapplication of the appropriation doctrine, in my estimation; it was set up for resolving differences among specific users, not for the resolution of major river management issues related to natural phenomena like evaporation and riparian storage, or natural and cultural changes like a warming climate. These issues fall equally on all users, everyone’s fault and responsibility. But such rational and moral arguments will probably not dent California’s resolve of seniority uber alles.

Column 7 just adds those proportionate shares of the system losses/structural deficit to the consumptive use averages for the seven states and Mexico in Column 5, leaving the system losses/structural deficit lines empty. This is not increasing the amount of water for each state; it is increasing the amount of consumption each has to manage. This column, I’m arguing, is the seven-way equitable division of consumptive use that the Compact commissioners wanted to create in 1922, but lacked the information about both the river and their futures to develop. Now, a century later, that future is here, like it or not, and we’re sadder but wiser in knowing the river.

There’s probably an error at the bottom of this column; instead of 0.00 in the ‘Surplus or Drain’ column, it should probably be ‘-2.00 maf’: the difference between the 14.5 maf 20th-century river and the 12.5 maf early 21st-century river. This was the frightening drawdown of the early 21^st century decades.

Column 8 then uses the Column 7 figures to calculate what percentage of the 14.5 maf river each of the eight entities ‘owns.’

Column 9 then applies those percentages to the 12.5 maf Colorado River of the 21^st century – and subtracts from each state’s total consumption its share of system losses and structural deficit – thus showing what each state will actually have with which to try to do what it is doing today with its presumed allotment for consumptive use of the 14.5 maf river of bygone days. Read it and weep. (Note that I’ve put the 1.5 and 0.45 maf system losses/structural deficit numbers back in Column 9 to remind you that they have not disappeared from the system; they’ve just been re-collated from those portions of the individual states’ total consumptive uses.)

I would welcome comments and criticisms of this work. I do believe it is the kind of pinning down of numbers we need to finally do for the Colorado River, if we are going to go into the post-2026 era with our eyes open. ‘Woke,’ you might say.

By my next post, there will probably either be a new management plan for the river in the messy agonies of birthing – or there won’t. If there is, I would wager a six-pack that they will drag along the old two-basin cold-war division. And I’d wager further that the ratio of total consumptive use for the four ‘states’ below the canyons to the four states above the canyons will be between within a few points either way of 70-30. Is that ‘equitable’? Given the amount and productivity of land under cultivation, and the number of people gathered in large metropolitan ganglia, and the location of most of the Indian nations, it probably is. But – it’ll probably be another point of discussion.

Probabilistic Physics-Guided Deep Neural Networks With Recurrence and Attention Mechanisms for Interpretable Daily Streamflow Simulation — Sadegh Sadeghi Tabas, Vidya Samadi, Catherine Wilson, Biswa Bhattacharya (AGU Water Resources Research)

Overview of the 18 CAMELS HUC2 basins (or zone) across CONUS.

Click the link to access the article on the AGU website (Sadegh Sadeghi Tabas, Vidya Samadi, Catherine Wilson, Biswa Bhattacharya). Here’s the abstract:

September 22, 2025

As Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are being increasingly employed to make important simulations in rainfall-runoff contexts, the demand for interpretability is increasing in the hydrology community. Interpretability is not just a scientific question, but rather knowing where the models fall flat, how to fix them, and how to explain their outcomes to scientific communities so that everyone understands how the model arrives at specific simulations This paper addresses these challenges by deciphering interpretable probabilistic DNNs utilizing the Deep Autoregressive Recurrent (DeepAR) and Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) for daily streamflow simulation across the continental United States (CONUS). We benchmarked TFT and DeepAR against conceptual to physics-based hydrologic models. In this setting, catchment physical attributes were incorporated into the training process to create physics-guided TFT and DeepAR configurations. Our proposed physics-guided configurations are also designed to aggregate the patterns across the entire data set, analyze the sensitivity of key catchment physical attributes and facilitate the interpretability of temporal dynamics in rainfall-runoff generation mechanisms. To assess the uncertainty, the modeling configurations were coupled with a quantile regression by adding Gaussian noise with increasing standard deviation to the individual catchment attributes. Analysis suggested that the physics-guided TFT was superior in predicting daily streamflow compared to the original TFT and DeepAR as well as benchmark hydrologic models. Predictive uncertainty intervals effectively bracketed most of the observational data by simultaneous simulation of various percentiles (e.g., 10th, 50th, and 90th). Interpretable physics-guided TFT proved to be a strong candidate for CONUS daily streamflow simulations. [ed. emphasis mine]

Created by Imgur user Fejetlenfej , a geographer and GIS analyst with a ‘lifelong passion for beautiful maps.’ It highlights the massive expanse of river basins across the country – in particular, those which feed the Mississippi River, in pink.

Rivers begin to recede after surge from heavy rains: Now it’s time to measure and account for the extra water in management of the #RioGrande Compact — AlamosaCitizen.com

The Rio Grande at 7,000cfs, which was its peak after a series of end-of-season rain storms. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website:

October 14, 2025

The dangerous high waters on the San Juan River and Upper Rio Grande are beginning to recede following the surge from heavy rains that created historic autumn peak streamflows on the San Luis Valley’s river system.

The high flows also came at the end of irrigation season for Valley farmers and the Colorado Division of Water Resources, which will now account for the extra water in its management of the Rio Grande Compact.

The Rio Grande itself peaked at 7,000 cfs from the bounty of rain that came through the southwest region here in mid-October. The Colorado Division of Water Resources is estimating that the out-of-character weather event added 20,000 to 25,000 acre-feet of water to the Rio Grande system itself and around 10,000 to 15,000 acre-feet that was diverted into the Valley’s canal system, according to staff engineer Pat McDermott.

That measuring of the water and accounting for how it fits into this year’s obligations under the Rio Grande Compact is underway. The irrigation season ends Nov. 1.

McDermott, in a report Tuesday to Rio Grande Basin Roundtable members, said not all of the water will be of beneficial use to the Valley and the Upper Rio Grande Basin. The middle Rio Grande could see about 5,000 acre-feet flow downstream, but with a largely dry riverbed in Albuquerque, benefits from the October storms likely won’t extend as far south as Elephant Butte.

“This is not a significant event in New Mexico,” McDermott said.

For the reservoirs on the western and southern end of the Valley, it has been. Rio Grande Reservoir, Platoro Reservoir and Terrace Reservoir all will increase storage, with the reservoirs all in priority during the irrigation season for the first time since 2019.

Rio Grande Reservoir will have somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 acre-feet of storage, Platoro Reservoir has increased its storage and Terrace Reservoir has gone up about 2,000 acre-feet, McDermott said.

“This is kind of unusual to have this big a flow event,” McDermott said. “It doesn’t happen.”

McDermott noted the importance and effectiveness of the Valley’s canal ditch riders, who worked to push water into their ditches to help with the surges of streamflow.

The Empire Canal, Monte Vista, the Rio Grande Canal, the Farmers Union, San Luis Valley Canal all opened their ditches to take in water, McDermott said.

“We here have very, very cooperative owners that have opened up their ditches after several months of non-use. We want to thank all those ditch operators for getting out there and taking some of this available flow. It is a wonderful thing.

“This is a really good thing for our basin,” said McDermott. “It’s going to give us an opportunity to get some water back out into the ditches late in the season, which we don’t see very often.”

Much of Valley will now go into its offseason with moist soils. But as McDermott noted, areas like the critical Saguache Creek, Carnero Creek, and the east side of the Valley down south through Trinchera didn’t receive much benefit from the rains.

The next best thing would be a normal to above-normal snow season in the San Juan Mountains and Sangre de Cristo range.

La Niña is still looking weak. But as October has shown, weather can happen.

Release: #ColoradoRiver Water Supplies Cut in Upper Basin — Matt Moseley and Kendra Westerkamp (Upper Colorado River Commission) #COriver #aridification

Photo credit: Upper Colorado River Commission

Click the link to read the release on the Upper Colorado River Commission website:

October 8, 2025

As the Upper Division States negotiate ways to equitably and sustainably manage the Colorado River’s future supplies, their water users face the harsh reality of living within the river’s 21st-century limits.

This year, in New Mexico, the San Juan Chama project received 31% of their normal Colorado River water supply, a 69% reduction, which is used by Albuquerque and Santa Fe, as well as for agricultural purposes.

“The San Juan-Chama Project contractors are absorbing unavoidable natural hydrologic shortages and have had to learn how to operate under constrained supplies, higher costs, and mounting climate pressures,” said Diane Agnew, the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority’s Water Rights Program Manager. “This ongoing uncertainty in water availability is placing significant strain on water users, challenging infrastructure investments, and disrupting water management strategies that are critical to our communities and economy.”

In Colorado, the Dolores Water Conservancy District’s water users faced cuts of up to 44%. Thousands of acres remain fallowed both on the Ute Farm & Ranch and north towards Dove Creek.

“Our farmers are left with year-by-year gambles with last-second planning going late into May and limiting farmers’ abilities to make long-term, successful crop rotation planning,” said Ken Curtis, GM of the Dolores Water Conservancy District. “The Dolores snowpack is disappearing, and the historic runoff has dropped by even greater magnitudes. Water is no longer reliably available.”

2025 marks the fifth year out of the last eight years with shortages impacting the Conservancy District. Many acres have remained fallow since 2021, when available project water supplies dropped to zero. Local farmers did not have the time and resources to bring fields back into production prior to this current shortage — all of their shortages are uncompensated and involuntary.

The District supplies water to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s Farm and Ranch Enterprise. The Tribe was forced to turn off irrigation spigots to 60% of their land and lay off farm workers. The crop plan for 2025 only included the existing, high-value alfalfa needed to sustain the Farm & Ranch Enterprise [FRE].

“We [FRE] are merely surviving, not adapting,” said FRE irrigation manager Michael Vicente when responding to his view of the historic drought. Severe water shortages in Utah’s Uintah Basin, driven by Colorado River cuts, are forcing ranchers to reduce cattle herds, raising production costs and straining the local economy.

“Spring runoﬀ was dismal at best. Early 1900s era water rights only received a week or two of natural flow delivery. Shortages were so severe that in some basins, they even aﬀected senior 1861 water rights.

These shortages are directly impacting cattle production,” said Dan Larsen, Board Member at the Colorado River Authority of Utah. “Ranchers are being forced to cut back their herds, which not only raises costs for producers but also ripples through our entire local economy.”

Hydrologic shortage is also impacting Utah’s Demand Management Pilot Program, which is exploring voluntary, compensated water conservation in the Colorado River system in Utah. For example, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District enrolled 4,500 acre-feet of water in the program; however, the water rights held by the District were cut in priority on June 8, much earlier than the typical mid-summer cut, resulting in only around 900 acre-feet being delivered to the Program.

Agricultural producers are weighing potential impacts from hydrologic shortage on their operations as they consider participating in conservation-related pilot programs Nick Sampinos, a farmer along the Price River, said “Persistent drought conditions are a constant challenge, however, the Utah Demand Management Pilot Program has provided us with much needed assistance and set the stage for economic sustainability of our farming operation well into the future.”

In Wyoming, historic drought and Colorado River shortages have driven the Black’s Fork River down to a 1891 priority date, forcing the state to regulate oﬀ water rights to more than 52,000 irrigated acres in 2025 in that drainage alone.

“This year, more than 163,000 acres of irrigation were shut oﬀ in Wyoming’s portion of the Green River Basin,” said Kevin Payne, Division IV Superintendent of the Wyoming State Engineer’s Oﬃce. “This is an extraordinary reduction with serious impacts on producers and rural communities across southwest Wyoming.”

The Upper Basin has consistently used less than its legal entitlement through strict water administration. The four states of the Upper Basin remain committed to continued work in implementing and expanding water management initiatives, including accounting for conservation-related activities in 2026.

The Upper Basin’s sacrifices aren’t abstract; they carry real human and economic consequences. As Colorado River negotiations continue, Upper Basin leaders are clear: river operations must adapt to the actual supply and prioritize rebuilding storage to restore resiliency.

About the Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC):

The UCRC is an interstate administrative agency made up of duly appointed representatives from the four Upper Division States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

Just Add Water: The Jasper Lake Donation and a New Model for Water #Conservation in the West — Kate Ryan & Matt Moseley (#Colorado Water Trust)

Jasper Reservoir from dam. Photo credit: Colorado Water Trust

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Water Trust website (Kate Ryan & Matt Moseley):

September 16, 2025

Introduction

In an era where climate change and overconsumption threaten our waterways, a remarkable act of generosity and foresight has emerged from the Indian Peaks Wilderness area of Colorado. On August 29, 2024, an anonymous donor gifted Jasper Lake, including the parcel of land surrounding it and the senior water rights it stores, to the Colorado Water Trust. This marked the largest water donation in Colorado’s history. This act ensures the protection of 37 miles of Boulder Creek, safeguarding its flow, ecosystems, and recreational value for generations to come. Since 2024, 100 million gallons of water have been restored to the river as a result of this donation, and the annual benefit will continue to accrue to Boulder Creek streamflow indefinitely. A warming climate will continue to put pressure on Boulder Creek, but this source of water will be protected forever.

Over the past 25 years, the Colorado Water Trust has restored 27 billion gallons of water to 814 miles of rivers and streams throughout Colorado. Here is how it works: Much like a land trust can invest in conservation easements to protect property for future generations, the Colorado Water Trust invests in water rights to protect streamflow in our rivers. Water in Colorado is not only the lifeblood of our state and economy, but the right to use it can also be bought and sold. Instead of diverting water out of the river, the Water Trust uses water rights to protect that water in the river.

In the western United States, where water scarcity is an ever-pressing reality and climate change threatens to exacerbate hydrological extremes, the permanent donation of storage water from Jasper Lake to environmental benefit marks a profoundly important milestone. This is not merely a gift of water; it is a precedent-setting, visionary act that fuses water law ingenuity, ecological foresight, and an ethic of stewardship. In an era dominated by competing interests and escalating scarcity, the Jasper Lake donation offers a replicable path forward for other Western states grounded in cooperative frameworks, legal adaptability, and the kind of selfless generosity that serves the public interest.

Jasper Lake Donation

In 1890, nearly a century before Congress designated the Indian Peaks Wilderness as a part of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation system, the Boulder High Line Canal Company constructed Jasper Reservoir. Known to hikers and wilderness visitors as Jasper Lake, the reservoir has been a source of agricultural water in Boulder County and areas east of the mountains since that time. Nestled just east of the Continental Divide, this enclave for cold-water fish, moose, and backpackers doubled in purpose. Irrigation companies and the Colorado Power Company operated the reservoir over the next century.

Since the 1890s, Jasper Lake has been in a series of private ownerships, having been bought and sold multiple times. In recent years, the City of Boulder leased Jasper Lake water from private owners and provided that water to various Boulder County irrigators. During that time, the Colorado Water Trust worked with the owners of Jasper Lake to craft a plan for its use for environmental improvements and public benefit. As these conversations progressed, the owners generously offered Jasper Lake as a donation to the Water Trust.

The Water Trust then sought out a steward for the reservoir with both the capacity and knowledge necessary to manage and maintain the reservoir’s infrastructure. While the Water Trust owns multiple water rights, it focuses its time and energy on transactions that boost streamflow. Finding the right steward—one who would commit to using Jasper Lake water in environmentally-compatible operations—would free the nonprofit from the burden of operating a high-hazard dam while meeting its mission to add water to Colorado’s rivers. Accordingly, the Water Trust sought a partner with a desire to uphold the environmental and community values vital to operating Jasper Lake in a way that complements the mission of the Water Trust. Luckily, the nonprofit found such a willing steward and partner in the Tiefel Family.

The Tiefel Family, long-time residents of Colorado, have a deep-rooted connection to the state’s natural landscapes and water resources. Known for their unwavering commitment to environmental preservation, the Tiefel Family has dedicated themselves to protecting Colorado’s vital water ecosystems. With a passion for ensuring that future generations can enjoy the natural beauty of Boulder Creek and its surrounding areas, the Tiefel Family established 37-Mile LLC. Named after the length of protected streamflow from Jasper Lake through the wilderness and down Boulder Canyon, 37-Mile LLC is a testament to its mission of safeguarding the region’s water resources from development pressures while promoting sustainable agricultural and irrigation practices.

“Our stewardship of Jasper Reservoir aligns with our broader vision of environmental conservation and community enrichment,” said Doug Tiefel of 37-Mile LLC. “The family is honored to partner with the Colorado Water Trust to ensure that the reservoir’s water continues to benefit the local ecosystems and communities, reinforcing our legacy of environmental responsibility.”

Jasper Reservoir/Boulder Creek. Credit: Colorado Water Trust

With the support of the Tiefel Family and 37-Mile LLC, the Colorado Water Trust entered into an arrangement that benefits all involved. After the Water Trust accepted the reservoir donation, 37-Mile LLC entered into a purchase agreement to acquire the reservoir subject to a public access easement and a set of restrictive covenants that permanently protect public access to the reservoir and ensure that water released from Jasper Lake will continue to provide environmental benefits well into the future. As an additional benefit, once the water has traveled through Boulder Canyon and to the plains, agricultural producers can then use the water downstream.

The Jasper Lake water donation is truly exceptional in its structure and intent. The reservoir is ideally positioned at high elevation with a long carriage distance, benefiting stream flow in a highly visible and environmentally conscious area like Boulder Creek. The ability for a secondary use downstream for agricultural benefit further enhances its value. Most environmental water transfers have historically involved direct flow rights—typically less reliable and subject to seasonal variability. What makes Jasper Lake unique is that it involves the donation of storage water, which is highly reliable and valuable. Unlike junior water rights that may or may not be available in a dry year, this donation ensures actual wet water in the stream, when and where it is needed.

Through a uniquely cooperative agreement involving the Water Trust, a generous donor, a family with strong farming and ranching ties to the region, and planning support from the City of Boulder, this donation not only protects two critical components—agricultural heritage and instream ecological health—but also creates a new archetype for interagency collaboration. The result is a permanent, flexible, and legally sound environmental asset that will benefit both the creek and downstream users in perpetuity.

This project involving Jasper Lake and its water rights represents a new concept in water management, one that the Water Trust hopes to replicate many times in the future. It proves out the potential for the prior appropriation system to rise to meet environmental challenges without the application of an administrative public trust regulatory layer. The biggest challenge is financial. These are market-based transactions and so the Water Trust must either accept donations or be prepared to make competitive offers to be able to acquire permanent public access, remove development potential, and safeguard environmental benefits.

How the Water Trust was Formed; Colorado Water Law 101

Some of the best legal minds in Colorado and the West meticulously brewed the initial notion for a nonprofit trust that would utilize water rights for environmental benefit. The Water Trust was founded in 2001 by water rights scholar David Getches and now-retired water attorneys Michael Browning and David Robbins. Browning, who was the first chair of the board credits the initial concept being introduced by fellow law colleague Larry McDonnell, who was also on the faculty at the University of Colorado Law School. With early guidance from David Harrison, the Water Trust has grown from a fledgling nonprofit to a respected water rights innovator, facilitating over sixty transactions that have restored millions of gallons to rivers and streams across Colorado.

The Water Trust emerged from the recognition that the prior appropriation doctrine, often seen as rigid and zero-sum, could be creatively applied to benefit rivers. The Water Trust set out to proactively secure senior water rights for instream flows in collaboration with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), a state agency that holds the exclusive authority to place water to the beneficial use of instream flow in the State of Colorado as a way to preemptively address concerns about the future of the doctrine. Colorado has been a pure prior appropriation state since even before the 1873 Centennial State ensconced the practice in its constitution. Known as the “Colorado Doctrine,” a set of laws that the Territorial legislature passed in the 1860s established that:

The state’s surface waters and groundwaters constitute a public resource for beneficial use by public agencies, private persons and entities;

A water right is a right to use a portion of the public’s water supply;

Water rights owners may build facilities on the lands of others to divert, extract, or move water from a stream or aquifer to its place of use;

Water rights owners may use streams and aquifers for the transportation and storage of water.

The Water Trust operates squarely within the strict prior appropriation structure that the Colorado Doctrine established. In some western states, such as California, the public trust doctrine has been recognized to create an affirmative duty of state government to act as legal guardian for natural resource assets, including streams and rivers. Colorado, however, has remained a pure prior appropriation state since the 1800s.

The creation of the CWCB instream flow program in 1973 was an environmental era attempt to address streamflow issues without creating an exception to prior appropriation. As the federal government legislated into law environmental measures including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the State of Colorado ensured that water right administration and the practice of prior appropriation would remain untouched by federal environmental measures. However, the initial CWCB instream flow program was not effective enough in protecting streamflow. At the outset, the CWCB’s instream flow program could only appropriate junior water rights and acquire senior water rights at minimum stream flow rates “necessary to preserve the environment to a reasonable degree,” which were often insufficient for genuine environmental protection. This shifted in 2002 when the legislature enabled the CWCB to acquire senior water rights and change their use to instream flow in water court, achieving more reliable priorities and stream flow rates “to improve the environment to a reasonable degree.”

Still, by the turn of the Century, the CWCB had acquired only a handful of senior water rights for instream flow use, and consequently, not all Coloradans found the state instream flow program to be satisfactory. Citizen-led groups had proposed multiple ballot initiatives, but each had failed to recognize one form or another of public trust in Colorado. Michael Browning explained that the Water Trust’s formation in 2001 was partly a response to concerns surrounding the public trust doctrine and its potential impact on established water rights in Colorado. The founders of the Water Trust aimed to acquire senior water rights voluntarily and work with the CWCB to convert them to instream flow use, preserving their priority dates. The founders understood that acquiring senior priorities for instream flow water rights was key to both meeting environmental priorities and safeguarding the prior appropriation system in an era where many people value sustainability and recreation equally with consumptive water use.

Key early strategies involved acquiring agricultural water rights and partnering with the CWCB for holding and applying them to instream flow use. Browning described the initial concept of purchasing existing water rights for agriculture and converting them to instream flows. The founders sought input from environmental and agricultural groups to ensure they wouldn’t be seen as a threat and engaged with the CWCB to navigate the politics of instream flows. Over time, the Water Trust strategy has expanded to include acquisition of reservoir rights like Jasper Lake and exploring ancillary uses such as downstream agricultural application, with environmental benefits accruing on a stream reach but no instream flow use per se.

It has always been crucial for the Water Trust to be perceived as working within the prior appropriation water rights system and not as a radical group trying to undermine it. From the outset, the Water Trust has committed to voluntary transactions and working through water courts. The initial board consisted of water engineers and lawyers, with an effort to include representatives from agriculture. Browning noted that there were initial fears from some in the water community, but the board’s credibility helped alleviate opposition. Over time, the Water Trust has grown from a small, Denver-based nonprofit to an influential statewide organization, with staff in the Upper Arkansas Basin and southwest Colorado, establishing roots in the communities where it has the greatest impact.

The first Water Trust acquisition of the Moser Water Rights on Boulder Creek near the Blue River was instructive. A retiring ranching couple wanted to protect their land under conservation easements, but then discovered they could also protect their senior water rights to benefit the environment. Their senior water rights gained a dual-purpose when the Mosers’ collaborated with the Water Trust: CWCB-facilitated instream flow for the creek, and downstream augmentation supply for the Colorado River District, stored in Wolford Mountain Reservoir. The initial funding for the first water right purchase was primarily private, with the water right costing around $15,000. A significant turning point was the involvement of the Walton Family Foundation, which provided substantial grants allowing the Water Trust to grow and hire staff, including Amy Beattie as its first full-time executive director. Linda Bassi, Chief of the Instream Flow program for the CWCB, was also a key supporter, recognizing the opportunity to enhance the seniority of instream flow rights. The Water Trust developed a partnership with the CWCB—the Water Trust would work with water right owners to purchase water rights and develop streamflow restoration projects, and the CWCB would hold and operate the acquired water for instream flows.

Case studies such as the Little Cimarron River transfer further highlight the Water Trust’s innovative model. In that project, water rights were split to allow both early-season irrigation by the landowner and late-season instream flow use by the CWCB, satisfying both agricultural and environmental needs without the typical winner-takes-all approach. This was the first “split-season” use of water for both irrigation and instream flow approved in Colorado water court. Nuanced arrangements like this have allowed the Water Trust to earn the confidence of landowners, water users, and government entities alike.

How the Water Trust has Adapted; Water Law 201

Under the Prior Appropriation Doctrine, water rights are governed by “first in time, first in right.” While this doctrine has often been characterized as overly rigid, seasoned attorneys—such as the late Colorado Supreme Court Justice Greg Hobbs and others—have long shown how water rights can be changed for new uses while maintaining senior priority. As Hobbs is purported to have said, and as board members and staff attorney for the Water Trust have expressed: We’ve done this forever for our clients… now let’s do it for our rivers.

Colorado law permits changes of use to be decreed by its water court, provided there’s no injury to other vested and decreed water rights. Changing a water right requires limiting the use to historical consumption and diversion patterns in time, place, and amount. The change process is cumbersome, often requiring tens of thousands of dollars in legal and engineering fees in addition to multiple years to usher a water court application from start to finish. However, the end result is essential for water users who need a reliable supply, because the seniority, or date of appropriation assigned to a water right originally, is maintained throughout the change of use process. Historically, an overwhelming proportion of these transfers have involved shifting water from agriculture to municipal or industrial uses. In recent years, and thanks in part to the fortitude of the Water Trust and the CWCB, instream flow rights transfers have grown to become 1% of water right changes statewide. While the shift is small, it has transformed rivers like the Little Cimarron and the Alamosa, adding flowing water back into riverbeds that were once unseasonably dry. It signals that environmental uses are not second-class claims but essential components of modern water management.

The Jasper Lake donation exemplifies this principle. The donor, instead of selling the valuable storage water on an open market, permanently gifted it for environmental use—a use now recognized and legally protected under Colorado law. And it was not only the generous donor who has supported their local stream system—37-Mile LLC as the buyer agreed to a set of strict covenants, essentially stripping the Jasper Lake water right of its development potential. This donation operates within the same legal framework as the early consumptive use transfers, including the Moser and Little Cimarron water rights, proving that environmental values can thrive without rewriting the rulebook.

Borrowing from Land Conservation Practices to Save Rivers

The water from Jasper Lake is not just turned loose; it is released into Jasper Creek, from which point it flows down 37 miles of Middle Boulder Creek and Boulder Creek before the Tiefel Family diverts it back out of the stream system for irrigation use. Unlike many Water Trust projects, there is no CWCB instream flow use of the water. Instead, the Water Trust ensured that the water would remain in Boulder Creek by choosing to partner with 37-Mile and requiring, as a condition of their partnership and sale, that 37-Mile would agree never to redivert the water until it reaches that 37-mile point, in addition to several other restrictions.

The restrictions that the Water Trust imposed include restrictive covenants and a public access easement—legal constructs adopted from land use law. Applying these principles, the property and water rights are permanently tied to ecological and public uses, while still respecting historical agricultural use for the Jasper Lake water. This flexibility was a key component that made the donation viable and attractive, and avoiding water court for a change of use enabled the participants to save on costs and time. The protections that the Water Trust tied permanently to Jasper Lake, the parcel of land surrounding it, and the water rights stored in it include the following:

An easement allowing the public to access Jasper Lake and the parcel of land surrounding it. Colorado law limits the liability of landowners who hold title to inholdings on public lands provided there is signage, which was key to the ability of 37-Mile to take on this responsibility;

Jasper Lake water must be stored until at least August 15 of each year, which provides the public with an opportunity to enjoy the beauty of its waters;

The owner of the Jasper Lake water right must take water deliveries beginning on or after August 15 of each year, which ensures that flows in the Boulder Creek drainage are boosted after snowmelt, when fish and the environment need it most;

The owner of Jasper Lake must take steps to avoid abandonment of the water right;

The owner of Jasper Lake must allow Colorado Parks and Wildlife to stock the lake with fish; and

Finally, if the owner of Jasper Court ever goes to water court, they must consult with the CWCB regarding the possible addition of instream flow use to the water right.

The covenant model ensures that the ecological intent of the donation is locked in perpetuity, regardless of future ownership changes. This legal durability is critical in an age of shifting climate variability and volatile hydrology. Moreover, the Jasper Lake donation includes an engineering-informed management plan that allows for strategic releases during critical low-flow periods, providing adaptive benefits for aquatic species, riparian vegetation, and downstream users. It is this combination of legal permanence and operational flexibility that makes the model so powerful.

Why Storage Matters: True Volume, True Impact

Storage rights, especially those high in the drainage area like Jasper Lake, offer great flexibility in release and can be timed to supplement flows when needed most. The long carriage distance of Jasper’s releases down Boulder Creek allows for significant stream flow restoration. Storage water can be released during dry seasons when streamflow is lowest, directly improving water quality, mitigating temperature spikes, and sustaining aquatic life. As the old adage goes, “The solution to pollution is dilution.” More water in the stream doesn’t just benefit fish and bugs; it improves drinking water quality for downstream communities and strengthens overall watershed health.

This is a crucial point: while senior direct flow rights can sometimes provide benefit when left in the stream, they often do so inconsistently. Stored water, by contrast, provides discretely measurable volumes that can be scheduled and managed. This transformed the Jasper Lake donation from a gesture to a guaranteed outcome. Drinking water providers, such as those in the Boulder and Denver metro areas, depend on baseflows to keep treatment costs low. High-quality source water means fewer chemicals and less energy to meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards. In this way, streamflow restoration becomes an upstream investment in downstream public health.

Perhaps most importantly, leaving water in the river should be understood not as a passive default, but as an affirmative beneficial use. Traditionally, beneficial use has been defined through diversion—water being taken out of the river for agriculture, industry, or municipal supply. But Colorado law now affirms that instream flows can meet the beneficial use standard when they are legally protected and used to preserve the natural environment. This conceptual shift is profound. It re-centers the health of the river itself as a priority, recognizing that a flowing stream provides ecological services, supports recreation economies, enhances water quality and sustains life throughout the basin.

Why Permanence Matters: Creative and Collaborative Solutions

What makes the Jasper Lake donation especially promising is its emphasis on collaboration. Governments, nonprofits, agricultural stakeholders and local communities worked in unison to ensure the project’s success. Each party brought their priorities to the table—agricultural heritage, legal acumen, ecological resilience—and emerged with a better outcome than any could have achieved alone.

There are few other legal mechanisms in Colorado to protect water for the environment: RISIDS (Recovery Implementation for Endangered Species), Wild & Scenic River designation (with only one such stretch in Colorado), or narrowly focused instream flow rights used by the CWCB. The Jasper Lake project expands this limited toolbox, showing that partnerships and legal creativity can yield conservation outcomes without requiring federal mandates.

Another instructive comparison is the Water Trust’s work on the Yampa River system, where cooperative agreements among the CWCB, environmental organizations, and agricultural users have led to temporary instream flow leases and beneficial use deliveries to preserve flows during dry years. These leases, though helpful, are inherently limited by duration and uncertainty. That uncertainty is, at least to some extent, mitigated by the existence of the Yampa River Fund, an endowed and locally-managed fund that pays for water leasing and sponsors other work to improve the Yampa River and its tributaries. Jasper Lake moves even beyond that, embedding conservation in perpetuity.

A Model for the West

Twenty-nine states operate under some form of the prior appropriation doctrine. The Jasper Lake donation stands as a model that others can emulate. Michael Browning said he still sees great opportunities for similar initiatives in other western states, especially those in the Colorado River Basin, emphasizing the role of nonprofits in adapting the water rights system to recognize environmental and recreational values. By demonstrating that private rights can be permanently converted to public goods—without litigation, without legislative overhaul, and without harming other users—this project charts a replicable path forward.

While unique in the seven states of the Colorado River Basin, the Water Trust is not alone. The Oregon Water Trust, founded in 1994, and the Washington Water Trust, founded in 1998, are similar organizations. There is an Arizona Water Trust that primarily focuses on land donations that may include water rights. Montana, New Mexico, and Utah have all explored instream flow programs, but few have integrated storage donations. In the Upper Snake Basin of Idaho, a pilot effort to lease stored water for environmental flows is promising, but still temporary. Jasper Lake shows that permanent storage donations are possible, legal, and immensely beneficial. Especially in the seven basin states, the Colorado Water Trust serves as a useful model and tool for others to replicate.

Lessons Learned

Perhaps the most profound lesson from Jasper Lake is the value of permanence. One-time leases and short-term mitigation projects are common, but they do not provide the stability or reliability that rivers need. Permanency ensures predictability. It signals to ecosystems and economies alike that someone is planning for the long term.

Moreover, the donation sets a precedent that stored water can and should be used for instream benefit—and that such uses are not just legally viable but deeply beneficial to the broader hydrological system. As we consider future projects, the importance of true volume, collaborative administration, and permanence cannot be overstated.

Another key takeaway is the importance of patience. Water transactions require time—not just to navigate the legal and engineering hurdles, but to build the trust among stakeholders that makes such projects durable. Funders, partners, and policymakers must embrace this long view. Water transactions require the same patience and investment mindset we bring to ski areas, resorts, transportation, reservoirs or other large infrastructure projects. But the payoff—cleaner rivers, healthier ecosystems, and stronger communities—is well worth it.

Gratitude and Foresight

As Michael Browning said, “Progress is possible with goodwill and a shared need.” The Jasper Lake donation is more than a gift. It is a template, a catalyst, and a moral benchmark. It shows that with legal creativity, trust among partners, and courageous donors, we can build a more resilient and ecologically rich future.

As the West grapples with aridification and changing demands, projects like Jasper Lake shine like beacons. They show us what is possible when we work together and think beyond ourselves. None of this would be possible without the extraordinary foresight and generosity of the donor. In a market where water rights fetch increasingly high prices, the choice to donate—permanently, and without reservation—is not only rare but deeply courageous. It reflects an ethic of care that transcends personal gain and speaks to a commitment of legacy, community, and the natural world.

The success of the Colorado Water Trust also reflects gratitude for the legislative frameworks that made it possible. Colorado’s instream flow program, the CWCB’s administrative role, and the legal structure built into prior appropriation water law all played essential roles. The Jasper Lake project didn’t require new laws; it simply needed the right vision and the will to collaborate. All it required was to Just Add Water.

Jasper Lake is truly a remarkable and historic gift.

The Water Report
Written by: Kate Ryan & Matt Moseley
Read the original article here.

Author Bios:

Kate Ryan is a water lawyer who joined Colorado Water Trust in 2018 and was appointed as Executive Director in 2023. Her past clients included farmers, ranchers, municipalities, landowners, and the CWCB. Before going to Berkeley Law she obtained a master’s degree in geography at the University of Colorado. Kate does her work at the Colorado Water Trust in order to support that which she holds most dear–our incredible state and the people within, the beautiful rivers and mountains we explore, and a future for her kids where they can experience a continuation of it all.

Matt Moseley is a communication strategist, author, speaker and world-record adventure swimmer. He is the principal and CEO of the Ignition Strategy Group, which specializes in high-stakes communications and issue management. As the author of three books and is the subject of two documentaries, he uses his swimming around the world to bring raise awareness about water issues. He is the co-chair of the Southwest River Council for American Rivers and is a member of the Advisory Board for the Center for Leadership at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He lives in Boulder with his wife Kristin, a water rights attorney and their two children.

The September 2025 briefing is hot off the presses from Western Water Assessment Intermountain West Dashboard

Click the link to read the briefing on the Western Water Assessment website:

October 8, 2025 – CO, UT, WY

September precipitation was mixed across the region, with below normal conditions in Utah and northeastern Wyoming, and above normal conditions in eastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. Temperatures were near to above normal for the majority of the region, with a large pocket of record-warm temperatures in southwestern Wyoming. The first snowfall of the season was observed on September 22 in Utah and September 23 in Colorado. Drought conditions remained the same in Utah and improved in Colorado and Wyoming, with regional drought coverage at 61% as of September 30. Monthly streamflow conditions were near to below normal across much of the region. The probability of La Niña conditions developing is 60% by mid to late fall. NOAA seasonal forecasts for October-December suggest an increased probability of below average precipitation and above average temperatures for the region.

The region experienced a mix of moisture conditions in September, with very dry conditions in western and northern Utah, and wet conditions in northeastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. Below normal precipitation occurred throughout most of Utah and northeastern Wyoming, while above normal precipitation occurred throughout most of eastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. A large pocket of record-wet conditions occurred in northeastern Colorado, and a pocket of record-dry conditions occurred in Johnson County, Wyoming.

September temperatures were near to above average throughout most of the region, except for pockets of 0 to 2°F below normal temperatures in southern Colorado and southern Utah. The majority of Wyoming and northern Utah experienced 2 to 4°F above average temperatures, with pockets of 4 to 6°F above average temperatures in northern and western Utah, and northern and western Wyoming. One small pocket of 6 to 8°F above normal temperatures occurred in Park County, Wyoming and an area of 2 to 4°F below normal conditions occurred in Las Animas County, Colorado. A large pocket of record-warm temperatures occurred in southwestern Wyoming.

The first snowfall of this snow season was observed on September 22 at 10,715 feet in Bald Mountain Pass on Mirror Lake Highway in Utah’s Uinta Mountains. On September 23, Colorado received up to 8.8 inches of snowfall, particularly east of the Continental Divide above 10,500 feet, with the most falling in Glendevey. As of October 1, all SNOTEL sites are reporting no accumulated snow. Here are the top five snowfall totals in Colorado from September 23:

Glendevey, Colorado – 8.8 inches

Arapahoe Peak, Colorado – 8 inches

Cameron Pass, Colorado – 7.2 inches

Berthoud Pass, Colorado – 7.2 inches

Winter Park, Colorado – 7 inches

Drought conditions improved during September in Colorado and Wyoming, while all of Utah continues to remain in at least moderate (D1) drought. By September 30, regional drought coverage was 61%, a 6% improvement since the end of August. Colorado saw the removal of exceptional (D4) drought conditions on the West Slope and a 14% reduction in extreme (D3) drought. Wyoming also saw a 6% decrease in D3 drought conditions near Yellowstone region and in the south-central portion of the state. Coverage of extreme drought conditions in Utah decreased by 4% and severe (D2) drought declined by 4%.

Monthly streamflow conditions were near to below normal across large parts of the region, with much below normal conditions in northwestern Wyoming and western Utah during September. Several USGS stream gages reported September streamflow conditions in the lowest 3% of all historical observations, including seven in Wyoming, six in Utah, and one in Colorado. While the majority of streamflow gages in the region reported near to below normal conditions in September, several gages reported above to much above normal conditions, particularly along the Front Range in Colorado. Additionally, a few USGS stream gages reported September streamflow conditions in the highest 96% of all historical observations, including two in Utah and one in Wyoming.

There is a 60% chance of La Niña conditions developing by November. By January, there is an equal probability of La Niña or neutral ENSO conditions and the probability for La Niña decreases throughout the remainder of winter 2026. The NOAA Monthly Precipitation Outlook suggests an increased probability of above average precipitation for northern Wyoming and below average precipitation for southeastern Colorado in October. The NOAA Monthly Temperature Outlook suggests an increased probability of above average temperatures for all of Colorado, eastern and central Wyoming, and southern Utah in October. The NOAA Seasonal Outlooks for October-December suggest an increased probability of below average precipitation in all of Colorado, southern and eastern Utah, and southeastern Wyoming, and an increased probability of above average temperatures throughout the region.

The Colorado River is in a water crisis as consumption continues to outweigh the natural supply each year. To stabilize the system, Colorado River Basin that water use must be balanced with natural river flows. According to the recent report, “Analysis of Colorado River Basin Storage Suggests Need For Immediate Action” (Schmidt et al. 2025) the basin currently has 6.3 million acre-feet of accessible water storage in Lakes Powell and Mead. If next year is a repeat of this year’s unforgiving hydrology and water use remains the same in the basin, Schmidt et al. estimate that consumptive use will exceed the natural flow in the river basin by at least 3.6 million acre-feet, leaving only 3.6-3.7 million acre-feet left in storage above critical elevations in Lakes Powell and Mead by late summer 2026. According to the report, depleting half of the basin’s storage by the end of water year 2026 will leave water managers with limited flexibility when the new post-2026 operating regime comes into effect. To avoid this outcome, the basin requires immediate and substantial reductions in consumptive use.

Learn more: https://www.colorado.edu/center/gwc/media/670

Significant weather event: On September 23, Denver set a daily rainfall record of 1.28” of precipitation at Denver International Airport, making it the wettest September 23 since records began in 1872. Denver’s Central Park weather station recorded 1.33” of rain, making September 23 the wettest day since June 22, 2023 for Denver. This same storm brought heavy, wet snow to the high country, with the most snow reported at the Glendevey weather station in Larimer County at a total of 8.8” of snow (see above for the top five snowfall totals from September 23). Here are the top five rainfall totals from September 23 in Colorado:

Central Park in Denver – 1.33 inches

Denver International Airport – 1.28 inches

Broomfield – 1.22 inches

Fort Collins – 1.13 inches

9NEWS in Denver – 1.05 inches

Sources:

https://https://snowbrains.com/utah-mountains-receive-first-snow-of-winter-2025-26/

www.9news.com/article/weather/weather-impact/snow-rain-totals-wettest-day-forecast/73-8232e7e0-2bb7-4378-936b-3cd3f4980d09

https://weather.com/news/news/2025-09-24-colorado-first-noticeable-snowfall-of-the-season

Limiting the #ColoradoRiver conflict: Nine recommendations from advocacy groups — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org) #COriver #aridification

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

October 3, 2025

It’s the beginning of a new water year, and to mark the occasion, Great Basin Water Network and its partners, including the Glen Canyon Institute and Living Rivers, released a list of recommendations for how to “limit the Colorado River Conflict.”

The primary “conflict” in this case is the growing rift between supply and demand: The Colorado River’s collective users are pulling more water out of the system than the system can supply. That leads to other conflicts, most notably between the Upper and Lower Basins and between the states within each basin, over who should bear the brunt of the necessary cuts in consumption of at least 2 million to 4 million acre-feet per year. The states have until mid-November to come up with a post-2026 plan, though it’s not clear what will happen if they miss the deadline.

It may seem like a straightforward mathematical problem with a simple solution: Divide the necessary cuts up proportionally between all seven states. For example, if all seven states cut their 2022 consumptive use by 15%, it would add up to about 1.57 million acre-feet and seems equitable. But the history of consumption and diversion, along with the so-called Law of the River, made up of the 1922 Colorado River Compact and other subsequent compacts, agreements, and legal decisions, thoroughly muddy the water, so to speak.

Let’s go through the proposed solutions and I’ll elaborate a bit more there:

Recommendation 1: Forgo New Dams and Diversions

This is a no-brainer. Reality and nature are forcing the Colorado River’s users to pull less water out of the river, not more, and every dam and diversion built upstream of Lake Powell will result in less water reaching the reservoir, which is currently less than one-third full.1

And yet, there are myriad proposals for new dams and diversions in the Upper Basin, from the Lake Powell Pipeline to the Green River Pipeline. (Check out GBWN’s interactive map here). While some of these projects are, pardon the pun, mere pipe dreams, others are serious proposals.

The project’s proponents justify them by pointing out that the Colorado River Compact allocated the Upper Basin 7.5 million acre-feet of water from the river each year (or half of the presumed 15 MAF in the river2), yet together those states use only about 4.5 MAF annually, meaning, in theory, they have another 3 MAF at their disposal. Furthermore, the Upper Basin has complied with another Compact provision requiring them to “not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years.”3

Thing is, there’s not 15 MAF of water in the river, nor was there even back when the Compact was signed, so the 7.5 MAF figure is essentially meaningless. Furthermore, the Upper Basin has met its downstream delivery obligations only by significantly draining Lake Powell, so it isn’t by any stretch of the imagination sustainable.

Rec. 2: All States Need Curtailment Plans

The Lower Basin has a curtailment schedule, or a plan for when cutbacks need to be made, by how much, and who needs to make them, all based on the Law of the River and water right priority dates. For example, when Lake Mead’s surface level falls below 1,050 feet, releases from the dam are reduced, and the Lower Basin goes to Tier 2a cutbacks, which includes Arizona giving up 400,000 acre-feet, Nevada forgoing 17,000 acre-feet, and so on. California’s cuts don’t kick in at this level because it has the most senior rights.

The Upper Basin doesn’t have this sort of curtailment schedule. Again, they can justify this by saying they aren’t using their legal allocation, and they are meeting downstream delivery obligations, so why bother with curtailment? In fact, current Upper Basin plans call for more consumption, not less. But again, consumption is exceeding supply, period, so everyone is going to need to cut back. Best to do it in an orderly fashion.

Rec. 3: The “Natural Flow” Plan Won’t Work Until There Are Better Data

Federal and state officials need to bolster data collection on the Colorado River and more precisely monitor consumption. Without that, there’s no way that the “Supply Driven” or “Natural Flow” plan will work.

What that proposal does, by the way, is divide the river up according to what’s actually in the river. The Upper Basin would release from Glen Canyon Dam a percentage of the rolling three-year average of the “natural flow” — an estimate of what flows would be without any upstream diversions — at Lee Ferry. While this plan has been deemed “revolutionary” and a major “breakthrough,” there are still a lot of sticking points, like what percentage would each basin receive, and whether there would be a minimum delivery obligation and what that might be.

But none of that matters without an accurate estimate of the natural flow.

One of the biggest data gaps concerns evaporation. While evaporation from Lake Powell and a handful of other reservoirs is estimated and factored into the Upper Basin’s consumptive use, the same is not true for the Lower Basin — or for many other sources of evaporation.

The report says:

Rec. 4: Alter Glen Canyon Dam to Protect the Water Supply of 25 Million People

Virtually all of the water released from Glen Canyon Dam currently goes through the penstocks and the hydroelectric turbines, thereby generating power for the Southwest’s grid. That becomes no longer possible when the reservoir’s surface level drops below 3,490 feet, or minimum power pool. In that event, water could only exit through the lower river outlets, which are not designed for long-term use, and could fail catastrophically.

The groups call on the feds to alter the dam to remedy the situation, and specifically suggest drilling bypass tunnels around the dam to release water, which effectively would turn the dam into a “run-of-the-river” facility, meaning reservoir outflows would equal inflows and there would be no storage capacity.

Other possibilities include operating the dam as a “run-of-the-river” facility when its surface drops to 3,500 in elevation (thus allowing the turbines to continue operating), or re-engineering the river outlets for long-term use and possibly to feed into the turbines.

Rec 5: Curtailing Junior Users to Serve Tribes

This is not a radical concept by any means. It simply is saying that the 30 some tribal nations in the Colorado River Basin should get the water to which they are entitled, just like any other senior water rights holders.

Rec. 6: Tackle Municipal Waste and Invest in Reuse Basinwide

Another pretty obvious one. The report recommends following Southern Nevada Water Authority’s lead on this, which makes sense, given that they’ve managed to cut overall consumptive use even as the Las Vegas-area population has boomed.

Decoupling consumption from population on the Colorado River — Jonathan P. Thompson

Rec. 7: Protect Endangered Species

Native fish populations, including the humpback chub, Colorado River pikeminnow, and razorback sucker, have declined significantly in the age of large-scale dams and diversions and mass non-native fish stocking. They’ve avoided extinction, in part thanks to federal programs (funded in part by revenues from Glen Canyon Dam hydropower sales), thus far, but remain imperiled. The humpback chub, in particular, is threatened by smallmouth bass escaping from Lake Powell due to lower water levels; the non-natives prey on the native fish below the dam and in the Grand Canyon.

The report calls on federal agencies to consider abandoning storage in Lake Powell, drilling diversion tunnels, and going to a run-of-the-river scenario. Short of that, they urge management changes, including fish screens and sediment augmentation.

Rec. 8: Make Farms Resilient to New Realities

It might surprise some observers that this report never once mentions hay, alfalfa, livestock, or even golf courses, and does not suggest banning any specific crops. Rather, it calls for agricultural adaptation, economic diversification (including installing solar on some fields), and building more resilience and demand flexibility into operations.

The report recognizes the important role farms play in the Colorado River Basin. They are the largest consumers of water with some of the most senior water rights, meaning they will be “vital for stabilizing water supplies in times of drought and feeding the nation in the winter months for decades to come.” But also, wildlife and ecosystems such as the Salton Sea have come to depend on agricultural runoff and even leaky ditches. Shutting off irrigation altogether will have potentially dire environmental consequences.

Farmers’ adaptation must be supported by federal, state, and local governments, and, “these farmers must be able to choose how to adapt for the future themselves. They know their land and business models the best.”

Think like a watershed: Interdisciplinary thinkers look to tackle dust-on-snow — Jonathan P. Thompson

Rec. 9: Stabilize Groundwater Decline

This is a big one, but also a very difficult issue, because as Colorado River consumption is reduced, farmers and cities and other users tend to turn to groundwater pumping. And, since groundwater and surface water are intimately connected, this can lead to further declines in the Colorado River system (along with other impacts such as the earth actually sinking as aquifers are depleted). A study from earlier this year found that groundwater supplies in the Colorado River Basin are declining by about 1.3 million acre-feet per year.

The report urges state and federal governments to put a tighter leash on groundwater pumping — in parts of Arizona it goes unregulated and virtually unmonitored — and begin managing it “with the understanding that it is all one conjunctive source.”

I asked Glen Canyon Institute Executive Director Eric Balkan whether adopting these suggestions would require tossing the Colorado River Compact into the rubbish bin of history. “I don’t think this means throwing out the compact,” he replied. “But it does mean adapting to the river we have, not the one assumed in the compact.”

And that means changing or throwing out many of the terms of the compact. The 7.5 MAF division becomes obsolete, as does the 75 MAF-every-ten-years downstream delivery obligation. In fact, it’s hard to see how a fixed downstream delivery obligation is possible under the new reality; rather it would be a percentage of the natural flow. And without that sort of delivery obligation, Glen Canyon Dam loses one of its primary purposes.

“Glen Canyon Dam was built in the era of excess water to meet a specific accounting obligation,” Balkan said. “Today, there is no more excess water and the accounting obligation is going away. So let’s start the conversation about the post Lake Powell future.”

Screenshot from Carbon Mapper’s carbon dioxide and methane plume visualizer. This shows the north side of Bloomfield, New Mexico, and the methane plumes (blue) and carbon dioxide plumes (red) emanating from the Blanco Hub Complex, a major natural gas processing, refining, pipeline, and storage network.

🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭

Today’s featured cartography is a fascinating and alarming interactive mapvisualizing methane and carbon dioxide emissions from oil and gas wells, coal power plants, coal mines, cattle feedlots, landfills, and, sometimes, from the bare ground.This one is unique because it shows the actual plumes, not just symbols representing emissions, which somehow makes it more real and scary.

It’s a bit frightening not only because it reveals so many sources of greenhouse gases, but also because we know that if a leaky oil and gas well is oozing methane, it’s also probably emitting volatile organic compounds and other nasty pollutants that can harm human health. The map includes the date(s) the images were made along with the rate of emissions.

Cattle feedlots and methane plumes in California’s Central Valley. Source: Carbon Mapper.

⛈️ Wacky Weather Watch⚡️

Last month, the skies opened up over Globe and Miami, Arizona, dumping nearly four inches of rain and triggering calamitous flash-flooding that killed three people, wrecked homes, and carried away cars and multiple propane tanks from an LP gas distribution facility.

Miami and Globe are dyed-in-the-wool mining towns. Miami’s little downtown seems on the brink of being swallowed up by Freeport-McMoran’s massive Miami copper mine, while Globe, with its stately brick and stone buildings, was clearly the more prosperous of the two sister communities. They’re both pretty gritty in an appealing (to me) way in that they defy the manicured suburban sprawl ubiquitous on the other side of the Superstitions. They sit down in drainages that are almost always dry, except when a lot of rain falls on the arroyo-etched, sparsely vegetated hills. In this case, the flooding was made worse by a nearby wildfire burn scar.

Pinal Creek, which runs through Globe, ballooned from a dusty trickle to a 5,670 cfs torrent on Sept. 27. The San Carlos River east of Globe did much the same thing after nearly a year of complete dryness. The big water wreaked havoc, destruction, and death. Adding to the tragedy: Many residents reportedly didn’t have flood insurance.

1 One might argue that dams merely store excess water from wet years so that it can be used in dry years and so they don’t really count as a diversion or an increase in consumption. The problem on the Colorado River, however, is not a lack of storage, it’s a lack of water. Even huge water years like 2023 failed to even get close to filling up the system’s two largest reservoirs: Lakes Powell and Mead. If you build more upstream dams, then even less water will reach those reservoirs.

2 The Colorado River Compact actually assumes that there is an average of 18 million acre-feet per year, and allocates 7.5 MAF to the Upper Basin and 7.5 MAF to the Lower Basin, but also adds the option of increasing the Lower Basin’s allocation to 8.5 MAF. This still leaves room, theoretically, up to 2 MAF for Mexico. Even back in 1922, however, the river didn’t actually deliver that much water.

3 During the 10-year period from 2015 to 2024, the Upper Basin delivered about 84 MAF to the Lower Basin, meaning they’ve lived up to their obligation and then some.

New report calls for policy changes with #ColoradoRiver ‘on the cusp of failure’ — Alex Hager (KUNC.org) #COriver #aridification

Water sits low behind Glen Canyon Dam near Page, Arizona, on November 2, 2022. A new report calls for urgent changes to Colorado River management, including modifications inside the dam. Alex Hager/KUNC

Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):

October 1, 2025

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

A new report from a coalition of environmental nonprofits is calling for changes to Colorado River management and urging policymakers to act more quickly in their response to shrinking water supplies.

The report’s authors stress a need for urgent action to manage a river system that they say is “on the cusp of failure.”

“We are looking at serious, chronic shortages,” said Zach Frankel, executive director of the Utah Rivers Council. “And we don’t just mean one day in a couple of decades. We could see a crash on the Colorado River as soon as two years from now, or less.”

A crash, they said, could mean water levels so low in the nation’s largest reservoirs that major dams are rendered inoperable, leaving some cities and farms with less water than they are legally owed. To stave off that crash, the report includes nine recommendations, including calls for major cutbacks to water demand.

Its authors focused largely on three things: reducing water use, modifying the plumbing inside Glen Canyon Dam, and changing the process by which new rules for sharing water are decided.

State leaders throughout the Colorado River basin seem to agree that significant cutbacks are needed, but conversations about who exactly should make those cutbacks often devolve into finger pointing. The nonprofits behind this new report say each state needs to be more specific and come up with a “curtailment plan” about how it could use less water within its borders. They acknowledge that drawing up those cuts will likely be a complicated and painful process, but a necessary one.

“Yes, it’s bad, but there’s a path through it,” said Eric Balken, executive director of the Glen Canyon Institute. “The solution to this problem is actually simple. It’s not going to be easy, but it is simple. Don’t pull more water from the river.”

Their suggested approach also means hitting the brakes on new dams and diversions. The report tallied 30 proposals for new water development in the river’s Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. Now, its authors say, is not the time to stretch an already-strained river system even further.

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 report’s second major proposal is to re-engineer Glen Canyon Dam, which holds back Lake Powell. The nation’s second-largest reservoir has dropped to record lows in recent years, and it’s currently about a quarter full. If water levels drop much further, they could fall below the intake for hydropower generators inside the dam. Further, they could drop below any pipes that allow water to pass through the dam. That could jeopardize the ability to send water to major cities downstream, like Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas.

In years when reservoir levels threaten to drop that low, federal water managers have shuffled water into Lake Powell from other upstream reservoirs. The new report says more permanent fixes, like the construction of new pipes inside the dam, are needed.

“Those reservoir levels are not a conspiracy,” Frankel said. “There’s not really any debate about whether there’s water in those reservoirs. A solution of, ‘Hey, let’s just keep the reservoirs higher and avoid having to deal with this epic plumbing challenge’ is absurd.”

The Colorado River flows through Grand County, Colorado on Oct. 23, 2023. A new report calls for states to plan for curtailments to water use as the river shrinks. Alex Hager/KUNC

The report’s authors did not mince words in their critiques of the current system for agreeing on new water management rules.

“We’re so far away from meeting the moment right now,” said Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network. “The moment might as well be on another planet.”

Negotiations about sharing the river are stuck. The current rules for managing Colorado River water expire in 2026, and the seven states that use it are on the hook to come up with new ones. Negotiators from those states have been meeting for years now, and don’t appear to be close to a deal despite mounting calls for new policies, a steadily shrinking river and a fast-approaching deadline.

“We’re so clearly not addressing the depth of challenge we’re facing,” Frankel said of the negotiators. “And what we’re asking is, is it because of the process?”

Under the current structure, the report’s authors say, those negotiations lack transparency. Environmental groups, farmers, city leaders, Native American tribes and others who will have to deal with the consequences of negotiators’ decisions have mostly been left on the outside looking in.

“What we want is honest debate and discussion,” Roerink said. “There’s not even a meaningful regulatory process going on where we can debate, scrutinize, vet, and provide meaningful ideas about how we’re going to manage the nation’s two largest reservoirs.”

The coalition of nonprofits that co-signed the report includes Glen Canyon Institute, Great Basin Water Network, Living Rivers, Utah Rivers Council and Save the Colorado.

Their work joins a number of similar calls for action that have been released in recent months. A September letter from former officials and academics said urgent changes are needed to protect Glen Canyon Dam. That same group released a memo in May calling for states to embrace some “shared pain” and agree on cutbacks.

Other outside groups – including a coalition of Native American tribes and a large collection of environmental nonprofits – have made their own suggestions for the next phase of river management. It is yet to be determined how or if their ideas will influence those closed-door negotiations.

The #ColoradoRiver District hosts annual Water Seminar — The #GrandJunction Daily Sentinel #COriver #aridification #CRD2025

The Colorado National Monument and the Colorado River from the Colorado Riverfront trail October 3, 2025.

Click the link to read the article on the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel website (Nathan Deal). Here’s an excerpt:

October 4, 2025

The Colorado River District (CRD) hosted its annual Water Seminar on Friday [October 3, 2025], bringing together water leaders, politicians and city officials for a variety of discussions and activities. The seminar, titled “Across Divides”, was held at Colorado Mesa University, focusing on candid conversations and solution-focused dialogue to address water issues. The audience included agricultural producers, water providers, local and state government leaders, non-profit representatives, community members and CMU students.

“Over the course of today, we’ve leaned into the conference theme of ‘Across Divides.’ We’ve explored spaces where perspectives don’t always align, where there are divides in language, where there are divides in theory, where there are divides in practice,” said CRD Chief of Strategy Amy Moyer during her closing remarks…

The keynote address was given by CRD General Manager Andy Mueller, who discussed the challenges facing the Western Slope and Colorado River Basin as well as the work being done by the district and its local partners and the Shoshone water rights situation. He also discussed the impact of shrinking supplies and interstate pressures on Colorado…The “Lost in Translation: Interstate Divide” panel represented agriculture, drinking water, tribal nations and environmental interests from the Upper and Lower Basins, examining how the new supply-driven model proposal could shape the future of the Colorado River…

Moyer encouraged attendees to implement three actions in their lives to make sure the seminar leads to positive results.

“First, follow up with the contacts that you made with the people at your table, with the presenters here today…. Find somebody you haven’t had the chance to talk to,” she said. “The second thing is to apply one new idea that you learned from today, whether it’s in your personal life or your professional life…. Lastly, stay engaged with us at the Colorado River District. Look for the events and conversations that we hold throughout the year.”

A simple #ColoradRiver story: use less water — Allen Best (BigPivots.com) #COriver #aridification #CRD2025

A child amid the splish-splashes of water at Denver’s Union Station on June 21, 2025. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

October 2, 2025

New report says the story is not near as complicated as some would have you believe. It identifies nine areas of focus for using less water.

A few hours before I read a new Colorado River Basin report this week, I was at a neighborhood meeting in the metropolitan Denver municipality where I live. A sustainability plan is being worked up. The water component will encourage conservation.

I said that the messaging on this, unlike some other components of sustainability, should be relatively easy. After all, 75% of this municipality’s water arrives from the headwaters of the Colorado River through the Moffat Tunnel.

And most everybody at this point understands that the Colorado River is in trouble. For more than 20 years we have seen the photos of the bathtub rings of the reservoirs and the water levels far below. So many years have yielded below-average runoffs, a 20% reduction altogether in the 21st century. The number of broken hottest-ever temperature records have vastly dwarfed the coldest-ever records.

Understanding the intricate efforts to better align the political governance of the river with the physical reality is a far more difficult story to tell, but it has not been for absence of effort in Big Pivots and hundreds of other outlets. Scores of stories have been written in just the last month or more about the seeming inability of negotiators from the seven basin states to come to agreements in advance of a November deadline set by the federal government.

Now comes a new report, “There’s No Water Available,” from Great Basin Water Network and partners. It offers nine recommendations under the subtitle of “Commonsense Recommendations to Limit Colorado River Conflict.”

If longer-term drought is one component of the declined flows, the science is now firm that the warming climate is a reality that will remain and with it more erratic precipitation, surprising shifts in temperature, dry soils and many other factors. “It is clear that the future will be about adapting to hydrologic extremes. It is also clear that the water laws and hydraulic engineering developed in the 20th century did not foresee the realities we face today,” says the report.

Then there is this arresting statement:

“The supply-focused approaches during the last 120 years — i.e. encouraging use — has landed us in crisis. It’s time for a fresh, modernized approach. Nevertheless, we believe that the necessary change isn’t as complicated as people in power want us to believe.”

Simply put, say the authors from the Glen Canyon Institute, Sierra Club and other organizations, we must use less water. “We can do so in an equitable way that does not involve foot-dragging and finger-pointing.”

Who needs to budge? Well, almost everybody — the historically shorted Native Americans being the exception. “All parties currently using water must commit to using less water than they have in the past,” says the report.

The area around Yuma, Ariz., and California’s Imperial Valley provide roughly 95% of the vegetables available at grocery stores in the United States during winter months, February 2017, The report calls for more resilience built into agriculture. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

Upper basin states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — come in for special mention. Perhaps it’s a negotiating tactic, but they have continued to maintain detailed estimates of how much more water they want to use. “Rather than planning on using more, we need states to plan on cutting,” says the report.

They call for all states to have curtailment plans. “Having a clear-cut understanding of what entities have to cut during shortages is something that’s already in place in the lower Basin. The upper basin must develop a similar system of cuts predicated on water availability and delivery obligations that consider downstream use and upper basin water availability.”

Andy Mueller, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the lead water agency for much of Colorado’s Western Slope, made that call at the district’s annual meeting in 2024. Some agreed. See: “Heading for the Colorado River cliff.” Big Pivots, Oct. 20, 2024. However, Jim Lochhead, a former Western Slope resident and then Denver Water CEO, said he believed that the process of preparing for a compact curtailment was too difficult, too messy, until the clear need arrives. See: “Bone-dry winter in the San Juans,” Big Pivots, Jan. 28, 2025.

The upper basin states have argued that they never used the water allocated under the Colorado River Compact of 1922, while the lower-basin states did — and then some. Only lately have the lower-basin state tightened their belt. The upper basin states don’t want to be restricted — not, at least, to the same degree.

This position was explained in a forum during May by Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s representative in the negotiations. She talked about how the upper-basin had developed more slowly and still has not used its full allocation. See: “Sharing risk on the Colorado River,” Big Pivots, May 29, 2025.

“The main thing that we got from the compact was the principle of equity and the ability to develop at our own pace,” said Mitchell. “We shouldn’t be punished because we didn’t develop to a certain number.” The conversation, she added, is “what does equity look like right now?”

Upper-basin states want a willingness in this settlement for agreement that focuses on the water supply, not the demand, she said. “Common sense would tell you, maybe Mother Nature should drive how we operate the system.” That, she said, is the bedrock principle of the proposal from the upper division.

The Colorado River at Silt looked healthy in early June, and indeed runoff from the river’s headwaters in northern Colorado was near normal. The overall runoff, though, was far, far below average — what is becoming a new norm. Photo/ Allen Best

This new report rejects this “natural flow” plan. “Agencies do not yet have the means to quickly and accurately measure natural flow data, a measurement metric that tracks water as if there were no human usage and infrastructure. That’s because the basin at-large is missing key data points.”

The report also argues that any new dams and diversions need to be off the shelf, cities can do a better job of conservation, and Glen Canyon Dam needs work to allow it to be functional at lower water levels. The report also recommends making farms resilient to new realities.

Some elements of the Colorado River conversations have shifted dramatically. One of them is the new insistence of the last 10 years that the water rights of tribes be honored. Representatives of tribal nations now are almost always on the agenda at water conferences in Colorado. Twenty years ago? No, they were not. Lorelei Cloud, the chair of the Colorado Water Conservation Board since May, is a member of the Southern Ute Reservation.

Of the basin’s 30 tribes, 22 have recognized rights to 3.2 million acre-feet of Colorado River system water annually. That’s approximately 25% of the basin’s average annual water supply. Twelve tribes have still-unresolved claims. It is estimated that 65% of tribal water is unused by tribal communities (but in many cases consigned to other users). Junior users would be curtailed in order to honor those tribal rights, says the report.

The connection between declines in groundwater and surface flows is also part of a broader shift in the conversation. A May 2025 study that groundwater supplies in the Colorado River Basin are shrinking by nearly 1.3 million acre-feet per year. Excessive groundwater depletion had surfaced as a surrogate water supply to satisfy surface water deficits.

In the upper basin, half the water we see at the surface comes from groundwater, according to research from the U.S. Geological Survey. “This seminal USGS analysis underscores that as temperatures rise and evapotranspiration rates increase, there will be less groundwater entering surface water systems.”

There are obvious limitations to a short report, and I found the agriculture and municipal sections too shallow. The bibliography of sources, though, was quite valuable.

Will we see other reports of a similar nature in coming weeks and months? Quite likely. This conversation is far from over. In some ways, it’s just beginning.

Scott Cameron takes the reins as acting head of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — E&E News #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Seven U.S. states and Mexico depend on the Colorado River, shown here in the Grand Canyon. But over the past century, the river’s flow has decreased by roughly 20 percent. (Bureau of Reclamation)

Click the link to read the article on the E&E News website (Jennifer Yachnin). Here’s an excerpt:

October 3, 2025

Scott Cameron will take over as acting head of the Bureau of Reclamation, shifting titles at the Interior Department while he maintains his role as the Trump administration’s lead official in negotiations over the future of the Colorado River. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum tapped Cameron for the role on Oct. 1, announcing the decision in a secretarial order that also updated other leadership roles recently confirmed by the Senate. The decision comes in the wake of President Donald Trump’s decision on Sept. 30 to withdraw his nomination of Ted Cooke, a former top official at the Central Arizona Project, to be Reclamation commissioner.

The 1922 #ColoradoRiver Compact is Now the Obvious Elephant in the Negotiating Room — Eric Kuhn, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Kathryn Sorensen, Jack Schmidt, and Katherine Tara (InkStain.net) #COriver #aridification

Colorado Governor Clarence J. Morley signing Colorado River compact and South Platte River compact bills, Delph Carpenter standing center. Unidentified photographer. Date 1925. Print from Denver Post. From the CSU Water Archives

Click the link to read the article on the InkStain website (Eric Kuhn, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Kathryn Sorensen, Jack Schmidt, and Katherine Tara):

October 6, 2025

As negotiators for the seven Colorado River Basin states rapidly approach Reclamation’s November deadline for providing a framework for a seven-state agreement for the Post-2026 Operating Guidelines for Lakes Powell and Mead, a larger threat looms. Reclamation’s recently released September 24-Month study minimum probable projection is consistent with our mass balance analysis of storage in the next year, solidifying the likelihood of critical conditions if the coming winter is dry. Reclamation’s latest analysis predicts that storage at Lake Powell would fall below the 3500-ft elevation as early August 2026 and might continue to be below this critical elevation until March 2028. As we noted in our recent white paper, Reclamation has committed to protecting Lake Powell from going below 3500 ft.

This projection of future conditions in the event of persistent dry conditions poses a conundrum—Reclamation could reduce releases from Powell to protect the 3500-ft reservoir elevation, but in doing so, low releases would most likely trigger the dreaded 1922 Colorado River Compact tripwire–the amount of water delivered from Lake Powell to Lake Mead during a 10-year period that is less than the threshold. The Lower Division states are likely to litigate if the 10-yr average wire is tripped. Under one prevailing interpretation of the Compact, Upper Basin states must not cause the 10-yr flow at Lee Ferry to be depleted to less than 82.5 MAF to deliver water to the Lower Basin and Mexico. As explained in a new white paper, there is a very real chance that the 10-yr running average will be 82.78 MAF, just a hair above the tripwire, one year from now. In alternate scenarios, the 10-yr running average would hit the tripwire in 2027 or 2028. If Reclamation exercises its authority to reduce Lake Powell deliveries to as low as 6 MAF, the tripwire is triggered even earlier. In the face of this imminent possibility, Basin States and the Federal Government must commit to an enforceable agreement to reduce their total consumptive Colorado River uses with an equitable sharing of the burden sufficient to justify a waiver of claims under the Compact for the duration of the agreement. The alternative is a deeply uncertain future for the Basin.

Read the full white paper.

New idea for the #ColoradoRiver hits old roadblocks — The #Aspen Daily News #COriver #aridification #CRD2025

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Daily News website (Austin Corona). Here’s an excerpt:

October 6, 2025

Three months after officials introduced a concept to revive stalled negotiations over the Colorado River, that concept has run into the same pitfalls that sank previous ideas, leaving the river on a course for federal intervention as reservoir levels plunge. Speakers at the Colorado River Water Conservation District’s annual water seminar in Grand Junction on Friday [October 3, 2025] said the new concept still falters because it would require Colorado and other upper basin states — New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — to commit to some restrictions on their water use during dry years.

“(Lower Basin leaders) are insisting that the Upper Basin is the problem in getting to an agreement because we’re refusing to take mandatory cuts,” said Andy Mueller, general manager of the river district…Upper Basin states argue that their geography and infrastructure already require them to cut their use when the rivers run dry, while downstream states can rely on water stored in large reservoirs to keep themselves wet during droughts. The new concept’s failure to gain traction means negotiators are still wrangling as the river’s levels drop further…Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s negotiator on the river, said the states are still meeting once every other week, but she and other state officials remain mired in many of the same issues that have stalled negotiations for two years.

“We’re meeting. It is not enjoyable. I want to be perfectly honest,” Mitchell said.

The Upper Basin argues it should not have to take cuts because it relies on the natural flow of the river, not stored water in large reservoirs like Lake Mead and Lake Powell. That means the Upper Basin can’t use more than what is naturally available in the river and cuts back its use during dry times already. It also means the Upper Basin already feels “pain” during dry years…

“Every year, someone in western Colorado … has not had adequate water,” Mueller said…

…Mitchell said she was “hopeful” for the negotiations. She said the Upper Basin agrees with the general idea of a supply-driven concept, like the one the Lower Basin has proposed, even if the basins are struggling to work out central issues like cuts in the Upper Basin.

“We can’t give up … A supply-based proposal is the only way to move forward. We all have to be responding to supply,” Mitchell said.

Coyote Gulch’s Bluesky posts from the conference are here (click on the “Latest” tab): https://bsky.app/search?q=%23crd2025

Aspen trees were showing off on the east side of Wolf Creek Pass on October 5, 2025.

These ‘Traveling Wilburys’ of the #ColoradoRiver are being heard: Everyone agrees that the old rules must be revised. A behind-the-curtain conversation with three of the authors who warn of dangerous proximity to the cliff’s edge — Allen Best (BigPivots.com) #COriver #aridification

Colorado River headwaters-marker. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

September 28, 2025

Everyone knows about the Colorado River troubles. Even in the 1990s, the last time the river had enough water to reach the sea, problems were looming. Then came the 21st century with its mixture of severe drought, rising temperatures, and plunging reservoir levels.

You’ve likely read a few of the hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of stories that have been written about these diminishing flows and difficulty of the seven states and 30 tribes who share the river (along with Mexico) in reaching agreement about reduced uses. With a deadline of Nov. 11 looming to reach some basic agreement, the parties have not publicly retreated from their rigid talking points.

An ad hoc group of six Colorado River experts began assembling reports in 2025. They have been dubbed the Traveling Wilburys of the Colorado River Basin. Although several have previously served in various government roles, they report to no specific constituencies now. All save one are affiliated with academic institutions. They have freedom to speak the truth as they see it. They have no direct authority but they do have credibility.

In these white papers, they have consistently argued for the need to recalibrate expectations, to align demands with the water delivered by the shrinking Colorado River. They have not necessarily defined exactly how that is to be done. They argue for a shared burden.

Their position conflicts, to an extent, with the position of the four upper-basin states, who have never fully developed the 7.5 million acre-feet allocated to them in the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and insist that this allocation must be honored. Similarly, lower-basin interests have also continued to assert their rights to river entitlements.

Is this group of six having impact? That is hard to gauge, but observers and participants in Colorado River matters point to at least some small evidence that their thoughts and observations are showing up in take-away messages from meetings.

Big Pivots convened a conversation with several of the report authors on Sept. 18, a week after their latest report had been issued. In that report, (“Analysis of Colorado River Basin Suggests Need for Immediate Action,” Sept. 11, 2025) they took stock of the 24-month report from the Bureau of Reclamation that was issued in late August. That report delivered the numbers that collectively showed dramatically increased risk during the upcoming two years of the dams on the Colorado River becoming dysfunctional.

For reasons of expedience, the conversation was limited to three of the six individuals:

Eric Kuhn, who in 2018 retired from the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District after 22 years as general manager.

Eric Kuhn, who in 2018 retired from the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District after 22 years as general manager.

Anne Castle, a senior fellow at the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment at the University of Colorado Law School, who was the assistant secretary for water and science at the U.S. Department of Interior from 2009 to 2014 and the U.S. commissioner and chair of the Upper Colorado River Commission from 2022 to 2025. She had practiced water law for many years with Denver-based Holland & Hart.

John Fleck, the writer in residence at the Utton Transboundary Resources Center in Albuquerque since 2002 and before that directed the University of New Mexico’s Water Resource Program for five years. He was a journalist in his younger life.

Also contributing to the reports have been:

Jack Schmidt, director of the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University, and former chief of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey;

Katherine Sorensen, of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University and former director of Phoenix Water Services; and

Katherine Tara, staff attorney for Utton Transboundary Resources Center at the University of New Mexico.

The conversation reported below has been tightened considerably and modified slightly to enhance clarity.

The three of you were among six authors of a report issued on September 11 that asked, “How close to the cliff’s edge we are in the Colorado River Basin?” How do you get six people in agreement to an answer for that question? What process do you use to produce these reports?

Eric Kuhn: When you focus on the data, coming to a similar conclusion about the future is actually quite easy. The (Bureau of Reclamation’s) 24-month study from August was out. It suggests that we’re closing in on the cliff. Jack Schmidt was very much involved in the numbers, the technical aspects. The message was easy. Getting agreement on the exact wording requires a little more patience.

John Fleck: Something that makes a process like this work with this group of people is that we all begin with a deeply shared understanding of how the system works and what those numbers mean. We don’t need to spend time learning about reservoir levels and the relationship between Powell and Mead. This is a group of people who already have a shared knowledge. [ed. emphasis mine]

In late May 2022, Lake Powell was declining after another year of low snow and high temperatures. By August, it was 26% full, the lowest it had been since waters had begun backing up behind Glen Canyon Dam in 1967. Photo/Allen Best

Anne Castle: I think we also share an overall goal of seeing a sustainable river system. We think that changes need to be made in an equitable way to match supply and demand, and that’s not happening. We all bring slightly different skills to the table and different experiences, which has improved the end product (the reports).

Fleck: One of the challenges in Colorado River governance is that you have many people who have a great deal of expertise who operate as employees of and advocates for a particular geography, for a particular community, especially those representing community or state water supplies.

Our group acts as citizens of the basin as a whole. Other people also see their role that way, especially folks in the federal government. But we have some freedoms that other people might not have in terms of being able to speak out publicly.

This is a third report since April by the same set of six authors. How did you come together?

Kuhn: Jack (Schmidt) is with the Center for Colorado River Studies. Jack and I co-authored white papers four and six among Jack’s series. That was now five years ago. Those papers are still very, very good. Because the supply-and-demand issue hasn’t been addressed, they’re still relevant. Jack and Anne go back a long way to when Jack was the head of the Grand Canyon research effort out of Flagstaff and Anne was assistant secretary of Interior. We’ve known each other for a long time. The new one is Katherine Tara, who just graduated a couple years ago from New Mexico law school and is now helping out John. So it was actually a pretty easy get together.

Fleck: We’ve all worked together in sort of twos and threes on books and papers.

Castle: John, Eric, Jack and I were having periodic meetings just to sort of talk through what was going on with the river and what the issues were. We were each doing our independent writing things. Jack and Eric and John had all worked with Katherine (Sorensen, of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University), and we wanted that lower basin expertise that Katherine has in spades.

We started to talk as a six-person group. In the spring, we decided the time was right for us to write something about the next set of guidelines. And that was the instigation for the report that we put out in April. See “Essential Pillars for the Post-2026 Colorado River Guidelines,” April 25, 2025.

All but one of the six of authors of these recent reports live in the upper basin states. I know you say that you do not have affiliations that tie you to a particular point of view. Still, does this tilt toward the upper basin dull some of your effectiveness?

Castle: I think, on the contrary, that the upper basin state principals would say that we tilt toward the lower basin because we haven’t adopted the positions that the upper basin principals have been taking.

Fleck: I have long been criticized here in New Mexico and by folks in the upper basin in general for always taking the side of the lower basin. I was born in California. One of my books was really lower basin focused. So I have a lot of connections and interest in the lower basin. It’s certainly the critique that we’ve received.

Kuhn: I agree. I think John and I wanted to take a basin perspective when we started writing our book (“Science Be Dammed: How Ignoring Inconvenient Science Drained the Colorado River”), but I acknowledge that after working for the Colorado River District for almost 38 years, that I do have an upper basin perspective on many things. In the recent papers, not much. My focus has been the entire basin.

Your reports have been very action oriented, and that is particularly true of this last one, where you call for drastic and immediate action. Are you seeing evidence that your work is having impact?

Castle: It’s getting attention. I don’t know if it’s resulting in action.

Fleck: One of our goals is to move conversations into the public arena that should be held in the public arena rather than in the sort of cloistered spaces in which a lot of Colorado River decision making is conducted. Katherine Tara, the newest member or youngest member of our group, talks about the need for a Colorado River C-SPAN, the need for broader public forums. And I think our work has contributed to forcing some issues and discussions into public.

I want to go back to something that Eric said at the outset. You said that you are of like mind, because you’ve all studied the data, and the data take you to the same conclusions. If that is the case with you having studied the data, what does that say about the broader basin discussion? If everybody has studied the data, should that not take everybody to the same conclusion?

Kuhn: The problem is that all the principals work for a governor or a board or constituents. The six of us all have focused on the data, and I think many, many of the journalists and many of the experts in the basin acknowledge the data. There’s still a culture among the major agencies and the states that supports a system that is unsustainable. We must reduce our uses to match the supply. But they all have constituencies and probably lawyers that tell them this is why it’s everybody else’s responsibility, not mine or not ours. We have yet to crack that culture that the basin must reduce water use — but not me.

Fleck: One of the things important about the book Eric and I wrote is in the title, ignoring inconvenient science, because we have a history in this basin of doing things for political expediency. Looking away from the most unpleasant scientific conclusions about the available water supply makes it easier for political actors to deal with their local and state constituencies. Because it’s hard to go to a community and say, “I’m sorry, there really is less water.” So, the political incentives are not aligned with responding to the science the way we think they should be, which is why we have to say these things that are really hard for a governor or governor’s representative to say.

Castle: Because we’re independent and do not answer to political constituencies, we have the ability and, frankly, the luxury of pointing to wherever the data takes us. The political incentives are almost diametrically opposed to doing the hard things that need to be done to balance what nature is supplying with what we’re using. One of the goals we’re pursuing is to educate a broader community about what the data shows and what conclusions that leads us to. That enables people to advocate to their own representatives for sensible solutions.

Do you have a bigger game plan in mind? Are you being reactive to events or do you have a strategy that goes beyond into like what we do in 2026, for example.

Fleck: Speaking for myself, I believe it is possible for us to continue to have communities that not only survive but thrive with less water if we find reasonable and equitable ways of sharing the burden of the impact of climate change across the entire West. My personal concern is that sort of parochial advocacy creates a winner- loser situation. Some community might win and not have to cut at all; another community could have disastrous cuts. That violates my basic notions of the moral framework that I have for thinking about what I want the future to look like.

Kuhn: My goal in this goes back to what John said about our book, which is paying more attention to the data and the science. We no longer have the luxury of ignoring the data and the science. Doing so will lead to an outcome that our constituents won’t like. We have to get over that hurdle. That has been my goal all along. More reliance on good data-based decision making.

The Rio Grande in New Mexico between Taos and Espanola. Photo/Allen Best

Are there lessons for the seven states in the Colorado River Basin from the recent Rio Grande settlement?

(For background, see the E&E News report on Sept. 2, 2025: “States reach new settlement over Rio Grande.”)

Kuhn: I think so. Going out on a limb, I think the lesson here is that even if there’s litigation in the Colorado River Basin, the negotiations are going to continue. The mediation is going to continue.

My view of this Rio Grande agreement from 30,000 feet and from a long way away was that the court-appointed special master pretty much forced them to reach an agreement. He kept pushing them to reach an agreement. They failed initially (and) at last succeeded.

So I think the lesson is, even if there’s litigation, there’s going to be continued discussions and negotiations. I question whether, without the litigation, New Mexico would have been willing to enter into the agreement that they have entered into. I think that the additional risk of the court case brought New Mexico to the table on several issues, but that’s just my view of it from a long way away.

Castle: A legal lesson learned from the Rio Grande experience is don’t ignore the objections of the feds.

Fleck: A related lesson I have taken is that we have a history of litigation in the Colorado River Basin that was very, very much conflict-based for more than a decade. But the Rio Grande experience shows that, while extremely unpleasant and extremely expensive, it was possible to manage this river. It’s my river, right? I’m in Albuquerque. On the Rio Grande, we’re able to manage this river during the time of litigation. It did force the parties into collaboration and compromise, however ugly and unpleasant the process may have been.

It makes me think litigation on the Colorado River would be a terrible idea. A collaborative solution is much preferred. But I also think that litigation might very well push us toward the collaborative solution anyway. My argument is let’s just do it now (without the expense and the heartache) because ultimately we will end up with the same thing. That is the lesson we might draw from the litigation on the Rio Grande.

A hay meadow along the Colorado River in Middle Park, near Kremmling. Photo/Allen Best

What is the most hopeful thing that you’ve heard or seen in the last year or two in the Colorado River Basin?

Fleck: I have been really impressed with the continued push toward permanent, relatively deep reductions in the Lower Colorado River Basin. They’re consistently coming in well below their 7.5 million acre-feet. They’ve been learning important lessons about how to approach that since the early 2000s when California was using more than 5 (million acre-feet) and had to cut back to 4.4. There’s a lot of built-up experience about how to go about reducing your water use.

And the communities are still thriving. Las Vegas’s water use reductions are stunning. You’re seeing significant reductions in the water flowing down the Central Arizona Project canal and really successful adaptations in the Imperial Valley. Over and over again we are seeing that when people have less water, they use less water, and communities can still thrive.

One thing that bothers me — which I wrote about in my book (“Water is for Fighting Over: And Other Myths about Water in the West”) over a decade ago — is this sort of limbic fear that we get, that a reduction in our water supply means the death of our community. We can, in fact, get by with less water

The significant reductions you’ve seen in the lower basin are clearly not enough. The reservoirs are still dropping. But it shows what is possible.

Castle: The action that I found most surprising and hopeful or constructive was the lower basin’s willingness to own the structural deficit. The lower basin stepped up and said, “we’re not negotiating this. This is what we’re going to do.” I think that was huge and I think it shows that there can be movement that kind of goes against the political expediency.

Kuhn: Another example is that California basically accepted a portion of the shortages. This happened a while ago. This happened back in 2018 or 2019. Under the 1968 law (that authorized the Central Arizona Project), Arizona was to absorb the shortages and not California. They basically realized that that agreement that was made in the ’60s was tying up the lower basin from being able to move forward. California compromised on that, at least for the moment. And I think that this willingness of California to go along with what else has happened in the lower basin shows progress. Where we haven’t made any progress is what I would call the crossing of the Lee Ferry divide. That’s going to take more effort.

Editor’s note: The Colorado River Compact distinguished between the upper basin and the lower basin, creating an artificial dividing line at “Lee Ferry,” a point just below Glen Canyon Dam. George Sibley, a water writer from Gunnison, along with others. have maintained that this artifice creates unnecessary problems. See: “Why not create the Colorado River Compact they wanted in 1922?”Sept. 1, 2025.

Fleck: We’ve just contradicted ourselves here, or at least I’ve contradicted myself. We talked about the political incentives that make it difficult to accept the reality of what the numbers are showing us, but we have just described a situation where, in fact, the political leadership, especially in Arizona, but also in California, and for a long time in Nevada, has been willing to accept this reality.

Partly, it’s just through a lot of long, hard learning, the realization by these communities that we took these steps to use less water. And we’re still okay, you know, we still have water in the fountain at the Bellagio (hotel in Las Vegas). We still have hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of irrigated ag land in the Imperial Valley. There’s less than there used to be, but there’s still a lot. There’s still a robust agricultural economy there. So, in fact, this runs counter to the notion that political incentives always lead you to ignoring convenient science, because there’s clearly evidence to the contrary.

Denver Water gains supplies from tributaries to the Colorado River in Grand County for diversion to metropolitan Denver. Photo/Allen Best

In your papers, you have consistently said that the water rights of the tribal nations must be honored. Can their claims on the river actually be resolved at this juncture? Or is there an irreconcilable conflict?

Castle: There are several reasons we’ve called attention to the Tribal rights. One is historically, Tribal rights and interests haven’t been front and center. The tribes have historically been left out of these kinds of high-level negotiations. But the fundamental reason, in my mind is the tribal water rights are part of the bargain that our federal government made with individual tribes in exchange for the relinquishment of some of their ancestral lands. They were promised a livable homeland. Part of a livable homeland is the amount of water necessary to fulfill the purposes of that land, and that’s a promise of the federal government.

Many tribes have quantified their water rights, so we know exactly how much that promise meant in terms of the amount of water that goes along with their reservation land. And it’s a different animal than all the other kinds of Western water rights. It’s important that we keep that in mind, that it is a different kind of promise. It’s a different kind of property right. And we can’t solve this supply and demand imbalance on the backs of the tribes.

Fleck: Anne talked about a promise made by the federal government. But that’s us. This is our promise. We are the people of this country, the people of the federal government, right? The federal government is a creature of us. This is our promise to those people. It’s not something that we as individuals in this particular state should get in a fight with the federal government over. We made this promise to those people and that’s important. I describe it as a legal and a moral obligation. Respecting the legal obligation is critical to making the books balance. It’s also this moral obligation.

Eric, I have a question for you. I know you have followed climate science very closely over the years. We’ve talked about it from time to time, the current state of the science. How would you describe that? I mean, there’s a lot of uncertainty. What we really don’t know, we can’t know until it happens. Nonetheless, if you were to summarize, what should that tell us about the Colorado River going forward?

Kuhn: There is a lot of uncertainty, but with time, we’re seeing a narrowing of that uncertainty. We’re in some would say the 25 years of a drought, others would say it started in the late 80s. We’re seeing a very distinct stepwise reduction in flows, natural flows at Lee Ferry, and we’re seeing temperatures increase. We have documented both.

I still think there’s going to be a lot of uncertainty when it comes to what happens in those rare, odd years where we have a real wet winter and you have atmospheric rivers that run into the San Juans or the central Rockies. We could end up with a big year, and that’s all a part of climate science.

But I think the message is pretty clear that it’s unlikely that river flows will return to what we thought there was historically, which was around 14 to 14.5 million acre-feet per year. That’s unlikely. And I know no one in the basin, including the current administration, based on comments from Mr. Cameron (Scott Cameron, acting assistant secretary for water and science, Department of the Interior), who thinks that it’s likely. We’re dealing with the river that we have today, and that means that the uncertainty around the climate science has narrowed, and we sort of understand the future of this river. As long as temperatures keep going up, we’re going to see aridification of the basin.

A final question, if you will abide it, and it’s kind of a big, sweeping question. It strikes me that it’s a really interesting journey that all three of you have been on during this shift in attitudes in the Colorado River Basin. I remember going to the Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas maybe 15 years ago, and there were people from Los Angeles or wherever who were kind of dubious. This was drought. This wasn’t climate change. We don’t have to have fundamental change. That (attitude) has clearly dissipated. My question has to do with what has not changed. How have attitudes NOT changed?

Kuhn: People are still going to be very reluctant to give up what they believe was their entitlement. They’ll compromise; they’ll reach agreements. But Colorado, which is among the leaders when it comes to the public’s acknowledgement of the issues related with climate change, has yet to say we’re going to sacrifice any portion of our theoretical entitlement. But we all have to give up some of those theoretical claims. So the culture is still “protect our entitlement,” even though that entitlement was based on data and science that are no longer valid. Just the word entitlement is indicative of the problem.

Castle: A component of that problem is the failure to recognize that while I have a perfectly good legal argument about why I have this entitlement, there are other perfectly good legal arguments about why I don’t, and we haven’t made huge steps toward acknowledging that. There are lots of legal arguments and lots of good ones, but they can’t all carry the day. Like John says, there’s not enough water for all the lawyers to be right.

What remains of the Colorado River as it enters Mexico is diverted to the farm fields near Mexicali. Farther south, near San Luis Rio Colorado, this is what the riverbed looked like in February 2017. Photo/Allen Best

As #ColoradoRiver negotiations near a critical deadline, a new way of looking at risk is revealing hard choices — Matt Jenkins (WaterEducation.org) #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Foundation website (Matt Jenkins):

September 25, 2025

Western Water in-depth: After a thwarted quest to better predict the effects of drought and climate change, federal water managers are taking a radically different approach

After four years of contentious negotiations, the seven states that rely on water from the Colorado River are racing against the clock to reach agreement on a new long-term operating strategy for the river’s dams and reservoirs. They face a Nov. 11 deadline from U.S. Interior Department officials to signal whether they think a deal among them is likely.

This is a high-stakes moment on the Colorado: Some 40 million people, 5.5 million acres of farmland and a $1.4 trillion economy depend on water from the river. But the double whammy of climate change and a now-quarter-century-long drought has strained relationships between the seven states that share the dwindling river.

Over the past two decades, scientists, engineers and water managers have invested tremendous effort in trying to deduce what the future might bring. They have used reconstructions of climate patterns stretching more than 1,200 years into the past to understand natural variability, and turned to global models to better grasp the potential impacts of climate change.

A key player in the effort has been the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which is primarily responsible for operating the massive dam-and-reservoir system on the Colorado River. Its in-house research and computer modeling team has played a crucial role in bringing new science about climate variability and change to Colorado River water managers.

Even with that, though, water managers have been repeatedly blindsided after conditions on the river proved even worse than predicted. Two earlier rounds of negotiations, dating back to 2005, yielded a pair of “interim” operating agreements to help the states weather the drought. But the river’s flow has continued to deteriorate so rapidly that water managers have found themselves stuck in a perpetual scramble to buy themselves time before the river enters an all-out crisis.

“The policies weren’t robust enough, and we were in this Band-Aid mode,” says Carly Jerla, who heads Reclamation’s long-term planning process and was previously a leader on the research and modeling team. Everyone, she says, realized that “we need something else.”

As a result, Reclamation has quietly abandoned the effort to rely on best guesses about the river’s future via traditional modeling methods. Now, it’s bringing a radically different style of thinking to the negotiating table: Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty, or DMDU.

The approach focuses on testing out operating strategies, with the help of artificial intelligence, that perform well against a far wider range of possible hydrologic scenarios than has ever been considered before — some of which no one on the river may anticipate or even be able to imagine. DMDU gives water managers a way to see how well their ideas fare, and to better understand how, and why, they might fail.

Scrambling to Stay Ahead of the Curve

Reclamation’s research and modeling team is based in Boulder, Colo., and works out of a nondescript University of Colorado building tucked between a city bus depot and an Audi dealership a mile from campus. The Reclamation team shares an office with the university’s Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental Systems (CADSWES), which developed the software system used to model the Colorado.

The downstream face of Glen Canyon Dam, which forms Lake Powell, America’s second-largest water reservoir. Water is released from the reservoir through a hydropower generation system at the base of the dam. Photo by Brian Richter

Reclamation’s collaboration with CADSWES began in the mid-1990s, and was initially led by Terry Fulp, who would go on to serve as the agency’s regional director for the Lower Colorado River Basin. CADSWES provided modeling know-how, but it also served as a pipeline of talented grad students that its director, Professor Edie Zagona, would send Fulp’s way. Many of the most promising candidates wound up working for Fulp’s team, which operated with relative autonomy within Reclamation’s larger hierarchy.

“We kind of flew under the radar,” says Fulp, who retired in 2020. “We had a little bit of a notion that we were special. But we also didn’t want to be too special.”

As the team took shape, trouble was brewing on the river. The 1922 Colorado River Compact, which initially allocated the river’s water between the states, was based on an assumption that average annual flows on the river were 16.4 million acre-feet per year. Over the past century, however, that number has decreased by approximately 20 percent.

A dramatic wakeup call came in 2002, two years after the drought first took hold. Inflows to Lake Powell, one of the two main reservoirs on the river, were only about 25 percent of average, and water managers had the unnerving realization that the world might be changing in ways they couldn’t predict.

“We were walking into a complete unknown,” says Pat Mulroy, who at the time was the head of the Las Vegas-based Southern Nevada Water Authority. “You have to assume that a 2002 runoff is not an anomaly, but that it’s going to happen again, and it’s going to happen with greater frequency.”

In 2005, governors’ representatives from the seven states began to negotiate an operating strategy they hoped would give them a way to ride out the deepening drought. But they were treading into delicate territory.

Legal Minefields and Flawed Crystal Balls

The Colorado River is governed by a complex series of rules laid out not just by the Colorado River Compact, but by an amalgamation of subsequent laws, treaties, agreements and court decisions that are collectively known as the “law of the river.” That has set up fundamental tensions over how the river’s water is divided not just between individual states, but also — because of the Compact’s legal structure — between the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico and the Lower Basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada, as well as the U.S. and Mexico, which has its own share of the river’s water.

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)

Numerous legal minefields lurk within the law of the river, ambiguous provisions about which various states deeply disagree. Among the thorniest are: What is the Upper Basin’s precise obligation to provide water to the Lower Basin downstream? What are the relative responsibilities of the Upper and Lower basins in ensuring that Mexico receives its legal entitlement to water? How does water that the Lower Basin uses from local tributaries factor into its Compact entitlement?

The negotiating effort that began in 2005 was an attempt to find creative ways to survive the drought while staying within the boundaries of the Compact. By avoiding those legal minefields, the states could capitalize on areas of mutual flexibility to meet everyone’s needs — or at least get as close as possible.

To figure out how to make it work, the states’ representatives and their technical support staff began relying on Reclamation’s research and modeling team in Boulder to calculate the probabilities of success or failure for various options they were considering. In 2007, the negotiating effort yielded a set of “interim guidelines” for Colorado River operations that would remain in effect until 2026.

During that process, Fulp and his colleagues had started using tree-ring based reconstructions of past climate history, together with computer projections of the possible impacts of climate change, to get a clearer sense of the future. But as the effort went on, the team’s members realized they had a problem: The results from the global climate models weren’t squaring with what they saw playing out in real time.

“The climate change projections in the Colorado didn’t map up with what we’ve been experiencing the last 10, 15, 20 years,” says Alan Butler, a research and modeling group chief on Reclamation’s Boulder team. “There was a disconnect.”

That disconnect only seemed to be getting worse. One set of climate projections, for instance, suggested that future flows on the Colorado could range from less than five million acre-feet a year to more than 45 million — twice as much water as came down the river in 1983 in a massive flood that nearly tore apart Glen Canyon Dam.

“That’s just a massive range,” says Nolie Templeton, a senior policy analyst for Central Arizona Project, which supplies water to cities like Phoenix and Tucson, as well as tribes. “If you get a five-million-acre-foot river, you’re going to be planning and adapting significantly differently than if the dam gets blown out because it’s 45.”

Jim Prairie, the other research and modeling group chief on Reclamation’s Boulder team, recalls a warning he got from a respected climate modeler in 2009: Global climate models are research, not decision-making tools. They were never intended to provide the kind of probability-based projections that water managers so desperately needed.

The team began to back off from its pursuit of long-term probabilities and search for a better approach.

Learning to Navigate Uncertainty

Humans are practically hardwired to look to past experience to anticipate what the future might hold. Yet the world is changing in ways that our lived experience is ill-suited to help us comprehend. Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty is a broad conceptual approach to addressing that problem.

Robert Lempert is a principal researcher at the RAND Corporation, the Santa Monica-based think tank that made its name devising Cold War nuclear deterrence strategy for the military. He’s also one of the intellectual pioneers of DMDU, a concept that’s being increasingly applied to long-term policy and planning challenges where future conditions are tough to predict. DMDU has been used in fields ranging from infrastructure, energy and transportation planning to public health and global security, and has helped cut airlines’ fuel costs and carbon emissions, formulate pandemic responses and analyze the effectiveness of the federal government’s terrorism risk insurance program.

It is particularly suited to situations where decision makers cannot reach consensus about future conditions or when traditional forecasting methods prove inadequate — exactly the problem that Reclamation’s team found itself facing with the climate models.

“What the climate models really give us,” Lempert says, “is overwhelming scientific evidence that the stable planning environment we built the system on has disintegrated.”

Rather than trying to make a best guess about what’s probable, DMDU is laser focused on what’s possible. A DMDU analysis typically starts by generating a wide range of possible future scenarios — or, in the case of a river, future flows. Policy makers can then test potential operating strategies to see which perform reasonably well, or are most robust, against that range. Based on those results, the operating strategies can then be refined to make them even stronger.

Carly Jerla heads Reclamation’s long-term planning process for the Colorado River. (Water Education Foundation)

The process can also be used to identify vulnerabilities in the system and flag them with “signposts.” If system conditions begin approaching those danger zones, the people who depend on them can take up the challenge of devising contingency plans, or damage-control efforts, to stave off a descent into a full-blown water-supply crisis. Navigating those hazardous areas requires difficult choices, but flagging them up front — even if decision makers defer action on them to only when they absolutely have to be dealt with — allows for crucial wiggle room: They can still take some action in the face of uncertainty, even as they punt the really difficult questions to the future.

Lempert and other RAND researchers led much of DMDU’s conceptual development, and they occasionally crossed paths — and exchanged business cards — with members of Reclamation’s Boulder team. Then in 2009, when the team’s members began work on the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, a comprehensive look at the river’s next 50 years, they realized they needed help.

“We found ourselves buried in data,” says Jerla, who has headed the team since 2010. “And we were like, ‘Anyone got those RAND guys’ numbers to come dig us out of this mess?’”

A Brave New World

Even after the seven states reached agreement on the 2007 interim guidelines, the rapidly changing realities of the river forced them into a near-constant series of ongoing negotiations. In 2012, the Reclamation team brought RAND representatives to the meetings to familiarize the states’ technical staff with DMDU.

University of Colorado professors Edie Zagona and Joseph Kasprzyk have played a crucial role in Reclamation’s effort to bring advanced modeling and decision-making techniques to the Colorado River. (Water Education Foundation)

That effort — at least initially — wasn’t exactly a smashing success. The states’ water managers were flummoxed by RAND researchers expounding on abstract concepts from the world of decision science. And, Jerla says with a laugh, “I don’t know that any of usreally even understood what was happening.”

The partnership between Reclamation and RAND wound down after the Water Supply and Demand Study concluded. But the Reclamation team continued working to incorporate DMDU techniques into its research and modeling.

At Reclamation’s behest, Zagona, University of Colorado professor Joseph Kasprzyk and others on the CADSWES team took the Colorado River model and married it with an AI tool called a “multi-objective evolutionary algorithm” developed at Penn State. The algorithm — somewhat ominously named Borg — is a sort of computational supercharger that can create many potential operating strategies, test them out in the river model, and sort through them to find the ones that perform best.

Glen Canyon Dam has four bypass tubes, also referred to as river outlet works (ROWs) that can draw water from Lake Powell around elevation 3,370 feet, bypassing the powerplant and sending the water downstream.

In 2016, the Reclamation team began exploratory work with the Borg-enhanced software to see what it could do. The following year, Kasprzyk, Zagona and a graduate student named Elliot Alexander — who would quickly be hired on with the Reclamation team — used the augmented modeling package to find an operating strategy for Lake Mead, the other main reservoir on the Colorado, that outperformed the one the states had painstakingly negotiated for the 2007 interim guidelines.

But the operation of Lake Mead is just one, albeit very important, variable in the complex Colorado River system. The potential beauty of Borg was that it can combine many policy variables to identify strategies that perform well across multiple objectives in a wide range of hydrologic scenarios.

There’s a catch, however: Multi-objective strategies, practically by definition, demand constant compromise. Keeping the water level in Lake Powell as high as possible, for example, improves the odds of being able to continue generating hydropower at Glen Canyon Dam. But it simultaneously limits water deliveries to the downstream states of California, Arizona and Nevada, among other tradeoffs.

Still, Borg offered a little more. The “evolutionary” part of the algorithm gave it the ability to essentially breed well-performing operating strategies with each other — and even artificially induce mutations — to create new approaches that might perform even better.

Yet Borg sometimes showed a naughty streak.

“It would find a lot of mathematical solutions that maybe were optimal for a certain metric,” says Butler. “But then you’d look at them and you’d think: ‘That’s just absurd.’”

Rebecca Smith is Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Basin research and modeling team lead. (Photo courtesy of Rebecca Smith)

In one test, the team set Borg loose on a mission to minimize the frequency of water shortages over a 30-year model run. The algorithm diligently avoided implementing water-delivery cuts for as many years as possible, until Lake Mead dropped so low that water could not be released from the reservoir, resulting in a sudden, six-million-acre-foot cut to California, Arizona and Nevada — an amount roughly equal to those three states’ entire annual Colorado River water use.

Ultimately, both Reclamation and the state and local water managers would end up using Borg not to generate specific strategies for consideration, but to test strategies of their own devising. But the exploratory work with Borg helped create a virtual anvil on which they could hammer out their own strategies and see how they compared with the bigger world of possibilities — even though some of those might be absurd.

“Borg created this dartboard where, if we’re throwing darts, at least we know where they land,” says Rebecca Smith, Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Basin research and modeling team lead. “Without having that, we’re just saying: ‘I guess this is good’ — but we don’t know how much better we could do.”

Translating Science into Action

Meanwhile, the clock was ticking on the Colorado River. After six grueling years of negotiations, the states reached agreement in 2019 on a Drought Contingency Plan that added to the interim guidelines. But the entire package of agreements was set to expire in just another six years. And so, in 2021, the state negotiating teams started meeting informally again to develop what, after a decade and a half of workarounds, they hoped would be a longer-term operating strategy.

Nathan Bonham of Reclamation’s research and modeling team has played a key part in helping the agency refine its analyses of robustness and vulnerability on the Colorado River. (Water Education Foundation)

While that was happening, the Reclamation team tasked Nathan Bonham, a newly arrived University of Colorado doctoral student who would also eventually be hired by Reclamation, with refining the methods used to assess system vulnerabilities and the robustness of potential operating strategies. That work led to a public web tool, designed in collaboration with CADSWES and consulting firm Virga Labs, that would put the DMDU-inspired upgraded software package into the hands of the negotiating teams as well as water agencies and anyone else, like tribes and environmental groups, with an interest in the river’s future.

The effort to develop the web tool reached a blistering pace over six months in 2023. Smith and H.B. Zeff, another Reclamation engineer at the time, would upload massive numbers of simulations to Microsoft’s cloud of high-performance Azure computers and remotely babysit the models as they ran, only to discover that the computers were rebooting themselves to install updates in the middle of the night.

Despite such glitches, the upgraded software package went online in November 2023, just as the negotiating effort to develop a post-2026 operating strategy was kicking into high gear. Now, water users had a way to test the strategies they were considering against 8,400 possible hydrologic scenarios.

One of the biggest challenges is presenting such complex data in a way that allows negotiators to compare the tradeoffs between various operating strategies.

“I can crunch the numbers all day long,” says Bonham, “but there’s a whole other element of how do you present it visually?”

In the web tool, each strategy under consideration can be displayed on an interactive parallel-axis chart. To a first-time user, the charts look like twisted skeins of yarn on a loom gone haywire. But with familiarity over time, they become a window into possibility.

A web tool allows users to see tradeoffs between the “performance objectives” of various operational strategies, such as keeping water levels higher in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, minimizing water shortages to the Lower Basin states and maintaining conditions that will prevent invasive small mouth bass from entering the Grand Canyon. (Bureau of Reclamation)

Users of the web tool can adjust the relative importance of various “performance objectives”: water levels at lakes Mead and Powell; water releases from the Upper Basin downstream to the Lower Basin; potential water cuts to Lower Basin states; favorable conditions for native fish in the Grand Canyon. Then, at least theoretically, they can find strategies that help them meet the goals they most care about without adversely affecting the objectives of other users, whose buy-in they need for a real-world agreement.

The web tool’s vulnerability analyses also help identify the danger zones — like low river flows below which problems start to occur at particular points in the system — that would necessitate more extensive damage-control efforts.

“That puts some numerical context around it,” Prairie says, “to track not just a feeling, but actually a level of flow that the analysis shows is a point where you start to see failure.”

DMDU’s ability to accurately flag those hazards could also potentially help water managers better respond when conditions start getting really bad.

“If we can understand where (an operating strategy) falls short, and have also seen what is more effective if things get worse,” says Smith, “then we are more prepared to adapt.”

Crunch Time for a Deal

The governors’ representatives are now racing to meet the Nov. 11 deadline to notify the Interior Department whether they’re likely to reach agreement on a post-2026 operating strategy. Reclamation’s Boulder team has been busy helping them with on-the-spot modeling work.

The Central Arizona Project canal cuts through Phoenix. Photo credit: Ted Wood/The Water Desk

For water managers, DMDU is proving to be a mixed blessing — or a double-edged sword. It is helping illuminate and more quantitively delineate the hazardous areas in the river’s future. But it’s also pushing hard questions to the fore.

“It’s a totally different way to think about risk,” says Central Arizona’s Project’s Templeton. “Just by exploring all these potentials, we’re understanding that there are critical thresholds in our future that should prompt some decision-making. That definitely has resonated within our agency.”

The catch, she says, is that DMDU doesn’t provide an unequivocal path through those decisions; it only illuminates the tradeoffs.

“The DMDU approach doesn’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to any of those,” she says. “It’s always: ‘It depends.’”

The algorithm is not going to find a super-strategy for the future — at least not one that all seven states can agree to.

“I think many people like the idea of being able to have a magic strategy. But on the ground, it’s not that simple,” says Laura Lamdin, a senior engineer with the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies urban Southern California. “Having the ability to quickly test a bunch of ideas as you try and incorporate some out-of-the-box thinking is valuable to creating those more handcrafted strategies.”

In the end, DMDU’s real utility may not lie in delivering miracle fixes, but simply in helping water managers better understand the ramifications of their decisions.

The negotiators for the states may be able to reach agreement on a less-than-perfect plan that still gives them the flexibility to deal with tougher questions as they arise. In fact, it seems likely that any operating strategy the states can agree on will follow the incremental approach they’ve taken so far. If that turns out to be true, DMDU could help bring a better-informed style of incrementalism to the effort to work through the problems on the river.

In that mode of problem-solving, the danger zones are critical. In one sense, they are the perilous realms where water gets really tight. Yet they also mark the legal minefields that the states have so carefully steered clear of throughout the negotiations since 2005.

“One of the big problems is there’s a lot of the Compact questions that have been put off for many, many, many years,” says J.B. Hamby, the California governor’s representative in the negotiations. “We’ve continued to dance around them — and (now) here we are dealing with them, but with really bad hydrology, which then puts these core questions to the test.”

Paradoxically, as punishing as the entire two-decade-long negotiating process has been, it has spurred an era of innovation on the river, opening the door to more flexible reservoir operations and what has grown to be a massive water banking and transfer program.

Viewed more optimistically, then, DMDU’s ability to mark the danger zones in a post-2026 operating strategy might also reveal places where there could be new opportunities for the states to cut even more of the incremental deals they’ve managed to make between themselves so far.

Tough Choices Lie Ahead

Still, nearly everyone at the negotiating table acknowledges that a hard reality lies behind all of this. Annual water use throughout the Colorado River Basin currently exceeds inflows by at least 3.6 million acre-feet. The only way to make the numbers work over the long term — to truly make the Colorado River system robust against a future in which the only certainty is that there will be far less water — is to reduce the total amount of water used throughout the entire basin.

The white “bathtub ring” behind Hoover Dam shows the decline in Lake Mead levels since the beginning of the Millennium Drought. (Bureau of Reclamation)

Depending on how big they are, water cuts could have enormous economic impacts. In fact, the biggest point of contention in the negotiation of the post-2026 operating guidelines is which states would take cuts, and how big they’d be. In 2024, California, Arizona and Nevada committed to collectively reducing their use by 1.25 million acre-feet a year — 20 percent of what they used that year — and proposed splitting additional cuts with the Upper Basin and Mexico up to a total of 3.9 million acre-feet.

For their part, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico have, at least publicly, been adamant about not taking any cuts. They argue that, without any large upstream reservoirs backstopping their water supplies, they’ve already been disproportionately affected by drought and climate change — and, because they’ve grown slower than their downstream counterparts, they’re still entitled to water under the Compact that they haven’t yet put to use.

Breaking through that stalemate is the key challenge negotiators now face, and by most accounts their prospects for doing so are dim. But regardless of whether they can resolve that impasse by November, the really hard questions may be coming sooner rather than later.

The research and modeling team’s analyses suggest that when the Colorado River’s 10-year average annual flow dips into the 12- to 13-million acre-foot range, a lot of things start going wrong. As it happens, the river’s flows over the past five years have fallen squarely within that range. And in September, an independent group of Colorado River experts released an analysisshowing that, without immediate reductions in water use, the amount of “realistically accessible storage” in Lake Powell and Lake Mead could essentially be exhausted by early 2027.

The 21^st century Colorado River is a world of inescapable tradeoffs, and DMDU is, at root, a search for the least-bad strategy to which everyone can agree. But, Smith says, that kind of compromise comes with a big question: “Are we prepared to deal with the realities of whatever gets chosen?”

“That’s the thing about DMDU,” she adds. “It shifts when you have to make the call — but you do still have to make a call.”

Reach Writer Matt Jenkins at mjenkins@watereducation.org.

Know someone who wants to stay connected to water in the West? Encourage them to sign up for Western Water and follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and Instagram.

Negotiations to continue beyond 14-hour hearing over one of the #ColoradoRiver’s oldest water rights — The #Aspen Times #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Times website (Ali Longwell). Here’s an excerpt:

September 20, 2025

The battle over one of the Colorado River’s oldest, non-consumptive water rights continued this week during a 14-hour Colorado Water Conservation Board hearing over whether the rights could be used for the environment. The Colorado River District is seeking to acquire the Shoshone water rights — tied to a hydropower plant on the Colorado River in Glenwood Canyon — from Xcel Energy for $99 million. The River District, a governmental entity representing 15 Western Slope counties, is proposing to add an instream flow agreement to the acquisition, which would allow a certain amount of water to remain in the river for environmental benefits. While the state’s water board — the only entity that can hold an instream flow water right in Colorado — was set to decide on the proposal this week, this was pushed to November after the parties agreed to take more time to reach a consensus on the proposal.

“The exercise of the Shoshone water rights impacts almost every Coloradan,” said Davis Wert, an attorney speaking on behalf of Northern Water.

Northern Water is contesting the instream flow agreement alongside Denver Water, Aurora Water, and Colorado Springs Utilities. These providers rely on transmountain diversions from the Colorado River basin to supply water to their customers…While the hearing did include some back and forth, the entities west and east of the Continental Divide agreed on a few things during the hearing. First, adding an instream flow agreement to the Shoshone right will preserve and improve the natural environment. Second, they want to maintain the status quo on the Colorado River…Michael Gustafson, in-house counsel for Colorado Springs Utilities, said the provider did not oppose the change of the senior Shoshone water right for instream flow purposes “to provide for permanency of the historic Shoshone call and maintenance of the historical Colorado River flow regime…

With that, however, there were a few sticking points during the hearing: who should manage the instream flow agreement — and have the authority to make decisions on Shoshone calls — and how much water has historically been granted as part of the right. The historic flow regime has been highly contested between the parties but will ultimately be determined in the Colorado Water Court proceedings that will conclude the River District’s acquisition. Wert acknowledged this as the Front Range entities presented a historic use analysis that contrasted the preliminary analysis obtained by the River District…The Colorado River District’s proposed instream flow agreement includes a “co-management strategy,” while the contesting Front Range providers want the sole management authority to reside with the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Navajo Dam operations update September 23, 2025: Bumping up releases to 650 cfs #SanJuanRiver

The San Juan River near Navajo Dam, New Mexico, Aug. 23, 2015. Photo credit: Phil Slattery Wikimedia Commons

From email from Reclamation (Conor Felletter):

The Bureau of Reclamation has scheduled an increase in the release from Navajo Dam to 650 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the current release of 500 cfs for Tuesday September 23, at 4:00 AM.

Releases are made for the authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit, and to attempt to maintain a target base flow through the endangered fish critical habitat reach of the San Juan River (Farmington to Lake Powell). The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program recommends a target base flow of between 500 cfs and 1,000 cfs through the critical habitat area. The target base flow is calculated as the weekly average of gaged flows throughout the critical habitat area from Farmington to Lake Powell.

This scheduled release change is subject to changes in river flows and weather conditions. If you have any questions, please contact Conor Felletter (cfelletter@usbr.gov or 970-637-1985), or visit Reclamation’s Navajo Dam website athttps://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/nvd.html

Experts: Slash #ColoradoRiver consumption ASAP to avoid crisis. Wacky Weather Watch: Tornadoes in Utah; no fruit in Capitol Reef — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org) #COriver #aridification

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

September 16, 2025

🥵 Aridification Watch 🐫

The deadline is rapidly approaching for the Colorado River Basin states to come up with a plan for divvying up the river’s waters and operating its reservoirs and other plumbing infrastructure after 2026. But a team of experts ¹ warns that even if the states do make the November deadline — and it’s looking more and more likely they won’t — it won’t be soon enough to avert a crisis in the coming 12 months if the region experiences another dry winter.

Their analysis found that a repeat of the 2025 water year, which ends at the end of this month, will result in consumptive water use in the basin exceeding the Colorado River’s natural flow by at least 3.6 million acre-feet. That would potentially use up the remainder of the “realistically accessible storage” in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, constraining reservoir operations as early as next summer.

“Given the existing limitations of the river’s infrastructure,” they write, “avoiding this possible outcome requires immediate and substantial reductions in consumptive use across the Basin.”

The authors of the paper acknowledge that, despite a plethora of available data, it can be “difficult to see the water forest amid all the data trees.” Interpreting the data is rife with complexity, and translating snow water equivalents at hundreds of SNOTEL sites into streamflow forecasts is an uncertain science. However, it is abundantly clear that for the last quarter century, the collective users of the Colorado River have consumed more than the river offered, leading to a deep drawdown of the basin’s “saving accounts,” i.e. Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and a dozen smaller federal reservoirs.

As of Sept. 14, Lake Powell contained about 6.85 million acre-feet of water², which is less than one-third of what was in the reservoir on the same date in 1999 (23.23 MAF). Lake Mead held about 8 MAF, or 32% of capacity. Equally striking is that in just the last year, Lake Powell has lost about 2.4 MAF of its water — or about 30 feet of surface elevation — to downstream releases and evaporation. The savings account is rapidly draining.

The authors assume that next year’s natural flow on the Colorado River will be the same as in 2025, or 9.3 MAF³, which they describe as a “realistic and conservative, but not overly alarmist, projection” based on the Bureau of Reclamation’s own forecasts. And, also based on Reclamation reports, they assume total Colorado River consumptive use in the U.S. and Mexico will be 12.9 MAF.

That makes for a deficit of 3.6 MAF that will have to come from the reservoirs’ dwindling storage, potentially putting the elevation of Lake Powell at 3,500 feet by this time next year. And, due to the infrastructure’s limitations and the Bureau of Reclamation’s desire to keep the reservoir from dropping below minimum power pool, Glen Canyon Dam would have to be operated as a “run of the river” (ROR) facility. That means it couldn’t release more water than is coming into the reservoir at any given time, severely reducing downstream flows in the Grand Canyon and causing an even more rapid drawdown of Lake Mead.

Lava Falls: “This, I was told, is the biggest drop on the river in the GC. It’s 35 feet from top to bottom of the falls,” John Fowler. The photo was taken from the Toroweap overlook, 7 June 2010, via Wikimedia.

Lake Powell inflows this August totaled about 268,000 acre-feet, while releases were 761,000 acre-feet, meaning under the ROR scenario the monthly release volume would be cut by nearly 500,000 acre-feet. Even more alarming is that instead of sending between 9,000 and 12,000 cubic feet of water per second into the Grand Canyon, late summer streamflows below the dam could fall as low as 2,000 cfs, affecting aquatic life and making river running significantly less predictable (and more like the pre-dam days⁴, save for the amount of sediment in the water). I’d be curious to see Crystal rapid or Lava Falls at 2,000 cfs. Any insight on that one would be appreciated.

While this scenario could be delayed by essentially draining upstream reservoirs such as Flaming Gorge in Utah and Wyoming or Blue Mesa in Colorado, it would only offer a temporary reprieve. Two consecutive dry years would certainly render Glen Canyon Dam essentially useless, and leave Lower Basin users high and dry. Which leaves the folks relying on the river with a couple of choices: They can pray for a lot of snow and hope someone’s listening, or they can slash consumption significantly and rapidly.

Challenge at Glen Canyon — Jonathan P. Thompson

Would a Colorado River deal spell disaster for the Grand Canyon? — Jonathan P. Thompson

⛈️ Wacky Weather Watch⚡️

Not just one, but two tornadoes hit San Juan County, Utah, over the weekend, and when I say tornadoes, I mean honest-to-god twisters of the kind you normally see in the Midwest, not in the Four Corners region. In fact, one of them wrecked three houses and damaged others in the Montezuma Creek area, according to a Navajo Timesreport, while another touched down south of Blanding and destroyed or damaged homes, trailers, and a hay barn. While there were no reports of human injuries, but an unknown number of pets and livestock went missing during the event.

The tornadoes were part of a series of late-season monsoonal storms that hit the region, bringing downpours, increasing streamflow, and leaving some mountain peaks white with a dusting of snow. The storms’ effects varied across the region. Flows in the San Juan River in Pagosa, for example, shot up from around 100 cfs to over 1,000 cfs in a matter of hours before falling back down again almost as rapidly, whereas the Animas River in Durango jumped up to almost 600 cfs and plateaued for a few days. It’s the latter, more sustained increase that could give Lake Powell a much-needed bump, although it won’t mean much without a lot of snow this coming winter.

It looks like AI generated this. It did not. That’s real life, as surreal as it may appear. Source: San Juan County Sheriff Facebook page.

***

Well this is a bummer: There’s no fruit in the Fruita Historic District orchards in Capitol Reef National Park this year.

The Gifford Homestead in Capitol Reef National Park. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

The orchards sit in the lush valley of the Fremont River under the watch of desert varnished Wingate sandstone cliffs, and typically the trees produce cherries, plums, peaches, almonds, pears, apples, quince, walnuts, mulberries, nectarines, and apricotsthat are free for the picking. The folks at the Gifford Homestead store even make and sell outrageously good pies using said fruit (I think I may have eaten more than one pie last time I was there).

But this spring “an unusual warm spell began the bloom at the earliest time in 20 years,” according to Capitol Reef National Park’s climate webpage. “The warmth was interrupted twice by nights that plummeted below freezing. This temperature whiplash froze even the hardier blossoms, causing a loss of over 80% of the year’s fruit harvest. Climate change threatens this bountiful, interactive, and historical treasure.”

That sucks, but I have to say I’m pleasantly surprised that the National Park Service still has this sort of climate-related information on its website, and that it is even allowed to use the word “climate” these days.

😀 Good News Corner 😎

Yes, there are some bright spots in these dark times. One of them is shining out of California’s Central Valley, where the Turlock Irrigation District’s solar-over-canal installation is now online. The project is exactly what it sounds like: An array of photovoltaic panels spanning an irrigation canal. One portion is 20 feet wide, the other 110 feet, and the system has a capacity of 1.6 megawatts, which isn’t huge, but it’s enough to power pumps and other equipment.

A map of the Aqueduct route from the Colorado River to the Coastal Plain of Southern California and the thirteen cities via the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

The California installation follows a similar installation built by the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona last year. Both are scene as test cases that could open the door to much larger, utility-scale arrays.

The arrays not only generate power, but also shade the canals, reducing evaporation. Best of all, the canals are a low-conflict site for solar, and don’t require scraping any deserts of vegetation or messing up neighbors’ views, though it could restrict fishing — if looking to land a catfish or something from a cement-lined waterway is your sort of thing.

There’s really no reason all of the canals in California and Arizona couldn’t be covered with solar. Yes, there are transmission constraints, and some areas would have to remain uncovered for access and maintenance, but still. And while we’re at it, why not put the panels over parking lots and on top of big box stores and reclaimed coal mines and, well, you get the picture.

***

Also in the cool news department: Navajo entrepreneur Celesta Littleman’s Sunbeam Tours and Railway is working to convert the old electric railway that hauled coal from Black Mesa to the Navajo Generating Station into a track for zero-emissions electric rail vehicles for tourists, sightseers, and anyone else that wants to travel the scenic route.

1 Analysis of Colorado River Basin Storage Suggests Need For Immediate Action, by: Jack Schmidt, Director of the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University; Anne Castle of the Getches-Wilkinson Center at CU Boulder and former U.S. Commissioner of the Upper Colorado River Commission; John Fleck, Writer in Residence at the Utton Transboundary Resources Center at the University of New Mexico; Eric Kuhn, Retired General Manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District; Kathryn Sorenson, of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University and former Director of the Phoenix Water Services; and Katherine Tara of the Utton Transboundary Resources Center.

2 This is the total amount of water backed up behind Glen Canyon Dam. But this is not all available for use due to the dam’s infrastructure and the need to keep the water level above minimum power pool so that water can continue to be released via the penstocks and hydroelectric turbines. There’s actually only about 2.7 million acre-feet of “realistically accessible storage” in Lake Powell and 3.6 MAF in Lake Mead (as of 9/1/2025).

3 This includes 8.5 MAF natural flow at Lees Ferry, plus about .8 MAF from springs and tributaries running into the river between Lees Ferry and Hoover Dam.

4 For months after the dam was first completed, managers released a relative trickle at times, with daily flows at Lees Ferry dropping as low as 700 cfs in 1963 and lower than 1,000 cfs on many occasions in the sixties. And prior to the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, when minimum daily releases were implemented, managers sometimes released as little as 1,300 cfs from the dam at times to try to maintain reservoir levels.

Front Range and Western Slope debate who should control Shoshone water rights: The #Colorado Water Conservation Board decision postponed until November — Heather Sackett #COriver #aridification

From left, Hollie Velasquez Horvath, regional vice president for state affairs and community relations for Xcel, Kathy Chandler-Henry, president of the Colorado River Water Conservation District and Eagle County commissioner and Andy Mueller, general manager of the River District, at the kickoff event Tuesday [December 19, 2023] for the Shoshone Water Right Preservation Campaign in Glenwood Springs. The River District has inked a nearly-$100-million deal to acquire the water rights tied to the Shoshone hydropower plant in Glenwood Canyon. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):

September 19, 2025

Over two days of hearings, Colorado water managers laid out their arguments related to one of the most powerful water rights on the Colorado River and who should have the authority to control it.

The Colorado River Water Conservation District plans to buy the water rights associated with the Shoshone hydropower plant in Glenwood Canyon from Xcel Energy and use the water for environmental purposes. To do so, it must secure the support of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The CWCB is the only entity allowed to own instream-flow water rights, which are designed to keep a minimum amount of water in rivers to benefit the environment.

The CWCB heard more than 14 hours of testimony Wednesday and Thursday from the River District and its supporters, as well as the four big Front Range water providers — Northern Water, Denver Water, Aurora Water and Colorado Springs Utilities. All the parties agree that the water rights would benefit the environment.

But the Front Range parties object to certain aspects of the River District’s proposal that they say could harm their interests. They said this is not a water grab for more; their goal is to protect what they already have.

“Colorado Springs Utilities is not looking to gain additional water by the conversion of the Shoshone water rights for use as an instream flow,” said Tyler Benton, a senior water resource engineer with CSU. “Quite simply, Colorado Springs Utilities cannot afford to lose existing water supplies as our city continues to grow.”

The CWCB was supposed to have voted Thursday on whether to accept the senior water rights, which are for 1,408 cubic feet per second and date to 1902, for instream-flow purposes, but the River District on Tuesday granted a last-minute 60-day extension. The board is now scheduled to decide at its regular meeting in November.

Adding this instream-flow right would ensure that water keeps flowing west even when the 116-year-old plant — which is often down for repairs and is vulnerable to wildfire and mudslides in the steep canyon — is not operating, an occurrence that has become more frequent in recent years.

Critically, because the plant’s water rights are senior to many other water users, Shoshone has the ability to command the flows of the Colorado River and its tributaries upstream all the way to the headwaters. This means it can “call out” junior Front Range water providers with younger water rights who take water across the Continental Divide via transmountain diversions and force them to cut back. And because the water is returned to the river after it runs through the plant’s turbines, downstream cities, irrigators, recreators and the environment on the Western Slope all benefit.

Over two days of debate in a meeting room on the campus of Fort Lewis College, the parties went deep into the weeds of complicated technical aspects of the River District’s proposal, including the historic use of the water rights, the interplay of upstream reservoirs, detailed external agreements among the parties, state Senate documents and hydrologic modeling.

But these were all proxy arguments for the underlying implicit questions posed to the state water board: Who is most deserving of the state’s dwindling water supply and who should control it: the Western Slope or the Front Range?

The River District is pushing for co-management of the water rights with the CWCB. It would be a departure from the norm, as the CWCB has never shared management of an instream-flow water right this large or this important with another entity.

“Choosing not to accept these rights now or choosing to impose a condition that involves the lack of co-management of these rights with us means that you have chosen the opposers over the West Slope,” River District General Manager Andy Mueller told board members Wednesday. “It actually is a decision to side with one side of the divide.”

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.

The board heard from a wide coalition of Western Slope supporters, including irrigators, water providers, elected officials, environmental advocates and recreation groups about how the Shoshone flows are critical to their rural communities, economies and culture. They also heard from Front Range water providers who reminded the board that their cities are an economic engine and home to some of the state’s best hospitals, institutions of higher education, biggest employers and important industries.

The Shoshone hydropower plant in Glenwood Canyon has one of the biggest and oldest nonconsumptive water rights on the Colorado River. The River District plans to buy it from Xcel Energy and add an instream flow water right, but it needs the cooperation of the state water board. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Call authority

One of the most contentious issues that remains unresolved between the Western Slope and Front Range is who gets to control the Shoshone call and when the call is “relaxed.” Under existing but rarely used agreements, the Shoshone call can be reduced during times of severe drought, allowing the Front Range to continue taking water. According to the River District’s proposed draft instream flow agreement, the CWCB and River District would have to jointly agree in writing to reduce the call.

The River District and members of the coalition drew a line in the sand on this issue: The Western Slope must have some authority over the exercise of the Shoshone water rights. If control rests solely with the CWCB — meaning the Denver-based staff could control the call without input from the Western Slope which would be purchasing the rights at great expense — it would be a deal-breaker.

“That is the one sword that the West Slope is prepared to fall on,” Mueller said. “It would be a clearly undesirable outcome, from our perspective, not to have that partnership with the CWCB. I think we would be forced to walk away from the instream-flow process.”

Mueller added that if the deal falls apart, the River District would find another way to secure the Shoshone water rights for the Western Slope.

“Do I have other ideas? Do we have other mechanisms that we would then pursue to guarantee the perpetual Shoshone rights?” he said. “Yes, we do. None of them are as collaborative. None of them are as beneficial to the state as a whole.”

The parties also disagree on another major point: precisely how much water is associated with the water rights. But the issue is outside the purview of the CWCB and will be hashed out in a later water court process if the state agrees to move forward with the proposal.

The Front Range parties believe the River District’s preliminary estimate of the hydro plant’s historic water use is inflated and would be an expansion of the water right. Past use of the water right is important because it helps set a limit for future use. The amount pulled from and returned to the river must stay the same as it historically has been because that is what downstream water users have come to rely on.

Kyle Whitaker, water rights manager for Northern Water, said that if the River District insists on co-management of the call, it could make for an ugly water court process that has a chilling effect on cooperation among the parties.

“The most important issue for Northern Water is for the CWCB to retain the full discretion of the exercise of the Shoshone water rights for instream-flow purposes,” Whitaker said. “I can assure you that if any level of discretion on the exercise of the rights is not retained by the CWCB, it will force all the entities involved to drive towards a significantly lower historic-use quantification. We have to protect our systems.”

Board members implored the River District and Front Range parties to use the 60-day extension to come to an agreement over the call authority issue. CWCB Chair Lorelei Cloud asked Mueller if he could bring everybody from both sides together for a win-win agreement that protects the entire state.

“We can’t have another divide within the state of Colorado,” Cloud said. “And so I’m asking: Are you capable and willing to do that by November?”

Mueller promised the River District and Western Slope coalition would do everything in their power to reach an agreement. The River District granted the two-month extension, in part, so that the parties could attempt to negotiate a resolution. But ultimately, Mueller said, it’s not up to him.

“We have been engaged in very good faith efforts, and we have been putting offers on the table and listening to the needs of the Front Range and trying to create solutions for them,” he said. “But can I guarantee you that we will be responsible for getting all of those parties to agree? I can’t say that because I have no actual control or ability over the Front Range to make that happen.”

A stormy meeting in #Yuma about water — Allen Best #RepublicanRiver #OgallalaAquifer

Center pivot south of Holyoke. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

September 18, 2025

Cumulus clouds towering over the Great Plains on Tuesday afternoon inspired visions of Greek gods casting bolts. In McCook, Neb., the storm dumped five inches of rain accompanied by hail that ranged from the size of golf balls to baseballs.

McCook is located along the Republican River, which originates on the eastern plains of Colorado far distant from mountain snows. Despite summer thunderstorms, it’s a dry area with an average annual precipitation of about 17 inches. The water in the river that flows into Nebraska comes almost entirely from the Ogallala Aquifer, much of that water deposited millions of years ago.

In Colorado, the North Fork of the Republican River flows through Yuma. It stormed there on Tuesday night, too, lightning flashing occasionally through the windows. But the storm inside a room at the Yuma County Fairgrounds was of an entirely different sort.

The simple question was how did those farmers who pump water from the underlying Ogallala aquifer wish to tax themselves? For Colorado to honor its compact commitments to Nebraska and hence Kansas, both of them downstream, it has to make changes.

Those who spoke loudest said they did not want to be taxed based on the volumes of water they use. Some questioned the need for any fees. Some questions suggested a denial that any problem exists. Just let us keep pumping the aquifer as we have!

The meeting was the finale of six meetings held across the Republican River Basin in recent weeks. Like the others, it was well attended. At least 75 people showed up, many wearing the cap and blue jeans they had worn earlier in the day while working in their fields of corn and other crops.

Republican River Basin. By Kansas Department of Agriculture – Kansas Department of Agriculture, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7123610

In November, directors of the Republican River Water Conservation District must decide exactly how they want to move forward. To stay in compact compliance, the district wants to expand a well field that has allowed them to do so, if sometimes with narrow margins.

A 1942 compact among Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas specified how much water the upstream states must allow to flow downstream. That wasn’t an issue until the massive application of high-capacity pumps and then center-pivot sprinklers in the 1960 and 1970s allowed farmers to mine the aquifer in the Republican River Basin. In Colorado, more than a million acre-feet of water were pumped in peak years.

This has had the effect of reducing flows in downstream states. Kansas sued Nebraska, and then Nebraska sued Colorado. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, as all interstate compacts must.

The upshot is that Colorado agreed to toe the line. The Republican River Water Conservation District was created in 2004 with the principal function of keeping Colorado in compact compliance.

That’s a tall order. Rod Lenz, the president of the board of directors, said that farmers in the district need to figure out how to reduce their pumping to extract an average of 600,000 acre-feet a year. They have averaged 700,000 acre-feet in recent years.

The warming climate has not helped. Drought most definitely does not. In 2022, a hot and dry year, farmers pumped 940,000 acre-feet.

By reducing pumping to 600,000 acre-feet, farmers in the basin will have a longer glide path as they figure out more sustainable ways to farm.

Pumping at current rates will cause some areas to lose water in 25 years, although other areas will have water for many more decades. Yuma lies in one of the more water-flush areas.

“We’re not here to regulate,” said Lenz at a meeting in Joes the prior week. “We’re here to stay in compact compliance.”

That’s a thin distinction but one suggestive of the tricky line being negotiated by directors. Change must occur, but change is rarely welcomed except by babies with soiled diapers.

The district’s directors have adopted a two-pronged strategy for keeping Colorado out of the courtroom with Nebraska. One strategy, which was initiated in 2016, involving taking land out of irrigated production. By early 2025, more than 17,000 acres had been removed from irrigation, almost entirely within the river’s south fork area. The Ogallala in that area around Cheyenne Wells, Burlington, and Idalia never was as thick, the reservoir of water amid the underground rocks never as plentiful. In many places, the aquifer has been drained.

The second strategy to ensure compact compliance has been to mine water from north of Wray, where the aquifer has greater quantities of water, to deliver at the Nebraska border to ensure compact compliance. Those wells have produced 98,519 acre-feet in the first 10 years.

All of this has not come cheaply. More than $123 million has been spent by the district so far, a combination of federal and state funds along with assessments by the Republican River district of irrigated lands. Those assessments began at $5 an acre but have elevated to $30 an acre.

At the meeting in Yuma, as they had the week before in Joes, Lenz and other directors outlined their thoughts and choices. Foremost in their current strategy is to continue to pay landowners enough money to take land out of production to achieve the goal of 25,000 acres before the end of 2029. The district has about 8,000 acres to go. Landowners are paid for full or partial retirement of land from cultivated agriculture.

More controversially, they also want to expand the well field that allows water to be pumped and then delivered to Nebraska. They plan eight more wells at an estimated cost of $11 million.

Beyond that, they envision even more wells, elevating the total cost to more than $165 million to keep in compliance. That would allow the farmers now mining the Ogallala to continue to mine it without drastic alteration.

The immediate question is whether to stay with the existing assessment of $30 per acre of land. Another approach would be to adopt a fee, half of it to be based on amounts of land being irrigated and half on the amount of water pumped. The third option is the amount of land being irrigated and a tiered rate based on amount of water used, with those using more water paying more.

These latter two proposals would have the effect of encouraging conservation. Directors say they would keep the district’s budget at $15 million annually. However, it’s not clear what impact expanding the well field will have on that budget.

A show of hands at the Yuma meeting showed little appetite for changes in the fee structure. Some questions from audience members suggested rejection of the need for change. Do you really need this money? And is this expensive expansion of the well field needed? Might just two wells, not eight, suffice?

One speaker even challenged whether Colorado had to comply with the compact.

The short answer is that yes, it must. It’s that or agree to spend considerable money in litigation that would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has already twice.

The question beyond that question is what would be the stance of Colorado’s governor and attorney general in 2030 if Colorado were to choose to violate the compact? The state water engineer — an appointee of the governor — has authority to shut down all wells in the basin as necessary to comply. Would the state water engineer do so?

That strategy would be risky, responded Randy Hendrix, the river district’s engineering consultant. Wells could be shut down for multiple years.

A few audience members, however, did acknowledge the difficult challenge. “I want to thank all you guys for the hard work. This is a hard job, hard subject,” said one audience member.

What can be said with certainty is that directors of the district who fielded questions managed to keep their cool in the face of the sometimes hard questions and statements.

At their quarterly meeting in November, directors must figure out how to move forward. Or, as some suggested, just ignoring Nebraska and the state engineer and letting those chips fall where they may.

Nominee for top federal water role withdraws amid pushback from some #ColoradoRiver states — Alex Hager (KUNC.org) #COriver #aridification

Water from the Colorado River flows into the Central Arizona Project on August 5, 2025. Ted Cooke spent much of his career at the agency, and some water leaders worried that he would bring bias from that job into a new federal role. Alex Hager/KUNC

Click the link to read the article on the KUNC.org website (Alex Hager):

September 18, 2025

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

The Trump Administration’s nominee to run the Bureau of Reclamation is withdrawing from the process. Ted Cooke, a longtime water manager in Arizona, said he was asked to step back by the White House.

Cooke had been nominated to serve as commissioner of the federal agency that oversees the Colorado River. He faced pushback from some politicians and water officials who worried that he might bring bias into the position.

“I was a political casualty,” Cooke told KUNC on Wednesday.

The seven states that use the Colorado River are stuck in tense talks about how to share its water in the future. They are split into two camps: the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico, and the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada.

Negotiations ahead of a 2026 deadline appear to be making little progress, and federal water officials can help push states towards agreement. If they can’t reach a deal in time, the federal government can step in and make those decisions itself. After Cooke’s nomination in June, some policymakers in the Upper Basin quietly expressed concern that he might favor the Lower Basin during that process.

Top water officials in the Upper Basin were tight-lipped in their opposition, but multiple sources with knowledge of the situation told KUNC that Cooke would face a difficult path to confirmation.

In a June meeting, Utah’s top Colorado River negotiator, Gene Shawcroft, briefly touched on the Trump Administration’s pick to run Reclamation.

“I hesitate to use the word disturbing, but it is a little disturbing,” Shawcroft said. “That is concerning to us for a variety of reasons, and I’ll probably leave it at that.”

Water levels sit low in Lake Powell near Bullfrog, Utah on September 15, 2025. Negotiations to manage the shrinking reservoir and the rest of the Colorado River system may be more difficult without federal leadership. Alex Hager/KUNC

Cooke spent more than two decades working for the Central Arizona Project, which brings Colorado River water to the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Any new plan for managing the Colorado River is likely to include cuts to demand, and Cooke’s former employer is generally among the first entities to lose water under any plan for cutbacks.

Water experts around the region said he was a qualified expert, and Cooke himself denied that he would bring a bias to his new position.

A panel of officials from the lower basin states at the Colorado River Water Users Association in Las Vegas, on Dec. 13, 2018. From left, Thomas Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources; Ted Cooke, General Manager, Central Arizona Project; Peter Nelson, chairman, Colorado River Board of California; and John Entsminger, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority.

“I don’t really appreciate being pre-judged by folks saying, ‘oh he’s just going to be a Lower Basin or an Arizona partisan,’” Cooke told KUNC in June, shortly after his nomination. “I call that projection. If this is what someone else would do in my shoes, then I feel sorry for them. But it’s not necessarily where I’d be coming from.”

Cooke said he was recently contacted by a White House staffer who asked him to withdraw from the nomination process for a certain reason, but Cooke declined to share that reason.

“I’ve since learned from other folks that I know, and I know lots of people, that that reason was pretty much a BS reason to basically get me out of the running,” Cooke said. “Because there were certain objections that had been raised from some of the states with which I would be dealing.”

Cooke’s withdrawal means that the top federal Colorado River agency will remain without a permanent leader. The seat has already been vacant for eight months. That may make seven-state negotiations more challenging. State water leaders have saidthat the threat of federal action can make it easier to find agreement.

While the top Reclamation role goes unfilled, other federal water officials appear to be filling the gap. Scott Cameron, a longtime federal official who currently serves as the Department of the Interior’s acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, told a room of water experts in June that he was intimately involved with those seven-state talks.

As for Cooke, he said he plans to stay in the Colorado River space.

“If this door is shut, there’s lots of other open doors,” he said. “It’s disappointing, don’t get me wrong, but I’m not going to sulk or be mad or develop a resentment about it. Whatever happened, happened.”

‘No One Comes Out of This Unscathed’: Experts Warn That #ColoradoRiver Use Needs Cutting Immediately — Wyatt Myskow (InsideClimateNews.org) #COriver #aridification

Glen Canyon Dam creates water storage on the Colorado River in Lake Powell. Credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Click the link to read the article on the Inside Climate News website (Wyatt Miskow):

September 15, 2025

A new report finds that Lakes Mead and Powell, the nation’s largest reservoirs, could store just 9 percent of their combined capacity by the end of next summer.

Consumption of Colorado River water is outpacing nature’s ability to replenish it, with the basin’s reservoirs on the verge of being depleted to the point of exhaustion without urgent federal action to cut use, according to a new analysis from leading experts of the river.

The analysis, published Thursday [September 11, 2025], found that if the river’s water continues to be used at the same rate and the Southwest sees another winter as dry as the last one, Lakes Mead and Powell—the nation’s two largest reservoirs—would collectively hold 9 percent of the water they can store by the end of next summer. After enduring decades of overconsumption of the river’s water, the lakes would have just under 4 million acre feet of water in storage for emergencies and drier years when demand can’t be met. Every year, roughly 13 million acre feet is taken from the river for drinking water and human development across the region, with conservative forecasts estimating roughly 9.3 million acre feet of inflow next year.

The report is stark in its assessment of the situation: Current Colorado River levels require “immediate and substantial reductions in consumptive use across the Basin” or Lake Powell by 2027 would have no storage left and “would have to be operated as a ‘run of river” facility” in which only the inflow from the river could be released downstream.

“The River recognizes no human laws or governance structures and follows only physical ones,” the report’s authors wrote. “There is a declining amount of water available in the Colorado River system, primarily caused by the effects of a warming climate—longer growing seasons, drier soils, and less efficient conversion of the winter snowpack into stream flow. Although American society has developed infrastructure to store the spring snowmelt and make that water available in other seasons to more completely utilize the variable runoff, the Colorado River watershed produces only a finite volume of water, regardless of how many dams exist.”

The lifeblood of the American Southwest, the Colorado River’s water flows from Wyoming to Mexico, enabling the region’s population and economies to develop. The damming of the river has diverted water to booming metropolises like Los Angeles and Phoenix while also supporting the U.S.’s most productive agricultural areas and powering some of the its largest hydroelectric dams. In total, the river supplies seven states, 30 tribes and 40 million people with water.

The compact that divvied up the river’s water a century ago overestimated how much actually flowed through it, and climate change has diminished the supply even further. The melting snowpack that runs off mountains in the spring to feed the river has declined, shrinking the river and its storage reservoirs during decades of drought. The seven states that take Colorado River water are divided into two factions engaged in tense conversations about its future and how cutbacks should be distributed. Current guidelines for managing the river in times of drought are set to expire at the end of next year, and new ones are legally required to take their place, but negotiations between states, tribes and other stakeholders over the sharing of the necessary cuts in water usage are at an impasse.

But if current conditions persist, further cutbacks on the river won’t be able to wait until those negotiations are finished, the report’s authors find, and they urged the Department of the Interior “to take immediate action.”

“Let’s hope that we are all wrong and that it snows like hell all winter and runoff is wonderful and we buy ourselves some time and additional buffer,” said Kathryn Sorensen, director of research for Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy and one of the report’s co-authors. “But of course, it never makes sense to plan as if it’s going to snow, and we have to deal with what is a realistic but not worst-case scenario and take responsible actions.”

Adding to the issue is the status of the infrastructure that enables the river to be diverted and stored for use. For example, the researchers write, it was thought that anything above what’s known as “dead pool”—a water level below the reservoirs’ lowest outlets that can pass water through the dams—was “active storage.” But testing last year from the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency overseeing the river and its dams, found that those outlets can only be safely used at water levels higher than previously thought and cannot be used for long durations.

Margaret Garcia, an associate professor at ASU’s School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, who was not a part of the study, said the analyses makes clear the “reality of dead pool is within sight” for the basin’s reservoirs, even without considering the possibility of having an extremely dry year.

She likened the reservoirs to having a savings account with a bank. “When you have a savings account, you have some time to scramble and figure things out,” Garcia said. “But if you’ve already drawn down your savings account and then [you’re laid off] and you never filled it back up at least a little bit, you’re in for a really tough situation.”

And just like a savings account, Garcia said, a reservoir isn’t much good if it can’t generate hydropower or store water.

Sorensen said the secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, has broad authority to act to protect critical infrastructure in both of the river’s basins. The question is what those actions should be.

“The solutions are there,” she said. “The solutions are known. They’re just extraordinarily painful to implement. “

State negotiators have worked this year to determine how to manage the river after 2026, Sorensen said, but the buffer of water stored in reservoirs “that we’re relying on to kind of get us through the negotiations and these difficult times is potentially much smaller than maybe was commonly understood.”

“No one comes out of this unscathed,” she said.

Delta County ranchers want state action on conservation: ‘Shepherding’ needed to get water to Lake Powell — Heather Sackett (AspenJournalism.org) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

From left, Western States Ranches Agricultural Operations Manager Mike Higuera, Conscience Bay Research Program Officer Dan Waldvogle and Colorado State University researcher Perry Cabot. The three held a field day and ranch tour in August for other local ranchers to learn about water conservation and deficit irrigation. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Heather Sackett):

September 9, 2025

As reservoir levels continue to plummet at the end of another dismal water year, some agricultural water users are asking Colorado lawmakers to consider a bill next session that would make it easier for them to get credit for conserving water.

It would be the next step in creating a conservation pool in Lake Powell that the Upper Basin states could use to protect against water scarcity.

Over the past decade, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have dabbled in programs that pay willing participants to use less water on a temporary basis. But so far, that saved water has flowed downstream unaccounted for. Changes to state laws would be needed to allow state officials to shepherd conserved water into a Lake Powell pool.

“Our message is simple: Protect Colorado agriculture by enabling voluntary, compensated water conservation without causing injury to other water users,” Dan Waldvogle told state legislators at an August meeting of the Water and Natural Resources Committee in Steamboat Springs. “Give us credit for the water we save and guarantee that conserved consumptive use is fairly and fully compensated … . The 2026 legislative session is our last best chance to take action and control our future.”

Waldvogle was speaking on behalf of the Colorado Farm Bureau and Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. He also works for Conscience Bay Co., a Boulder-based real estate investment firm that owns a cattle-ranching operation in Delta County known as Western States Ranches.

But allowing the state to shepherd conserved water resurrects old concerns for some on the Western Slope. They say it could open the state to speculators and interstate water markets, with Colorado water users selling their water to the highest bidder in the Lower Basin, which includes California, Arizona and Nevada.

“We’re saying you should not pass a standalone shepherding law or conserved consumptive use law that would allow and enable the state engineer to do that without having a thorough discussion with all stakeholders and encoding in legislation important sideboards and protections for our agricultural industry and our community,” Colorado River Water Conservation District General Manager Andy Mueller told lawmakers at the August meeting.

State Engineer Jason Ullmann said in an email that he does “not have authority to require water conserved through voluntary programs to bypass other Colorado water users’ headgates unless it is necessary to meet Colorado’s compact obligations.” The bypassing of other users’ headgate to deliver water to a point downstream is more commonly known as shepherding.

The General Assembly would need to pass legislation in order to give him that authority, many stakeholders believe.

Western States Ranches near Eckert enrolled some of its fields in the 2024 System Conservation Pilot Program. The ranch was paid about $278,000 to save about 550 acre-feet of water. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

The conservation conversation comes at a pivotal time for water users on the Colorado River, which remains wracked by drought and climate change. The most recent projections from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation show water levels at Lake Powell potentially falling below the threshold needed to make hydropower by November 2026. The reservoir is currently about 28% full.

State Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Democrat who represents several Western Slope counties including Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt and Summit and is the chair of the Water and Natural Resources Committee, told Aspen Journalism that as of now, no bill to address shepherding or future conservation programs is in the works in Colorado. But that may be because the seven states that share the Colorado River are still hashing out how reservoirs will be operated and how cuts will be shared when the current guidelines expire next year.

At the beginning of this summer, negotiators from the seven basin states agreed to a concept that would share water based on flows in the river and not on demands, but talks have since stalled. Federal officials have given the states a Nov. 11 deadline to come up with the outline of a deal.

“I remain fully committed to reaching consensus, but I want to be candid, especially with you all,” Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s lead negotiator, told lawmakers. “The discussions with my counterparts have been and continue to be challenging. I understand why this discussion is so challenging for our Lower Basin counterparts. They have developed a reliance on water that is above their apportionment that is simply not there.”

Colorado and the other Upper Basin states have been tiptoeing into voluntary conservation pilot programs since 2015, and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan allowed for a 500,000-acre-foot conservation pool in Lake Powell. Late last year, Upper Basin officials offered up a 200,000-acre-foot pool in Powell as part of negotiations, and some type of future voluntary conservation program for the Upper Basin appears increasingly likely.

The System Conservation Pilot Program, which first ran from 2015 to 2018, was rebooted in 2023 and paid water users in the Upper Basin to cut back in 2023 and 2024. Over two years, the program doled out about $45 million to conserve just over 100,000 acre-feet of water across the four states.

A main criticism of the SCPP was that the conserved water was not tracked to Lake Powell, even though one of the program’s stated intents was to boost levels in the nation’s second-largest reservoir. In some cases, the water was probably picked up by a downstream water user, with no net gain to Lake Powell. This is the issue that new state legislation could remedy. Until now, the experimental conservation programs were allowed with temporary approvals from state officials.

“We want action,” Waldvogle said. “And I think the way I define action is for [lawmakers] to move forward in developing a program in order to really catalyze our communities into these discussions. To really develop all the sideboards necessary to have a program is going to take a longer time frame.”

Western States Ranches

Conscience Bay owns about 3,800 acres on parcels scattered throughout Delta County, 3,000 of which the company says are irrigated. About 3,200 of these total acres are clustered in Harts Basin near Eckert, making up the headquarters of the company’s reaching operation known as Western States Ranches. The ranch participated in the SCPP in 2024, with water to some fields shut off June 1 and others July 1. The ranch saved about 550 acre-feet, or 7% of its water, according to ranch managers.

Ranch representatives see participation in these early voluntary conservation programs as a way to have some control over their operations should water cuts become mandatory in the future. They say they are interested in innovative ways to adapt to water scarcity, and they partnered with Colorado State University scientists to study the effects on forage crops of taking irrigation off their fields that were enrolled in SCPP in 2024.

“We wanted to figure out how this is going to affect us, and if we are required to do this in the future, we want to have the knowledge to make good decisions,” said Mike Higuera, agricultural operations manager of Western States Ranches. “We assume that we are going to have to conserve water in this game.”

Western States Ranches in Delta County participated in the 2024 System Conservation Pilot Program. The ranch is working with Colorado State University researchers to learn what happens when water is removed from fields. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Western States Ranches hosted an August field day in Eckert with the Western Landowners Alliance for other local farmers and ranchers to learn about drought-resilient ranching and share the findings from CSU researchers.

The ranch’s participation in SCPP has resurrected fears that the owners, who began purchasing the Delta County properties in 2017, are speculating — buying up land for its senior water rights and hoarding them for a future profit. With a water-conservation program in the Upper Basin all but guaranteed, some worry that Western States Ranches could be looking to profit off sending their water downstream.

The question came up at the August field day when a Paonia-area rancher said he had heard the ranch owners were speculators. Conscience Bay representatives have always denied that accusation.

“I can tell you there are a lot better ways to make money,” Higuera replied.

According to SCPP documents, the ranch was paid $278,372 for their water in 2024. Higuera said that amounted to about 10% of their revenue last year, with cattle sales making up the other 90%.

Colorado in recent years has tried to tackle the thorny issues of how to fairly roll out a conservation program while prohibiting speculation. Defining what speculation is and who is a speculator is slippery and hinges on determining the water rights purchaser’s intent — a nearly impossible thing to know or police with 100% certainty. The bottom line of the state’s existing anti-speculation policy is that water-rights owners must put that water to beneficial use.

Ultimately, a 2021 workgroup failed to find consensus about ways to strengthen protections against speculation and a drought task force failed to provide recommendations about conserved consumptive programs for lawmakers, underscoring the difficulty of protecting the state’s water without infringing on private property rights. Some agricultural producers balked at laws that could restrict their ability to make money by selling their land and associated water rights.

At the heart of speculation concerns is the fear of large-scale, permanent dry-up of agricultural lands. Mueller has long cautioned that conservation programs, if not done carefully, could disproportionately impact rural agricultural communities. Although SCPP was open to all water-use sectors, all of Colorado’s participants in SCPP in 2023 and 2024 were from Western Slope agriculture.

“Any program that we have must be designed for our state’s best ability to support the longevity of agriculture and the vitality of our communities, and we’ve got to be thoughtful and precise,” Mueller said.

This equipment in a field on Western States Ranches helps figure out how much water crops use. The ranch partnered with Colorado State University researchers to track what happens to a forage crop when water is removed mid-way through the irrigation season. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Paying for programs

Another big question about Upper Basin conservation remains: How will it be paid for?

SCPP in 2023 and 2024 was funded with money from the federal Inflation Reduction Act. The bill that could have authorized SCPP again in 2025 is still stalled in the House. Over 2023 and 2024, the program doled out about $45 million to water users in the Upper Basin and saved about 101,000 acre-feet.

Without overhauling the West’s system of water rights, voluntary, temporary and compensated conservation programs are one of the only carrots to entice agricultural water users — who account for the majority of water use in the Colorado River Basin — to cut back. But they are expensive, and it’s unclear how future long-term conservation programs would be funded.

Colorado’s entire congressional delegation in early August sent a bipartisan letter to federal water managers, in an effort to shake loose $140 million in funding that was promised for projects addressing drought on the Western Slope in the final days of the Biden administration and then frozen by the Trump administration.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., addressed the question at a Colorado Water Congress meeting in Steamboat Springs in August.

“We’re now not going to have a great federal partner for a while, I’m afraid, and we’re going to have to figure out how to rely on each other and do it in more imaginative ways than maybe we have in the past,” Bennet said.

Navajo Dam operations update September 16, 2025: Bumping releases down to 650 cfs

The San Juan River’s Navajo Dam and reservoir. Photo credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

From email from Reclamation (Conor Felletter):

The Bureau of Reclamation has scheduled a decrease in the release from Navajo Dam to 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the current release of 650 cfs for Tuesday September 16, at 4:00 AM.

Releases are made for the authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit, and to attempt to maintain a target base flow through the endangered fish critical habitat reach of the San Juan River (Farmington to Lake Powell). The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program recommends a target base flow of between 500 cfs and 1,000 cfs through the critical habitat area. The target base flow is calculated as the weekly average of gaged flows throughout the critical habitat area from Farmington to Lake Powell.

This scheduled release change is subject to changes in river flows and weather conditions. If you have any questions, please contact Conor Felletter (cfelletter@usbr.gov or 970-637-1985), or visit Reclamation’s Navajo Dam website athttps://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/nvd.html

Adapting to a dry reality, ‘The natural world is going to prevail in the end’: Saguache County water users work to restore aquifer after years of drought and over-pumping — Evan Arvizu (AlamosaCitizen.com) #RioGrande

Saguache Creek flows from the northwest corner of the San Luis Vallley. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website (Evan Arvizu):

September 13, 2025

The San Luis Valley is running out of water and there’s no way around it.

In Saguache County specifically, the amount of water in Saguache Creek has consistently been going down, while the amount needed to irrigate remains the same. This lack of water due to climate change, drought and overuse affects every aspect of life. Impacts on water access and streamflow are making irrigation more complicated and unpredictable, and for a community that has been built around, and economically relies on, agriculture, this is concerning. Millions of dollars are being spent to try to find solutions and mitigate the impacts, but as these challenges persist, a broader discussion is opening up about the future of agriculture in the Valley.

The question at the heart of the issue: how do communities around the San Luis Valley, like Saguache, not only manage and survive this crisis, but sustainably adapt to a landscape with less water?

The answer is complicated.

Saguache Creek in September, 2025. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

Since 2002, the entire American southwest has been experiencing a severe drought. The San Luis Valley is at the center of this crisis, warming faster than any other region. Increased temperatures, inconsistent precipitation, and decreasing snowpack – alongside overpumping and overuse – has created a dire situation in which the amount of water available for use in Saguache County is rapidly decreasing.

There are two ways to access water in the Valley: pulling directly from surface water sources like creeks, rivers, and lakes, or pumping from wells that pull from the aquifer below. The water system is all connected, and the water level of the aquifer contributes to the streamflow of creeks and surface water through groundwater discharge and baseflow.

Currently, the unconfined aquifer is down over a million acre-feet of water, an amount equal to the size of the Blue Mesa Reservoir in Gunnison. The San Luis Valley has both an unconfined and confined aquifer, but the part that is under Saguache in the north end of the Valley is the confined artesian aquifer. With the structure of a confined aquifer, the loss of water, though concerning, does not prevent well users from accessing water.

It does, however, impact surface water. Unlike the aquifer, where there is still water to pull from even with losses, for surface water, significant losses to the water system mean lower streamflow and sometimes a nonexistent water source.

“If the water table drops 3 to 5 feet, suddenly it becomes disconnected from the creek and doesn’t support the streamflows. The streams just start sinking into the ground,” said Tom McCracken, a farmer and former Saguache creek surface water user. “Streamflows are down across the board. It’s really really getting bad, and it’s exacerbated by the fact that the aquifer is so low. The water is just soaking into the ground instead of running out into the Valley like it used to.”

This means that when the wells are pumping from the aquifer, if the water level drops low enough, they’re inadvertently depleting the flow of the creek, which is water somebody has a right to divert. While this pumping impacts the aquifer as a whole, and is not localized specifically to Saguache County, streamflow of surface water around the Valley feels the impacts. These losses are considered injurious depletions, and they have been disproportionately impacting surface water rights holders, who rely on streamflow to irrigate.

This is especially problematic because water rights in the Valley operate on the concept of prior appropriation, where the longer a water right has existed, the more seniority it gets. In times of water shortage, older water rights have priority over newer water rights.

Saguache rancher George Whitten, owner of Blue Range Ranch and San Juan Ranch. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

“On a creek system like this, there’s a longstanding history of struggles between one ranch and the other because the doctrine of prior appropriation kind of sets up a struggle for water rights right from the very beginning,” said George Whitten, a lifelong rancher in Saguache, who owns Blue Range Ranch and San Juan Ranch. “It’s not a system of sharing but a system of allocation. You have all the water until there’s enough for the next guy and on down. And that changes daily depending on the flow of the stream.”

Generally, in Saguache County, surface water rights are older, and considered senior, often holding numbers that rank priority within surface rights, and well water rights are newer and considered junior.

This has created a unique and challenging problem, spurring tensions in the community, as surface water users, used to having senior water rights, are finding themselves with decreasing water access because of low streamflow, while well water users are able to continue pumping from the aquifer.

“People with surface water rights that are from the 1870s are never happy with the idea that a well that was drilled in 1970 could be flowing when their water right is not there anymore,” said Whitten. “As the Valley starts to dry up, with climate change and a lack of snow fall, surface rights are less and less dependable. We’re set up in this epic struggle for how to deal with that.”

The solution to this problem might seem simple: people just need to pump less water. And while that is true to a degree, addressing this problem is a lot more complicated than that.

“Most people want to restore the aquifer, really, in their heart,” said McCracken. “But it’s like ‘I’m not going to do it if my neighbor’s not going to do it. Why should I be the one to suffer?’”

Under the current state Division of Water Resources model, established with the passing of Senate Bill 04-222, the state provides subdistricts with a maximum amount of predicted depletions for the area annually. Subdistricts then must find enough water to repair those depletions before the growing season starts, mapping it out in an annual replacement plan, which is approved by the state.

That means that for wells to continue operation, the injurious depletions must be remedied, by putting an amount equal to the amount of depletions back into the creek, so that surface water users also have access.

If enough water isn’t located and the plan isn’t approved, users won’t be granted access until it can be figured out. This means water shut off during the growing season. In 2021, Subdistrict 5’s replacement plan was rejected, resulting in about 230 wells being shut off from April 1 through the end of June, when a challenge to the rejection was finally approved, granting water access. Nearly half of the growing season was lost, yielding serious economic consequences.

In order to meet these goals, the Rio Grande Water Conservation District (RGWCD) has been leasing and buying properties and water rights around Saguache County, retiring them from agricultural production, and redirecting the water to repair depletions.

In early 2022, Subdistrict 5 was looking to be in a similar spot as 2021: without enough water to counter the depletions and unable to agree on how to get that water. The RGWCD bought its first big property, the Hazard Ranch, in May of 2022. The purchase consisted of 110 acres of property and 143 acres of water rights from the Hazard family, who had been ranching in the Valley since the 1870s. The water from the Hazard sale was enough to replenish the remaining depletions and got the annual replacement plan approved, allowing other water users to stay in operation. This last-minute purchase ultimately saved Subdistrict 5’s water from being shut down for a second year in a row.

The way the process works is that the subdistricts can purchase water rights and sometimes also the property that those water rights sit on, retiring the land from agricultural use. But finding the right properties and water rights can be tricky. There are limited water rights that are available to be used by the subdistricts, because existing conservation easements along the creek and other factors restrict the locations of potential surface water rights purchases. Each subdistrict also has its own criteria and valuations for what water rights are valuable, and only certain properties meet those criteria.

Currently, Subdistrict 5 is funding projects using loans from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Right now it has two loans worth about $12 million.

Once purchases have been made, the subdistrict files a change of use form that switches the water’s usage designation from irrigation to augmentation. Because this process is usually happening quickly in order to meet depletion needs, this form is often filed as a temporary change of use. A permanent change requires a lengthy court process that can take up to 20 years. As long as the subdistrict has started the court process to get the designation changed, it can continue to operate under the new, temporarily changed designation, until that is officially changed, which allows for more immediate action.

After the change of use, using augmentation wells that pump water to the creek, the water that was previously irrigation and consumptive use (the amount being consumed by the crops) can be redirected and returned, offsetting depletions.

For Subdistrict 5, when it makes this switch to augmentation, it isn’t actually retiring the water rights. The water remains available to be pumped if the subdistrict needs more water to meet requirements in years with large depletions. It is still conserving water because it usually isn’t pumping, and when it is, it isn’t getting anywhere near the historical levels that were pumped when pumping was used for agriculture.

“We all need to pump significantly less or else everybody is going to be shut down. So if we shut down these quarters here, it will allow the other quarters to continue to operate versus everyone being shut down,” said Chris Ivers, program manager for Subdistrict 5. “It’s not that we want to retire productive agricultural land, it’s just that the rules limit how much we can sustainably pump – the rules of nature, I mean.”

Subdistricts must meet both sustainability mandates and injurious depletion mandates from the state. Currently, to meet sustainability goals, Subdistrict 5 must remain within the limits of the historical pumping that took place between 1978-2000 for a 10-year period. Because the district is well within this sustainable range, it has been able to focus on buying water rights without having to prioritize full retirement for sustainability reasons, which is the main focus of some other subdistricts.

“What we’re seeing in the state’s annual measurement under the groundwater rules is that the Saguache response area, the aquifer, is actually recovering in that area at a greater rate than anywhere else in the confined aquifer in the Valley,” said Amber Pacheco, deputy general manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District.

The district’s next big purchase will likely be more of North Star Farm, from whom it has been leasing and buying property for years. North Star, one of the largest water users in the Valley, runs around 30 circles in Subdistrict 5, growing alfalfa for large dairy operations in California. North Star only holds junior, groundwater rights, and its operation consists of a system that pumps water from wells and irrigates using water pivots at the center of every circle.

Farm land in Saguache. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

For surface water users, this purchase is a step in the right direction, as North Star’s water usage has been a point of contention for many years.

“It’s a difficult thing to see a sprinkler running on North Star Farm when the number 10 water right is off in Saguache Creek,” said Whitten, who is vice president of the Subdistrict 5 board of managers. “Seeing them able to pump a full supply of water without any surface rights whatsoever, when the people on the creek, due to the lack of inflows, are sitting there drying up and watching that go on – it’s a hard spot in this community for sure,” said Whitten. “I totally get it. I have a lot of land that is not usable anymore because of North Star.”

This situation acts as a prime example of the cultural clash that exists in the Valley, not only between surface and well water rights holders, but also between a large corporate entity in a sea of family-owned and operated businesses.

But even though North Star is an out-of-state corporation, the situation is complicated because the locals who are employed by North Star are a part of the community as well.

“You know the people who work there, who manage that farm, they live in Sanford, but they have kids in school and they’re part of the community too. If you get too focused on Saguache Creek you lose your perspective,” Whitten said.

Drying up North Star has been a longtime goal of the RGWCD and other community members. They have embarked on several endeavors over the years with the goal of purchasing the whole property and all of its water rights, but the price has always been just out of reach. Ultimately people want the land dried up and revegetated, with all of that water being put back into the creek.

Today, the goal remains the same, but instead of all at once, it’s starting to happen in small pieces. Starting in 2021, Subdistrict 5 was leasing one to three groundwater irrigated sprinkler quarter sections from North Star, negotiating those leases annually. Each quarter contains about 120 acres of irrigated ground. In 2024, Subdistrict 5 purchased the water rights to those three leased quarters, and Subdistrict 2 purchased two quarters as well. Subdistrict 5 is planning to purchase four additional quarters in the upcoming year, using funding from a loan approved in January of this year.

Having recently made big purchases like the Hazard Ranch and parts of the North Star property, Subdistrict 5 has a large quantity of water available to be redirected.

Some wells that already exist work as augmentation wells, but sometimes new augmentation wells need to be built in more optimal locations in order to connect certain groundwater areas to the creek. This is a priority for the subdistrict right now.

“Our current problem isn’t the amount of water. [With recent purchases], we have enough water, but we don’t have enough ability to deliver that water,” said Ivers. “We’re really focused on finding locations for augmentation wells on Saguache Creek.”

While things are moving in a positive direction, the situation will likely only intensify in the upcoming years. When the state model gets updated, predicted depletions change based on the water situation from the prior decade. The new calculations that have come out, which would go into effect in 2026, show a drastic jump in the amount of depletions Subdistrict 5 will have to remedy.

“It’s a pretty significant increase for the subdistrict, which means it’s going to have a significant and kind of an immediate impact on those subdistrict members to try to recover enough groundwater that they can pay for these increased depletions,” said Pacheco. “It’s going to be a big, big challenge for Subdistrict 5 especially, to try to be able to meet those with the limited availability of what they can use in the area. They’re working on it already and I have faith that we’ll be able to do that successfully, but it will be a challenge for sure.”

While the subdistricts operate individually, 1, 4, and 5 all owe depletions to Saguache Creek, and are combining efforts and sharing resources when they can to make sure depletions and goals get met.

“Subdistricts 1, 4, and 5 have agreed to work together as best they can to solve the problem as one. It’s kind of a good opportunity for a more collaborative effort for Saguache Creek,” said Ivers.

While the purchasing and retirement of agricultural land has been regarded as one of the only sustainable solutions to the problem, the strategy has been met with some questions and concerns – both economic and environmental.

The establishment of the state model was controversial in some circles because it created an irrigation season and seasonal restrictions on water access for all water rights holders. It was met with backlash from certain parts of the community, particularly surface water users, who were used to irrigating when they felt it was necessary, even if it was outside of the usual growing season. Many still don’t love it, and a consistent point of frustration has been centered around the impacts of climate change, which is causing fluctuations in the timing of runoff and snowpack melt. Earlier flows, coming down before the start of the state’s irrigation season, means farmers have to watch water go by in the river that can’t be diverted, while struggling with a lack of water later in the season.

How the property retirement and dry-up will impact taxes is another area of concern.

“Saguache County’s tax base could be drastically affected by all this dry-up. The property tax base is based on agriculture mainly, and if we lose that, we gotta find alternative ways to finance the county’s operations. It really should be part of the negotiations to dry up a circle to maintain that tax base, but it’s not at the moment. So I’m really concerned about it,” said McCracken, who serves on the Saguache County Board of Commissioners.

Property taxes are calculated based on how productive the land is, so when it gets dried up and stops, it loses that productivity and therefore also the tax classification. Losing large properties to dry-up, while good for water, could mean a huge loss to county coffers. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District says that this is something it takes into consideration.

“If the RGWCD buys the land and actually controls the land, we do work with the counties to try to continue the tax base for that property, even though it’s now gone to a different taxable classification,” said Pacheco. “We try to keep their budgets as whole as we can when we buy properties, so we pay Alamosa County, we get bills from Saguache County, all to try to minimize the impact on those government services.”

Retiring agricultural land also creates a few environmental concerns. First, putting surface water back into the ground, while sustainable, endangers riparian zones on the creeks going up into the canyons, which are critical wildlife habitats and for regional tourism.

Diverting a property’s water without the proper plan, especially with a persistent drought, can also create the optimal conditions for a dust bowl. Changing weather, with decreasing precipitation and strong, unpredictable winds, alongside the removal of water and crops, causes the topsoil to dry up. With no roots or vegetation to hold the soil in place, the potential for it to blow away increases.

“You potentially have these huge dust storms where you lose an inch of top soil in the storm, and there’s traffic pile ups on Highway 17 and there’s drifts of soil up to the top of the fencelines. I mean it’s just out of control,” said McCracken. “Those circles, if they’re dried up, have to be revegetated. It’s just an absolute necessity.”

The RGWCD, along with other groups in the Valley, is working to make revegetation a priority. Whitten is part of a group, along with Patrick O’Neill and Madeline Wilson from CSU Extension, that has been discussing the best ways to go about revegetation in the area. The goal would be to improve soil health and restore nutrients that have been stripped during prior agricultural use, by bringing in native plant cover and potentially grazing livestock as well. Different plans allow for a few inches of water to be left on retired land to support revegetation efforts in the first few years.

Enforcing revegetation is a problem the RGWCD and county officials are still working to address. If the RGWCD doesn’t control the land, either because it only owns water rights, or because landowners had to dry up land they couldn’t afford to farm, but aren’t connected to a program, the RGWCD can’t force them to revegetate. These situations are complicated, because while people may want those properties to be revegetated for environmental and aesthetic reasons, it’s unclear who has the authority, and whose responsibility it is, to make those decisions or enforce rules.

Many also question whether or not the millions of dollars being spent buying properties could be better allocated toward other sustainability and conservation efforts that impact water. Instead of so much money being used to buy properties, a portion could be going to farmers to help them start practicing more sustainable methods, like sequestering carbon and improving soil health, which naturally help reduce water usage while also restoring the ecosystem.

A view of silos in Saguache. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

This concern is rooted in the idea that, if industrial agriculture practices are going to continue running through water and harming the soil, eventually requiring more and more land to be bought up and retired – which some call a “Band-aid solution” – it might be productive to look into reworking the agricultural system into a more sustainable model.

“We have farmers in the Valley using sustainable farming methods that have reduced their water usage by like 40 to 50 percent. Why aren’t we doing that? Why aren’t we taking the resources we have and spending at least some of them to try to change, not just take land out of agriculture permanently,” said McCracken. “Change their way of farming and maybe change some of the crops and the number of rotations that they do. Maybe we can get that water back if we do this right. Maybe we can keep more people in business. Maybe it doesn’t have to be only the corporations that survive all of this.”

The efforts being made around the Valley by Rio Grande Water Conservation District and other organizations are an important part of the search for a solution to what could be considered an impossible problem, one that communities around the southwest continue to grapple with.

“I’m really proud of the San Luis Valley and the RGWCD and the people here who have tried to figure out a way to mitigate those impacts on surface rights by well pumping,” said Whitten. “I’ve spent most of my life involved in this struggle and we’re way ahead of most people in the West, I think, in dealing with these issues.”

It will likely only continue to get more complex, as climate change, drought, and water availability become more unpredictable. But, it is a Valley-wide and basin-wide issue that affects everyone, and it seems as though, despite certain disagreement points, the community can agree that attempting to adapt and find sustainable paths forward is the only solution.

“What we endeavored to do back in the day was to control the collapse of the agricultural empire that we’ve built here. We’re running out of water and there’s just no way around that,” said Whitten. “So do you let everybody just pump until the last guy who can drill the deepest well is the last one left? Or do you somehow try to control this collapse of our economy and somehow salvage it? The natural world is going to prevail in the end. How do we control this and try to become sustainable and resilient?”

These questions remain at the center of conversations in Saguache County.

1869 Map of San Luis Parc of Colorado and Northern New Mexico. “Sawatch Lake” at the east of the San Luis Valley is in the closed basin. The Blanca Wetlands are at the south end of the lake.

Denver Water supports push by state delegation in Congress for Shoshone, other water funds — The #GrandJunction Daily Sentinel #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

The Colorado River District is working to buy the water rights to the Shoshone hydroelectric power plant for $99 million from Xcel Energy to ensure they exist in perpetuity, due to their importance in helping assure a sizable amount of Colorado River water continues flowing downstream at times of low water levels rather than being diverted. It is pursuing an instream flow right to protect the flows associated with the rights at times when the plant isn’t operating, and so the flows will continue should the plant ever close.Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism

Click the link to read the article on the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel website (Dennis Webb). Here’s an excerpt:

September 10, 2025

Front Range utility giant Denver Water has thrown its support behind the effort by Colorado’s entire congressional delegation to get the Bureau of Reclamation to release previously announced drought-mitigation funding for 15 Colorado water projects, including $40 million to help acquire the Shoshone hydroelectric plant water rights on the Colorado River. In a Sept. 5 letter to the bureau’s acting commissioner, David Palumbo, and Scott Cameron, acting assistant Interior secretary for water and science, Denver Water CEO/Manager Alan Salazar voiced the utility’s support for the funding for 15 Colorado projects selected for the bureau’s Upper Colorado River Basin Environmental Drought Mitigation funding opportunity. The money is part of a category of funding also known as “Bucket 2” or “B2E.”

[…]

In the waning days of the Biden administration, the Bureau of Reclamation announced the Shoshone funding and tens of millions of dollars of funding for other water projects in the state. Among the other projects are about $25.6 million for drought mitigation in southwest Colorado, about $24.3 million for the Grand Mesa and Upper Gunnison watershed resiliency and aquatic connectivity project, $4.6 million for the Mesa Conservation District and Colorado West Land Trust to work on drought resiliency on local conserved lands, and $2.8 million for the Fruita Reservoir Dam removal project on Piñon Mesa. Most of that funding has been frozen under the Trump administration, although it did eventually agree to release nearly $12 million to the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District for water projects that were among the projects previously announced for funding…

Of particular interest particularly for West Slope water interests is the Shoshone funding. The Colorado River District is trying to close a $99 million deal with Xcel Energy to buy what are large and senior water rights associated with the plant in Glenwood Canyon. Those rights, due to their seniority, have helped protect flows into the canyon and downstream, and the river district wants to protect those water rights and their associated flows in cases when the plant isn’t operating, and should it eventually shut down. The federal funding is key to the fundraising effort to buy the water rights. The river district has proposed dedicating the Shoshone water rights to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for instream flow use, Salazar noted in his letter.

Analysis of #ColoradoRiver Basin Storage Suggests Need For Immediate Action — Jack Schmidt, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Kathryn Sorensen, Katherine Tara (Center for Colorado River Studies) #COriver #aridification

Photo credit: Center for Colorado River Studies

From email from the Center for Colorado River Studies:

September 11, 2025

While Colorado River Basin attention is focused on negotiating post-2026 operating rules, a near term crisis is unfolding before our eyes. If no immediate action is taken to reduce water use, our already-thin buffer of storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead could drop to just 9 percent of the levels with which we started the 21st century.

Water consumption in the Basin continues to outpace the natural supply, further drawing down reservoir levels. While Basin State representatives pursue the elusive goal of a workable and mutually acceptable set of post-2026 operating rules, our review of the latest Bureau of Reclamation data shows that the gap between ongoing water use and the reality of how much water actually flows in the Colorado River poses a serious near term threat. Another year like the one we just had on the Colorado River would nearly exhaust our dwindling reserves.

In a report issued today, we look at total mass balance in the system – reservoir storage, inflow, and water use – to help clarify how much water the Basin actually has to work with if next year’s snowmelt runoff is similar to 2025, and the risks if we do not take near term action to reduce our use. The findings are stark.

Read the analysis now

Document Authors:

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

Anne Castle, Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment, University of Colorado Law School, former US Commissioner, Upper Colorado River Commission, former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, US Dept. of the Interior

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

Eric Kuhn, Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District

Kathryn Sorensen, Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University, former Director, Phoenix Water Services

Katherine Tara, Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico

Share this:

Like this:

Climate change speeds up melting

Stark regional differences

How wildfires change streamflow

Impacts on ecosystems

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Who will control the flow of water?

About that $99 million bill…

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

The Shoshone rights

Not so simple

Public interest…in Colorado?

Whose right is it, anyway?

Can’t you just compromise?

Nov. 19th hearing

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Environmental groups disappointed

Sticking points

What happens now?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

The River at a Crossroads

Hydrology Has Changed; Leadership Hasn’t

The Blame Game vs. Shared Responsibility

The Case for State-Led Solutions

The Call of the Saddle

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Water cuts in the Upper Basin (yes, that includes Colorado)

The political sticking point

What experts want to see

10 sticking points

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

A hard-working river

What is this dispute about?

A legal wildcard

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Nov. 19^th hearing