An Airborne Snow Observatories plane prepares for a flight to survey a watershed using lidar technology. Data from the flight will be used to produce snow depth, snow water equivalent and snow albedo maps all to enhance the accuracy of summer runoff forecasts.
Airborne Snow Observatories/Courtesy illustration
House Bill25-1115, a bipartisan proposal from a group of Western Slope lawmakers that would create a new statewide snowpack measurement program using emerging tools like light detection and ranging technology, also known as lidar.
“This is a way for us to plan better in our storage facilities, in our reservoirs,” said House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat and a prime sponsor of the bill.
The mountain ranges above Dillon Reservoir, seen through the lens of the data collected by sophisticated equipment onboard a plane that flew over the Blue River Basin to measure the amount of water frozen in the snow above Denver Water’s largest reservoir. Image credit: Airborne Snow Observatory Inc.
Like radar, but using light, lidar sends beams from a plane or satellite towards the ground. By measuring the time it takes for the light to be reflected, scientists can calculate the depth of an area and create a 3-D model of the landscape. The flights also use a spectrometer to capture infrared images that show where snow is melting fastest. Glenwood Springs-based scientist Jeff Deems and his team pioneered the technology for snowpack mapping with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 2013. From those efforts, Deems co-founded Airborne Snow Observatories, a public benefit corporation that contracts with local and regional governments and water providers. Using a fleet of twin-engine planes equipped with lidar, the group runs flights to map river basins across the West. Deems said lidar isn’t replacing SNOTEL, which remains the backbone for snow monitoring by providing a decades-long record of changes in snowpack. Instead, lidar is helping fill in the gaps. While SNOTEL sites pinpoint data at specific locations, lidar provides a full picture of the entire watershed.
“The combination of the two gives us this really powerful 4D picture of a basin-wide snowpack,” Deems said. “We get the three dimensions from airborne surveys and the ‘time’ dimension from the SNOTELs, and that really gives us the best knowledge from which to anticipate and forecast our summer runoff.”
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Colorado — The Colorado River District’s Board of Directors held its first quarterly meeting of the year on Jan. 21-22 and approved $480,000 in Community Funding Partnership grants to support water projects across the Western Slope. A highlight in this round of funding is a $300,000 grant to the Colorado Mesa University’s Ruth Powell Hutchins Water Center to support the Center’s growth over the next three years, including hiring an executive director and establishing a long-term growth strategy for the organization. The River District funding award will be matched by $ 300,000 from Colorado Mesa University.
The grant and partnership with CMU will strengthen the Water Center’s ability to serve as a West Slope hub for water policy and academic education, fostering leadership and innovation in water resource management. The funding will also support strategic planning and program expansion, positioning the West Slope as a central source of research, collaboration, and leadership in Colorado’s River.
“Supporting the CMU Water Center is an investment in the expertise and leadership needed to secure Western Colorado’s water future,” said Colorado River District General Manager Andy Mueller. “CMU has long been a trusted leader in West Slope education and data-informed research. This partnership empowers local knowledge and innovation and will create future generations of water leaders in the Colorado River.”
“At CMU, we take pride in being a voice for Western Colorado, and we see the Water Center as central to that mission,” said Colorado Mesa University President John Marshall. “With this investment from the Colorado River District—matched by CMU—we are establishing a strong, foundational hub for water research and policy rooted in Western Slope expertise, helping students and professionals drive solutions for our region’s water future.”
In addition to the CMU Water Center grant, the Board approved $180,000 in Community Funding Partnership grants for critical water projects across the Western Slope. An $80,000 grant will support the Terror Ditch Pipeline Project in Delta County, piping just over a mile of ditches to reduce water loss and mitigate infrastructure collapse risks, benefiting over 500 acres of agricultural land in the Gunnison Basin. Another $100,000 grant will fund the Upper Yampa Watershed and Stagecoach Reservoir Water Quality Model Project in Routt County, which will develop decision-making tools to address harmful algal blooms and improve water quality in the Upper Yampa River Basin.
The Community Funding Partnership, launched in 2021, is designed to support the development of multi-benefit water projects across Western Colorado. To date, the program has funded over 130 projects and leveraged nearly $100 million in funding for projects that benefit agriculture, infrastructure, healthy rivers, watershed health and water quality, and conservation and efficiency.
For more information on the Colorado River District’s Community Funding Partnership and how to apply for future funding opportunities, visit www.ColoradoRiverDistrict.org.
Glenwood Springs homeowners Ginny and Jim Minch replaced their lawn with drought-tolerant plants and decorative rocks using a rebate program through the city of Glenwood. Colorado lawmakers have introduced another bill this session taking aim at thirsty turf as a way of conserving water. Credit: Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism
Colorado lawmakers want to add more restrictions on thirsty grass in new residential developments in an effort to conserve water.
House Bill 1113 would limit planting non-functional turf, artificial turf or invasive plant species in new and redeveloped apartment or condominium housing. This year’s bill is an extension of last year’s Senate Bill 5, which requires local governments by Jan. 1, 2026, to establish policies prohibiting the planting of nonfunctional turf as part of any new development or redevelopment alongside roads and streets or in medians, as well as in areas surrounding offices or other commercial buildings, in front of government buildings, and in entryways and common areas managed by homeowners associations.
Under HB 1113, local governments would also have to enact their own policies about how to limit new turf on properties not covered by either of the two state bills by 2028.
The bill represents a continuing effort across the Colorado River basin to wring savings from municipal water use in the face of a warming and drying climate. State Sen. Dylan Roberts, who represents District 8, is a sponsor of the bill, along with representatives Karen McCormick and Lesley Smith, all Democrats. Roberts, whose district includes Garfield, Routt, Summit and Eagle counties, said the bill was born out of a general desire to conserve water.
“Whether it’s ongoing drought that is putting a strain on our water supply, negotiations over interstate compacts like the Colorado River or population growth, there’s just a lot of demands on Colorado’s water,” Roberts said. “Water that’s being used for non-functional turf is a pretty obvious place to look for water savings.”
The prohibition on new grass is not aimed at lawns for single-family homes, parks, playgrounds or sports fields. Non-functional turf is defined as grass that is not used for civic, community or recreation purposes. Often planted alongside roads or sidewalks, medians or around offices, commercial or government buildings, it is purely ornamental and the only person who ever walks on it is pushing a lawnmower.
In recent years, municipalities and urban water providers have focused on thirsty Kentucky bluegrass as low-hanging fruit in reducing outdoor water use. Outdoor water use can be the biggest factor in a development’s water use overall. Voluntary turf removal incentives have grown in popularity, with lawmakers creating a state funding source in 2022 for property owners to replace lawns with less water-intensive landscaping. A 2023 statewide drought task force also recommended to the legislature that they continue to fund turf removal programs.
Rep. Karen McCormick, whose district includes Boulder County, said the second part of the bill that requires local entities to enact their own regulations on turf is a nod to local control. Those regulations could include limiting new turf planted around single-family homes, as a handful of municipalities, including Aurora and Castle Rock, have done.
“We’re not telling the local entities how to do that or what to do, but to do this your way that works for your community and your county, your city,” McCormick said. “We’re just saying, please look at how you are allowing high-water-use turf and please sit down and address how you can be part of the solution.”
Real estate developers in Aurora typically created lavish areas devoted to turf along streets, including this one, but a 2022 law dramatically reduced what is permitted in future developments.
CREDIT: ALLEN BEST/BIG PIVOTS
Environmental groups like Conservation Colorado, Western Resource Advocates, the Sierra Club and 350 Colorado are supporting the measure.
Chelsea Benjamin, a policy advisor at WRA, said the organization is supporting HB 1113 to build on the statewide progress over the past few years toward more water-wise landscaping.
“Especially in the context of Colorado becoming a hotter and drier place, our resources are getting stretched thin,” Benjamin said. “There have been a lot of efforts to date to focus on water conservation because we know that it’s the cheapest, fastest and most reliable way to help our communities thrive in this new reality.”
The place where HB 1113 may be most effective is in fast-growing Front Range cities. Several large municipal water providers on the east side of the Continental Divide are monitoring the legislation as it makes its way through the state House and Senate, including Denver Water, Colorado Springs Utilities and Aurora Water, which together serve about 2.4 million residents.
Colorado Springs, like some other communities around the state, is already addressing turf in its land use code. According to Julia Gallucci, water conservation supervisor for CSU, the city of Colorado Springs, which is a separate entity, would need to make only minor tweaks to its land use code to be in compliance with state rules. In Colorado Springs’ 2023 land use code update, new construction projects are limited to 25% turf in any irrigated areas.
For cities, reducing outdoor water use is key to meeting conservation goals and stretching existing water supplies. Gallucci said that outdoor watering accounts for 40% of Colorado Springs’ total use system wide.
“Water is a limited resource,” Gallucci said. “We are a water-depleted state and we are a growing city so we have to do our part.”
The lone group opposing the bill as of Wednesday was Colorado Counties, Inc., which represents all of the state’s 64 counties. Reagan Shane, CCI’s legislative and policy advocate, said that while many county representatives, especially those on the Western Slope, supported the idea of water conservation, more than 65% of the state’s counties voted to oppose the bill.
“We just don’t even know that it’s something we can police,” Shane said. “How do we pass regulations that we can’t functionally police and what are the implications of that and is that good governance?”
The National Association of Landscape Professionals, GreenCO and the Synthetic Turf Council are looking to amend the bill.
John McMahon is CEO of Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, which is one of the seven organizations under the umbrella of GreenCO. He said his group is hoping to amend the bill so that certain species of less-thirsty grass are excluded from the definition of “turf.”
“We are looking for exemptions for new species of hybridized turf available out there,” McMahon said. “Our overall view is the right turf for the right climate and certainly the right part of the yard. We don’t agree with having Kentucky bluegrass everywhere either.”
HB 1113 is scheduled for a hearing before the House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 20.
View toward the Abajo Mountains and portions of the Indian Creek grazing allotment. Photo credit: LandDesk.org
Click the link to read the article on the LandDesk.org website (Jonathan P. Thompson):
February 7, 2025
🌵 Public Lands 🌲
The News: Last week, administrative judge Dawn Perry halted the Bureau of Land Management’s approval of The Nature Conservancy’s plan to build 13 reservoirs and erect five fences on the Indian Creek grazing allotment within Bears Ears National Monument. Perry ruled in favor of Western Watersheds Project,Jonathan B. Ratner, and Sage Steppe Wild, who had appealed the approval, and found that the agency had failed to adequately analyze impacts of the plan.
The Context: The Indian Creek allotment and the Dugout Ranch that runs cattle on it are integral to the West’s ranching history, and a perfect example of how public land grazing is complicated as an environmental issue, and how a certain sentimentality shades society’s — and land management agency’s — views of it.
The ranch is probably one of the more spectacular chunks of private land in the West, covering 5,000 acres in the Indian Creek drainage adjacent to the Needles District of Canyonlands National Park and surrounded by towering Wingate sandstone cliffs and formations. It was first settled by white folks in the 1880s, although BLM records suggest the homestead wasn’t patented until 1915 by David Cooper.
Three years later Al Scorup — known as the “Mormon Cowboy” — and his brother Jim teamed up with Moab’s Somerville family to purchase the Indian Creek Cattle Company and the Dugout Ranch. They had a rough go of it: cattle prices crashed, the Spanish Flu killed Jim and his wife, and a hard winter killed 2,000 head of the company’s cattle.
But the Mormon Cowboy held on and by 1927 had permits to graze 6,800 cattle on U.S. Forest Service land, more than any other permittee in the nation. In 1936, two years after the Taylor Grazing Act was passed, Scorup’s company recorded 4,000 or so cattle on federal Grazing Service (now BLM) land, including in Beef Basin, Dark Canyon, White Canyon, and Grand Gulch.
In 1965, a year after Congress designated Canyonlands as a national monument, Charlie Redd acquired the Scorup-Somerville Cattle Company, which included the Dugout Ranch and its associated grazing leases.1 Soon thereafter, Redd’s son Robert, along with his wife Heidi, took over the ranch. Heidi Redd, legendary in southeast Utah and beyond, sold the ranch to the Nature Conservancy in 1997, though she continued to operate the ranch until her son and daughter-in-law took over. In 2016, then President Barack Obama designated the Bears Ears National Monument, which included the entirety of the 272,000-acre Indian Creek allotment.
For some folks it might seem strange that an environmental group, The Nature Conservancy, is running cattle on a national monument — especially in Utah’s high desert, where the land is especially fragile and cultural sites are plentiful. After all, green groups aren’t taking over oil and gas wells and trying to run them in a more environmentally-friendly way.
But this is part of the $9.9 billion nonprofit corporation’s method. Rather than taking land out of livestock production, TNC looks to work with folks in the “beef supply chain to adopt a sustainability framework that keeps grasslands ecologically intact and economically productive, safeguarding the future ranching families and feeding a growing world.”2 Meanwhile, by acquiring the Dugout Ranch, it saved it from being developed as a desert glamping resort or some billionaire’s hideaway — triggering the “I’d rather see a cow than a condo” meme — and also established the Canyonlands Research Center there, which studies climate change and works to develop sustainable grazing practices.
Of course, many biologists and environmentalists would say that the only sustainable way to graze public lands is not to do it at all. In theory, TNC could have purchased the ranch, continued to run cattle (albeit far fewer) on private land, and bought out the public land grazing permits and retired them, as the Grand Canyon Trust did in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in the late 1990s.3
The Conservancy’s Dugout Ranch’s Indian Creek permit is for just over 8,500 animal unit months, meaning they can run about 1,000 cows on the allotment from early October to mid-June. While the allotment is vast, the sections in the Dark Canyon and Beef Basin areas are harder to access, so grazing is more intensive in the 56,000 acres of pastures surrounding the private ranch. In 2018, the ranch proposed constructing 13 reservoirs, one well, and five fences on those public land pastures in an effort to distribute the cattle more evenly across the parcel and take some pressure off existing water sources, such as Indian Creek and in Davis and Lavender Canyons. It also aimed to increase livestock productivity and “improve grazing management in changing climate conditions.”
Last year the BLM approved the project (minus the well), saying it would spread the cattle out and lessen their impacts, thereby protecting the recognized “objects” of the national monument. The agency’s review, and justification for the approval, emphasizes TNC’s intent to graze its cattle sustainably and its diligence in controlling its cattle, almost as if this is a reason to approve the project, regardless of impacts. However, BLM emails obtained by Ratner show that the agency scolded the ranch for allowing cows to graze off-season in the Dark Canyon and Beef Basin areas, resulting in springs being “heavily trampled,” calling it a “livestock trespass situation,” and urging TNC to more diligently control their cows.
Western Watersheds, Sage Steppe Wild, and Ratner appealed the approval, arguing that the BLM had failed to take a hard look at potential impacts. “How would bulldozing 13 reservoirs for the sole benefit of the private interests of a massive corporation protect, preserve and restore the Bear’s Ears landscape?” Ratner wrote in his appeal. The foundational problem, he argued, is that the number of cattle exceed the pastures’ carrying capacity, not uneven distribution of cattle, and implementing the project as a solution was equivalent to putting “a tiny band aid on multiple gunshot wounds.”
The project might keep the cattle from concentrating in one area, but it would also broaden the area of impact to parts of the pasture that may have seen little grazing. The BLM predicted that the reservoirs’ construction would destroy valuable biocrusts and native vegetation, and that subsequent grazing would lay waste to everything within a 50- to 300-foot radius from each reservoir. But Western Watersheds pointed out that the BLM’s basis for this finding is shaky, and that most peer-reviewed research has found that grazing’s impacts extend for one to two miles from a water source.
Furthermore, the appellants argued, the BLM provides no evidence that building new water sources will reduce impacts on or lead to the restoration or healing of the existing water sources.
In a written statement, Laura Welp, of the Western Watersheds Project, pointed out that BLM signs and literature warn recreationists not to “bust the crust,” yet in giving grazing a virtual blank check, the agency is ignoring the impacts a thousand half-ton bovines have on the fragile soil, native vegetation, and cultural resources.
The Department of Interior’s administrative judge, largely agreed with the appellants, finding that the agency’s environmental review included “barely any rangeland health data specific to the pastures or locations where the new reservoirs and fences will be constructed.” She put a stay on the approval and the project, which doesn’t necessarily kill the project, but does require the agency to redo its review.
“Given that the only stated purpose in the EA for constructing thirteen reservoirs and five fences is to redistribute livestock, BLM had an obligation to analyze how optimized livestock distribution would impact rangeland health,” Judge Perry wrote in her ruling. “When viewed together, the immediate and irreparable impacts associated with construction activities, concentrated use, and livestock redistribution support the imposition of a stay.”
Buried within the Trump administration’s “unleashing American energy” executive order was a mandate for the Interior Department to “review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands, consistent with existing law, including 54 U.S.C. 320301 and 43 U.S.C. 1714.”
It so happens that 54 U.S.C. 320301 is the Antiquities Act. So this means that all the national monuments created by presidents under the law — and not later designated by Congress — are in play. This could mean that Trump will try not only to shrink Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, but could bring his illegal monument wrecking ball to places like Aztec Ruins, Hovenweep, Natural Bridges, and even Devils Tower national monuments.
I’m thinking that it probably won’t go that far. Trump is motivated by spite and revenge, and I doubt he has any bone to pick with ol’ Warren G. Harding4, who established Hovenweep and Aztec Ruins national monuments in 1923, or Teddy Roosevelt, who established Devils Tower and Natural Bridges national monuments in 1906 and 1908, respectively.
But I’m not so optimistic about the fate of Bears Ears, GSENM, and Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. Still, it’s not worth freaking out about this yet, since we don’t know what Interior Secretary Doug Burgum might do on these things. Plus, any reduction of the monuments is very vulnerable to legal challenges, since they would be, well, illegal. There’s plenty of other outrageous things the administration — and Elon Musk — are actually doing now that are worth freaking out about.
I’ve been doing a lot of that lately — freaking out, that is — but also trying not to be overwhelmed by the firehose of absurdity, much of which is mere bluster aimed at distracting us from the real damage being inflicted or simply to aggravate the “libs.”
And damage is being done, from the attempted purge of federal employees (including a freeze on federal firefighter hiring); to canceling diversity, equity, and inclusion programs along with environmental justice initiatives; to the spending freeze on Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction act funds, which threatens to crush nonprofits and kill programs aimed at helping low- and moderate-income folks, small businesses, and farms install rooftop solar.
A lot of people are going to lose jobs, and the nation will be irreparably harmed if Musk’s rampage isn’t stopped soon. Meanwhile, eggs and energy won’t be any cheaper. The only thing you can count on is that billionaires and corporations will pay less in taxes.
🦫 Wildlife Watch 🦅
A monarch butterfly in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
I really hate to be the bearer of bad news, especially in these f#$%ed up times. But here it is: the annual Western Monarch Count reported a peak population of just 9,119 of the butterflies this winter, the second lowest overwintering population recorded since tracking began in 1997.
The population’s size is extremely concerning,” said Emma Pelton, an endangered species biologist with the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, in a written statement. “We know small populations are especially vulnerable to environmental fluctuations, and we think that’s what happened this year. The record high late summer temperatures and drought in the West likely contributed to the significant drop-off we saw in the third and fourth breeding generations.”
The good news is that it could be an anomaly. The last three years’ counts recorded 200,000 butterflies. The monarch is being considered for protections under the Endangered Species Act, which might help. Of course, you know who’s administration is the decider on that one, so …
It’s safe to say there is some serious weather whiplash going on all over the West. Southern California caught fire; now it’s getting deluged by atmospheric rivers. Southwest Colorado was slammed with snow in October and November; then suffered from an unusually dry December and January (I just received news that the Durango Nordic Center near the base of Purgatory Resort is shutting down until further notice due to lack of snow). This was the hottest January globally on record; but it was downright arctic in parts of Colorado (Durango had three successive nights of -10° F lows, daily records). And now the February thaw has set in, with record daily high temperatures being recorded from Grand Junction (71°), to Bluff (68°), to Albuquerque, to Denver (68°), to Phoenix (86°), to Las Vegas (80°), which hasn’t seen measurable precipitation for months.
Meanwhile, at Big Sky ski area in Montana, a sizable in-bounds avalanche broke loose during mitigation work (when the slopes were closed) and partially buried a lift terminal building.
Just some songs for your listening pleasure for these messed up times…
1 Grazing is generally banned in national parks, but in Canyonlands it was allowed to continue for 11 years after the park’s establishment, or until 1975 in the original park boundaries and 1982 in expanded zones.
2 The first “West’s Sacred Cow” piece opened with the Joe Lott-Fish Creek allotment in southwestern Utah. The main permittee is a ranch owned by the Ensign Group, which is helmed by Chris Robinson, a Utah Nature Conservancy trustee and a board member of Western Resource Advocates.
3 This is a bit more complicated than it sounds. The problem is that federal law doesn’t allow normal BLM allotments to be permanently retired, and efforts to pass legislation opening the door to buyouts from willing sellers have run up against the livestock lobby, conservative lawmakers, and the romanticization of the ranching culture. However, when then-President Biden restored the boundaries of Bears Ears National Monument, he added a provision that permanently retires allotments within the monument if the current permit holders willingly relinquish or sell their permits.
4 Well, actually, Harding is considered by many to be the worst U.S. president ever, and his Interior Secretary, Albert Bacon Fall, was the only cabinet member to go to prison (for his role in the Teapot Dome scandal). So maybe Trump has a bit of a rivalry going with ol’ Harding.
Questions about weed management and water plans along with critical public comment were enough to postpone a vote on a biodynamic farm and agritourism destination at a Garfield County Planning Commission meeting last week. The commission voted to continue the discussion and a vote for the planned unit development application for Nutrient Farm to a March 12 hearing, giving the applicant time to work with county staff to whittle down the initial 53 conditions of approval. Nutrient Holdings LLC got its first meeting in front of the commission on Jan. 29 after completing submission in 2023. They’re seeking a PUD zoning change for a 1,136-acre property in unincorporated Garfield County between Glenwood Springs and New Castle…Plans for the property include two farm areas (one for hay/livestock, one for fruits/vegetables/herbs), three residential areas, a residential/solar energy area, a recreational/entertainment area and a commercial/industrial area. About 608 acres of the property are slated for “private open space,” which would be closed to the public and undeveloped with a private trail…
Nutrient Farm plans to reactivate the Vulcan Ditch, which neighbors contend has not been active for decades and the landscape couldn’t handle. The applicant contends they have decreed rights to do so; the matter is in water court. Over two hours of public comment pushed the meeting past 10 p.m., without anyone speaking in explicit support of the proposal — though many said they supported the spirit of the application, which intends to divert water from Canyon Creek, a Colorado River tributary on the opposite side of the river and Interstate 70 from the Nutrient Farm property…
“The reuse of the long abandoned Vulcan Ditch threatens to ruin Canyon Creek and will … negatively affect the ranches and the wildlife and habitat that depend on a healthy Canyon Creek water flow,” said Michael Goscha, a Canyon Creek resident. “I’m disappointed that a proposed development focus on improving the environment has such a substantial fatal flaw.”
The old is new again and this time, it’s saving water. Residents in the desert southwest are rediscovering the use of clay pots for watering plants and there’s a company in Tucson that’s trying to mass produce the “olla balls” for wider use. Experts say they use much less water than typical present-day irrigation methods. Producer: Tony Paniagua via Arizona Public Media
Because water seeps through the walls of an unglazed olla by using soil-moisture tension, one can use ollas to irrigate plants. The olla is buried in the ground, with the neck of the olla extending above the soil. The olla is filled with water, and plants such as tomatoes, melons, corn, beans, carrots, etc are planted around the olla. Or, an olla can be put near a new sapling, or bush to get it through its first year. After that, given enough annual rain, the olla near the tree or bush can be lifted out of the ground and used somewhere else.
Olla irrigation works like this:
When the soil around the olla is dry, the soil pulls the water through the wall of the olla and into the soil, (the tension is between wet and dry), thus providing water for the roots.
When the soil is wet from rain or has not dried out yet, there is no tension and the water is not pulled through the wall of the olla.
How far out the water is pulled depends on the size of the olla and the quality of the soil. Dense soil (clay) does not water out as far as good soil. Large ollas, with a capacity of (say) 11 liters, will water longer than a smaller 1 liter olla, for example. Olla, or clay pot, irrigation is considered the most efficient watering system by many[quantify], since the plants are never over- or under-watered, saving from 50% to 70% in water, according to Farmer’s Almanac.[4] Watering below the soil level allows the plant roots to get what water they need, and therefore to grow stronger roots. As Geoff Lawton says, clay pots can make your garden drought-proof.[5] Little water is lost to evaporation or run-off.[6]
Spanish settlers introduced this irrigation technique to the Americas in colonial times. Agriculture and gardening specialists are teaching it, and olla use is making a comeback in New Mexico and the American West. The state’s master gardening program is spreading the word. It can be effective for homeowners to use in the desert climate.[6] It has also been put to use by the Global Buckets project.
As a modern gardening tool, ollas are generally made from terracotta plant pots.[7] There are various methods to create them, but one of the easiest is to fill the bottom opening in an unglazed terracotta pot, bury it in the ground, and keep it topped up with water. Plants need to be within roots’-reach of the olla to make use of the water reservoir.
In their September 2013 newsletter Ecology Action describes using five 5-gallon ollas for a 100-square-foot garden plot. The test plot used 1.25 gallons per olla every four days. The ollas are fitted with caps that reduce evaporation and collect rain.
Fascinating and fetid, the Salton Sea in southern California lures me back, every year.
Driving south from Utah, I take bits of historic Highway 66 and then skirt Joshua Tree National Park to cruise through little known Box Canyon to Mecca, California. When the landscape opens up, I see the beautiful wreck of the Salton Sea, created by the collision of geology and bad luck.
Southern Pacific passenger train crosses to Salton Sea, August 1906. Photo via USBR.
The sea occupies a much smaller footprint of what used to be Lake Cahuilla, which disappeared in the late 1500s. Then, in a wild spring runoff in 1905, the Colorado River blew out a diversion dam and for three years, and the mighty Colorado drained into the Salton Sink. Agriculture runoff replenished the shallow lake over the following decades, though recently lined canals, courtesy of San Diego, in the Imperial Valley resulted in diminished flows. Its run as a bombing range ended in the 1970s.
If the lake were to completely dry up there would be a horror to behold. While at shrinking Lake Mead a few gangster cadavers showed up in the mud, the Salton Sea contains crashed planes and practice bombs, the targets simulations during the 1940s for the real atomic bombs dropped on Japan.
The lake is bracketed by opulent Palm Springs to the north and the arty squalor of Slab City to the south, home to about 150 full-time residents but temporary home to as many as 4,000 in the winter. In between there are hot springs RV resorts, date palm groves, geothermal energy plants and the town of Bombay Beach sitting atop the San Andreas fault.
Is the diminished sea worth saving? It’s too late to ask the question because, like the great Salt Lake, the cost of not saving it is likely higher than the rescue. Like many invasive species around the West, there is no easy way to get rid of it. Yet most of its fish are already dead and migrating birds have little to eat.
Dust is the issue, and most conservation programs attempt to mitigate dust.
The 1950s and 60s brought out the excesses of post-war revelers to the Salton Sea. You can see the salt-encrusted remains of former resorts and second homes of the Los Angeles fancy people. You can imagine the ghosts of boat races and cocktails.
Those folks even named the local wildlife refuge after swinging Sony Bono, but what came next was toxic salinity and decay as less water came in and the water that remained increased in salinity.
Still, the sea persists. Its salt-encrusted shores circle about 340 square miles of sea. A silo-full of conspiracy theories features the Salton Sea: The military may have accidently dropped a real bomb that did not explode, and the bomb might even be under the water along with hundreds of other dummy bombs and fallen planes. Bodies may still sit in the planes. We know for certain that Slab City is what’s left of a decommissioned military base built about 70 years ago.
Most of the people I meet around the lake seem happy. The place brings pleasure to pre-apocalyptic people like me and those creating outsider art on the actual beach near Bombay Beach. Thousands of Canadians migrate there each winter because the highest temperatures rarely top 80 degrees.
I look forward to my week at the hopefully named Fountain of Youth Spa RV Resort. I joke that I have been coming there since 1906 so it must be working.
It attracts so many Canadians that the resort hosts U.S. vs. Canada Games featuring geezer sports of pickleball, horseshoes, bocce and karaoke. Poutine and box wine flow freely, and people sometimes stay up into the double-digit hours of the evening.
Dennis Hinkamp. Photo credit: Writers on the Range
The Salton Sea will likely remain a curiosity and hiding place for the weird until some real monster beneath the sea emerges, which could be a rush to start mining lithium made by the sea.
On the other hand, the San Andreas fault might just swallow the whole thing in one glorious gulp. Meanwhile, it’s my refuge, my winter solace away from anxious headlines, and just strange enough to be hospitable.
Dennis Hinkamp is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, the independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He writes in Utah.
Click the link to read the release on the NRCS website:
February 1, 2025
January brought drier than normal conditions across Colorado, leading to declines in snowpack percentages and streamflow forecasts. Statewide snow water equivalent is 90 percent of median, with the combined San Miguel-Dolores-Animas-San Juan basin seeing the most significant decline.
Denver, CO – February 7th, 2025 – After a strong early season, January brought drier than normal conditions throughout most of the state, leading to a decrease in snowpack percentages and decreased streamflow forecasts. As of February 5th, statewide snow water equivalent (SWE) is at 90 percent of median, 5 percent lower compared to early January, reflecting a muted accumulation period. January precipitation continues at below normal levels at 77 percent of median an improvement from December’s 69 percent of median. Water year to date precipitation as of February 1st is below normal at 91 percent. The January storm cycle was largely uneventful with modest accumulations. The average SWE delta from January 1 to February 6th is 2 inches with the highest SWE delta at the Tower SNOTEL showing 7.9 inches of SWE for this period. Compared to this time last year most basin snowpack conditions are slightly higher with the exception of the combined San Miguel-Dolores-Animas-San Juan River basin at 66 percent of median SWE, a 10 percent drop from this time last year. Reservoir storage remains relatively unchanged, with 94 percent of median statewide as of the end of January. This is a slight decline from 100 percent of median this time last year. Reservoir inputs and outputs have remained steady and no significant changes are expected until spring runoff begins. Streamflow forecasts have decreased since January, now at 89 percent of median, down from 98 percent at the start of the year. This reflects the persistent dry conditions through January.
January saw significant temperature swings statewide. A sharp cold spell in mid-January set new record lows. This was followed by record high temperatures in late January and early February. Snowpack and streamflow forecasts will remain sensitive to upcoming storm activity, particularly in southern basins where conditions have continued to decline. Near term conditions from NOAAs 6-10 day outlook suggest mid-February may bring increased precipitation statewide, however January’s deficits could limit overall recovery.
Looking ahead, there are still roughly two months, give or take, until peak SWE, depending on location. Late season storms can still have significant impact and upcoming precipitation plays an important role in shaping spring runoff. To stay informed, water users can explore Basin Reports for precipitation, SWE, reservoir storage and streamflow data at the basin level (Basin Reports). For real time, station specific data, the RG Lite Tool offers a mobile friendly way to track SNOTEL data from standard SNOTEL elements to extended sensor data including soil moisture where available (RG Lite Tool).
Figure 1: Snow water equivalent (SWE) on January 1st and February 1st, 2025. SWE values declined across most basins through January. The combined SMDASJ basin seeing the most significant decline. The South Platte was the only major basin to experience a slight increase moving from 99 to 105 percent of median. Credit: NRCS
Figure 2: Percent Change in Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) from January 1st to February 1st 2025. The percent change in SWE across Colorado highlights the continued impact of below normal precipitation throughout January 2025. Again the most significant SWE reduction is observed in the SMDASJ, dropping 25%. Credit: NRCS
* San Miguel-Dolores-Animas-San Juan River basin
* *For more detailed information about January mountain snowpack refer to the February 1st, 2025 Colorado Water Supply Outlook Report. For the most up to date information about Colorado snowpack and water supply related information, refer to the Colorado Snow Survey website.
January 2025 – Surface air temperature and sea surface temperature highlights
Global Temperatures
January 2025 was the warmest January globally, with an average ERA5 surface air temperature of 13.23°C, 0.79°C above the 1991-2020 average for January.
January 2025 was 1.75°C above the pre-industrial level and was the 18th month in the last nineteen months for which the global-average surface air temperature was more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level.
The last 12-monthsperiod (February 2024 – January 2025) was 0.73°C above the 1991-2020 average, and 1.61°C above the estimated 1850-1900 average used to define the pre-industrial level.
*Datasets other than ERA5 may not confirm the 18 months above 1.5°C highlighted here, due to the relatively small margins above 1.5°C of ERA5 global temperatures observed for several months and differences among the various datasets.
Europe and other regions
The average temperature over European land for January 2025 was 1.80°C, 2.51°C above the 1991-2020 average for January, the second warmest after January 2020, which was 2.64°C above average.
European temperatures were most above the 1991-2020 average over southern and eastern Europe, including western Russia. In contrast, they were below average over Iceland, the United Kingdom and Ireland, northern France, and northern Fennoscandia.
Outside Europe, temperatures were most above average over northeast and northwest Canada, Alaska, and Siberia. They were also above average over southern South America, Africa, and much of Australia and Antarctica.
Temperatures were most notably below average over the United States and the easternmost regions of Russia, Chukotka and Kamchatka. The Arabian Peninsula and mainland Southeast Asia also had below-average temperatures.
Sea surface temperature
The average sea surface temperature (SST) for January 2025 over 60°S–60°N was 20.78°C, the second-highest value on record for the month, 0.19°C below the January 2024 record.
SSTs were below average over the central equatorial Pacific, but close to or above average over the eastern equatorial Pacific, suggesting a slowing or stalling of the move towards La Niña conditions. SSTs remained unusually high in many other ocean basins and seas.
Monthly global surface air temperature anomalies (°C) relative to 1850–1900 from January 1940 to January 2025, plotted as time series for each year. 2025 is shown with a thick red line, 2024 with a thick orange line, 2023 with a thick yellow line, and all other years with thin grey lines. Data source: ERA5. Credit: Copernicus Climate Change Service /ECMWF.
According to Samantha Burgess, Strategic Lead for Climate at ECMWF:
“January 2025 is another surprising month, continuing the record temperatures observed throughout the last two years, despite the development of La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific and their temporary cooling effect on global temperatures. Copernicus will continue to closely monitor ocean temperatures and their influence on our evolving climate throughout 2025.”
January 2025 – Hydrological highlights
January 2025 saw predominantly wetter-than-average conditions over regions of western Europe, as well as parts of Italy, Scandinavia and the Baltic countries; heavy precipitation led to flooding in some regions.
Conversely, drier than average conditions established in northern UK and Ireland, eastern Spain, and north of the Black Sea.
Beyond Europe, it was wetter than average in Alaska, Canada, central and eastern Russia, eastern Australia, south-eastern Africa, southern Brazil, with regions experiencing floods and associated damage.
Drier than average conditions established in southwestern United States and northern Mexico, northern Africa, the Middle East, across Central Asia and in eastern China as well as in much of southern Africa, southern South America and Australia.
January 2025 – Sea Ice highlights
Arctic sea ice reached its lowest monthly extent for January, at 6% below average, virtually tied with January 2018.
In the Arctic region, sea ice concentration anomalies were well below average in the eastern Canadian sector, including Hudson Bay and the Labrador Sea, and in the northern Barents Sea.
Antarctic sea ice extent was 5% below average and thus relatively close to average compared to other recent years. This contrasts with the record or near-record values observed in 2023–2024.
In the Antarctic region, sea ice concentrations were above average in the Amundsen Sea and generally mixed in other ocean sectors.
More information about climate variables in January and climate updates of previous months as well as high-resolution graphics can be downloaded here.
Other useful links:
Answers to frequently asked questions regarding temperature monitoring can be found here.
Follow near-real-time data for the globe on Climate Pulse here.
More on trends and projections on Climate Atlas here.
Colorado River. For over 50 years, stakeholders throughout the Colorado River basin have worked to address challenges caused by salinity. Photo credit: Abby Burk via Audubon Rockies
Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website (Ali Longwell). Here’s an excerpt:
February 6, 2024
Since 1974, the seven Colorado River basin states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — have coordinated efforts to implement salinity control in the waterway as part of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. The forum was created by the U.S. Congress, flowing funding through the Bureau of Reclamation to reduce the salt load in the river and research the issue…While salinity is naturally occurring, there are a few reasons that states and river stakeholders have long kept an eye on it.A baseline amount of salinity is OK. Too much salinity can have adverse effects on drinking water, water infrastructure and treatment, appliance wear, aquatic life, the productivity of certain agricultural crops (including wine grapes, peaches and other salt-sensitive products) and more. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimates that salinity causes between $500 and $750 million annually in damages and could exceed $1.5 billion per year if future increases are not controlled…
Much of the Upper Basin geology — specifically Mancus and Mesa Verde shale formations — was created when it was covered by an inland sea, [David] Robbins added. Therefore, they contain salt deposits that through natural erosion and runoff, make their way to the rivers and downstream. In Colorado, natural salinity sources include the geothermal hot springs in Glenwood Springs; shale cliffs and evaporating salt deposits in the Eagle and Roaring Fork valleys; and the salt domes in Paradox Valley in Montrose County along the Dolores River. Human activity can also exacerbate challenges by accelerating the release of compounds from these natural geologic materials and increasing the salt load in the river and tributaries, according to the 2009 U.S. Geological Survey report. This includes activities like mining, farming, petroleum exploration and urban development. For example, with some agricultural irrigation practices, by adding more water to the soil that naturally contains salts, “increases the rate of dissolution above the natural signal,” [Dave] Kanzer said. The use of road salts — solid and liquid — to clear snow and ice can also lead to increased salt loads as the salt dissolves and makes its way into snowmelt and streams.
Click the link to read the article on the LandDesk.org website (Jonathan P. Thompson):
January 31, 2025
🌵 Public Lands 🌲
The Joe Lott-Fish Creek grazing allotment sprawls across nearly 78,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land in western Utah. It contains a variety of ecosystems, ranging from arid juniper-piñon forests in the lower elevation sections that straddle I-70, to aspen and conifer glades, to 11,000-foot peaks, as well as several streams.
Until just over a decade ago, the primary grazing permittee was Missouri Flat LLC, which was allowed to run 744 cow-calf pairs on the land. Another rancher had a maximum herd of 40. The cattle were supported by 14 cattle ponds and troughs.
Sometime between 2013 and 2016, Missouri Flat’s permit was taken over by Pahvant Ensign Ranches. Over a period of about three years around the same time, the Fishlake National Forest upped the maximum number of cattle allowed to graze the allotment by 604, to a total of 1,388 cow-calf pairs, without notifying the public until 2021. The Forest Service said favorable conditions following the 2010 Twitchell Fire justified the increase, but they didn’t provide any scientific backing for the decision. Then, last April, the Forest Service approved a proposal to add 17 water troughs and 13 miles of new pipeline to the Pahvant Ensign allotment, granting the project a “categorical exclusion,” meaning it isn’t subjected to the usual environmental review.
“Functionally,” wrote Mary O’Brien, a botanist and longtime defender of public lands, ecosystems, and pollinators, “Joe Lott-Fish Creek Allotment is being transformed into a private ranch.”
O’Brien brought the story of the Joe Lott allotment to my attention several months ago. She wanted to show me, in part, that while environmentalists tend to focus on the Bureau of Land Management when pushing back on public lands livestock grazing, they shouldn’t forget that grazing is also widespread on Forest Service lands. And that the Forest Service is no better at managing it than the BLM.
I also find it to be a sort of snapshot of how public lands grazing — under any agency — has come to be the West’s untouchable sacred cow, something that neither Democrats nor Republicans dare to mess with or reform, no matter how obsolete the current regulations or how much harm is being done. I’m not just talking about the Biden or Trump administrations, either: This bipartisan inaction has been going on since the Taylor Grazing Act was passed in 1934.
When the white colonial-settlers invaded the Western U.S. in the 19th century, they brought along oodles of cattle and sheep. In some places, the settlers were even preceded by the giant herds of big-time cattle companies and their minders. A good portion of southeastern Utah, for example, was once blanketed by grass that reached an elk’s belly. But then the huge livestock operations, including New Mexico and Kansas Land and Cattle Company and the Carlisle outfit, brought in tens of thousands of head of sheep and cattle beginning in the 1870s. Before long the Hole-in-the-Rock Mormon settlers also got into the livestock business, pasturing their cows and sheep on Elk Ridge near the Bears Ears buttes.
By the 1890s, as many as 100,000 sheep and cattle were chomping their way across San Juan County, reducing large swaths of the formerly abundant grasslands to denuded, dusty, gullied, flash-flood-prone wastelands. Plus, the sheepmen and the cattlemen were constantly fighting over who got access to what portion of range, a conflict that had disastrous outcomes. At one point, allegedly out of spite, the Carlisle livestock concern turned out thousands of sheep on the upper branches of Montezuma Creek, Monticello’s source for drinking water. Bacteria from the sheep feces contaminated the water, leading to a typhoid outbreak in Monticello that killed eleven people.
This sort of free-for-all and its consequences was not unique to the region; it was being repeated all over the West. The destruction and chaos inspired the federal government to try to get a handle on things, and in 1891 Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act (which would later become the Forest Service), giving the president the authority to withdraw areas from the public domain where grazing and other activities would be regulated. In response to the typhoid outbreak, Monticello residents petitioned the feds to create a forest reserve in the La Sal and Abajo Mountains. This would become the Manti-La Sal National Forest.
That still left millions of acres in the virtually lawless public domain, where livestock operators continued to run cattle and sheep without restraint. Finally, in 1934 Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act to “stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration,” to impose order, and to stabilize the livestock industry. A new agency, the Grazing Service (which was merged with the General Land Office to become the BLM in 1946), would manage a permitting and fee system on about 140 million acres of land, mostly sagebrush country, in the arid West. The lands were divided into grazing districts, each of which had an advisory board mostly made up of ranchers within that district, thus giving it an element of home rule and easing concerns that the federal landlord was taking too much control.
Nearly 12 million animals were permitted to graze on Taylor Act land across the West that year, yielding just $1 million in revenue—meaning ranchers were paying, on average, just eight cents per year to fatten up each of their bovines or ungulates on taxpayer-owned grass. Seventy-five percent of the revenue went back to the states and grazing districts, where the advisory boards determined how it would be spent. Nearly all of the funds went to so-called range improvement projects, which ultimately benefitted the ranchers, such as killing predators and rodents and construction of stock trails and diversion dams.
Still, even though many ranchers were in denial regarding the true causes of the ruination of the range—they attributed it to drought—they were generally ambivalent towards the act because it imposed order on the chaos that resulted from competing uses of the public domain. But the good feelings would soon vanish as the cattlemen felt threatened by proposals to designate new national monuments on public lands, including on a 4.5-million-acre swath roughly following the Colorado River in southern Utah. Back then, after all, grazing was generally prohibited in national monuments and parks.
And in the mid-1940s, when the Bureau of Land Management endeavored to raise grazing fees, the National Wool Growers Association and the American National Livestock Association gathered in Salt Lake City and launched a revolt with the backing of Western lawmakers. They demanded not only that grazing fees be capped, and national monument and park designations be halted, but also that all of the lands governed by the Taylor Act be transferred to the states or privatized. It was an early version of the Sagebrush Rebellion that is now being repeated by Utah and Wyoming. In a 1947 Harpers column, Bernard DeVoto reminded his readers, “Cattlemen do not own the public range now; it belongs to you and me,” adding that because federal grazing fees were so much lower than those for private land, they amounted to a subsidy.
The land-grab legislation that grew out of this revolt died. And grazing fees were raised, jumping from the original five cents per animal-unit-month1 for cattle to eight cents. The revolt did halt the giant Utah national monument, however, and the BLM continued to bow to the demands of the livestock industry.
It looked like things might change in the 1970s, however, when Congress passed the Federal Lands Policy Management Act, or FLPMA, which required the BLM to manage public land for multiple uses, including recreation and conservation. And in 1977, then President Jimmy Carter named Cecil Andrus as Interior Secretary. Andrus came into office with a bang, noting in a 1977 speech: “The initials BLM no longer stand for Bureau of Livestock and Mining. The days when economic interests exercised control over decisions on the public domain are past. The public’s lands will be managed in the interest of all the people because they belong to all the people. For too long, much of the land where the deer and the antelope play has been managed primarily for livestock often to the detriment of wildlife.”
A sign on Cedar Mesa in Bears Ears National Monument illustrating the way one BLM field office sees livestock grazing. Photo courtesy of Rose Chilcoat.
And yet, public land grazing reform has been minimal, at best, in the ensuing five decades. The grazing fee, is only one small piece of the public lands grazing controversy, but it’s good proxy for the situation as a whole. In 1978, Congress established a formula for setting grazing fees, but also said they couldn’t drop below $1.35 per AUM (or $6.82 in 2024 dollars, if you were to adjust for inflation). While the fee climbed as high as $2.31 in 1981, it has remained at or near the minimum nearly every year since (in 2024 it was $1.35 once again). Nearly everyone agreed that the forage was worth far more than that, and the data made clear that fees would have to be substantially higher for the grazing program to pay for itself.
And yet, efforts to increase the fee and bring it in line with market rates have consistently flopped. The Clinton administration proposed upping the base charge to $3.96 per AUM (along with a host of other reforms). That sparked widespread outrage amongst ranchers and Western politicians, yet went nowhere. Obama wanted to tack an administrative charge on top of the regular fee. It never happened.
Early in its term, the Biden administration launched a review of and promised reforms to the public lands grazing program. For conservationists, this was an opportunity for the feds to re-implement environmental reviews before renewing lapsed grazing leases, to allow leases to be bought out and permanently retired, to use rangeland health to determine whether grazing can continue on a specific allotment, and to consider grazing’s impacts on climate change. While the administration made admirable moves to set aside public lands and regulate oil and gas drilling, it quietly smothered any effort to reform grazing.
Instead, the administration not only kept grazing fees at $1.35 during all four years, but it also included active grazing lands under its “30 by 30” program. And, in creating the management plans for Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments, it essentially leaves livestock grazing untouched. In fact, in the case of Bears Ears, the land may have had more protection from livestock before it became a monument. The same amount of land is available to grazing now, and the plan only makes vague prescriptions to manage grazing in a way that “ensures consistency with protection of monument objects.” It’s a good goal, but is totally subjective, and leaves plenty up to overworked monument managers and rangeland conservationists. That’s in spite of the fact that numerous studies have found that unfettered grazing not only damages soil, native plants, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat, but also takes a big toll on cultural and archaeological resources. If a national monument plan is not going to close all sensitive areas to grazing, it should at least set tangible, science-based minimum land health standards.
This same sort of willful ignorance of grazing’s impacts is repeated across BLM-managed national monuments, including Canyon of the Ancients in southwestern Colorado.
So why do politicians of all stripes bend over for these public lands ranchers? I suppose it could be that Big Beef is throwing around its financial and political heft and buying off policymakers in Washington D.C. Maybe. But I suspect the multi-administration inaction has more to do with culture and myth — the old Cowboy Myth, to be specific — and their leeriness of being seen as harming it.
There’s a widespread perception — which is partly accurate — that the folks grazing their cattle on public lands are small-time family farmers who are carrying on a multi-generational tradition and livelihood and producing the nation’s food — even though only about 2% of U.S. beef comes from public lands cows. They’re also sustaining a certain rural culture, i.e. cowboy culture.
Running cattle in Bears Ears National Monument, where grazing will go on largely as it did before the monument was established. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
Keeping federal grazing fees low, and regulations lax, is therefore a sort of social or cultural subsidy — socialism, if you will. It’s not meant to support the livestock industry, per se, or even food production. Rather, it supports a certain culture. A 1947 amendment to the Taylor Grazing Act appears to codify this concept, directing fees to be set partly according “to the extent to which such [grazing] districts yield public benefits over and above those accruing to the users of the forage resources for livestock purposes.” If you try to raise the fees to match private or state fees, you’ll make ranching too expensive for family ranchers, and make it an exclusive domain for the wealthy and corporations. If you look to make the program pay for itself, you’re monetizing public lands at the expense of rural culture and communities. Or so the argument goes.
For an Obama or Biden, who are already portrayed as coastal elites, to do anything that might be construed as damaging or stifling that culture or livelihood — or devaluing those “public benefits” — does not make for good optics. They instead have used their political capital to (hesitantly) push back against Big Oil, while trying to get folks to forget about grazing.
I’m all for this type of socialism, especially when it’s supporting family farmers, and for pushing back against the notion that public lands programs have to pay for themselves2. I also support the idea of considering public benefits above and beyond the value of the forage or anything else on public lands. But if you do, you also have to consider the public costs of whatever that use is, whether it’s a new trail, an oil and gas well, or a grazing lease renewal. And grazing’s costs on the land and climate can be every bit as high as an oil well or a surge in recreational use.
The Joe Lott-Fish Creek story I opened this piece with also demonstrates that the beneficiaries of the public lands grazing socialism and subsidies aren’t always struggling families. The biggest leaseholder on that allotment, Pahvant Ensign Ranches, is owned by the Ensign Group, which is in turn owned by the Freed and Robinson families. The Ensign Group is a Utah-based investment firm, whose stated mission is to “build and manage a portfolio of primarily real estate-based businesses that are profitable, durable, environmentally sensitive, and of high reputation in their respective fields.”
So, yes, we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing family farmers and ranchers. But our taxes are also helping out the Robinson-Freed families. They are the nation’s 33rd largest landholder, according to the Land Report, and own 350,000 acres in Utah, Idaho, and elsewhere, run more than 10,000 head of cattle, and hold grazing permits on more than 1 million acres of private and public lands.
1 The amount of forage required to feed a cow and her calf for one month.
2 If Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative is honest — and I’m not saying it is — it will seemingly have no choice but to kill the public lands grazing program, since it spends far more money on rangeland improvements (for grazers’ sake) than it brings in from grazing fees.
Farmer activists and others protest the Karman Line annexation by the City of Colorado Springs. Farmers say the annexation will require more transfers from their primary water source: the Arkansas River. Credit: Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District.
Back in the 1970s, farmers in the Lower Arkansas Valley and across the nation, channeled anger and frustration over low farm prices into a series of large-scale protests, eventually driving their tractors to Washington, D.C., plowing across the national mall.
The American Agriculture Movement, as it was called, was founded in 1977 in the tiny Lower Arkansas Valley community of Campo.
American Agriculture Movement farmers protesting in Washington, D.C. in 1979. Credit: Library of Congress
Now, a new wave of activism is emerging, with Lower Arkansas Valley farmers once again organizing protests and speeches. Their target this time is the City of Colorado Springs and their hope is to stop large annexations that often require taking water from farms to fuel the growth.
“One of our goals is to make sure the voters in Colorado Springs understand the consequences of this growth. It is not sustainable for them or us,” said Jack Goble, manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservation District. Goble’s grandfather was among those who participated in the 1970s protests, although he did not drive a family tractor to D.C., the younger Goble said.
Since the 1980s, communities in the Lower Arkansas Valley have seen their economies shrivel as irrigation water has been siphoned from the Arkansas River by cities. The action gave rise to the term “buy and dry,” a practice now widely condemned.
And it was supposed to end in 2003 with a hard-fought federal court battle and settlement. Since then, state lawmakers and top water and farm agencies have changed laws and spent millions of dollars testing new protective methods for sharing water temporarily between rural and urban areas. They have also spent heavily to improve water quality for thousands of people living near the river who still don’t have clean water to drink.
But farmers say those policies aren’t working.
More transfers underway
In the past five years, Aurora, Pueblo and Colorado Springs have secured more agricultural water, leasing it back to the farmers in some cases when the towns don’t need it, and in others permanently drying up thousands more acres of land.
Faced with housing shortages, and water systems that are under stress due to climate change and chronic drought, cities say they are nevertheless working hard to reduce any impact to farm communities from the water transfers.
“A lot of the farmers are feeling a lot of pressure because of the Aurora purchase,” said Abigail Ortega, referring to the new wave of protests and a deal last year in which Aurora purchased a major farm operation near Rocky Ford and the water associated with that land. Ortega is general manager of water supply planning at Colorado Springs Utilities.
Ortega said Colorado Springs negotiated an agreement with Bent County in which farmers have been paid to dry up sections of land, giving the water associated with those parcels to Colorado Springs. The remainder of the water is tied permanently to their most productive fields. Colorado Springs also paid Bent County millions of dollars up front to aid in economic development, and will make annual payments to the county to offset any decline in farm production, Orgeta said.
“Those payments are meant to mitigate the impacts of taking the water away,” she said.
Despite the water-sharing agreements and new state policies designed to protect growers, Colorado’s irrigated acres have declined nearly 30% in the past 25 years, according to the latest federal agricultural census. That decline has been driven in part by large-scale urban water purchases, as well as declines in Colorado River supplies and legal requirements to deliver water to other states.
In response, growers have adopted a new tactic. In the past six months, they have twice piled into their cars and driven the 100 miles to Colorado Springs City Hall, testifying against two large-scale annexations, with written speeches and signs in hand.
The first, the Amara annexation, would have added 9,500 homes to Colorado’s second largest city. It was narrowly rejected by the Colorado Springs City Council in August.
But the Karman Line annexation was approved last month and will add 6,500 new homes to the El Paso County city.
Lower Arkansas grower Alan Frantz, whose family grows corn, alfalfa and melons and cantaloupes, said the cities need to find other ways to supply water for new homes.
City dwellers, Frantz said, “have blinders on. They want water and they don’t care where they get it. City people don’t know where water comes from. They don’t know where their food comes from. If we didn’t try to tell them, they would not have any kind of clue.”
Council members contacted by Fresh Water News did not respond to a request for comment.
Goble said dozens of growers are ready to confront the city directly as often as it takes until Colorado Springs agrees not to take more water.
The growers are also joining forces with some Colorado Springs residents who have vowed to ask voters directly this spring to rescind the Karman Line annexation agreement.
“We are going to keep showing up,” Goble said. “These city council members are making decisions that are going to dramatically affect the future of the Arkansas Valley. At some point, you have to live within your water means and stop sacrificing our communities for yours.”
Snowpack levels in the Blue River Basin, which includes all of Summit County, are above normal. This winter’s levels are shown in black, last winter’s levels are shown in orange, the 2022-23 winter is shown in purple and the green line shows the 30-year median, or historic norm. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Courtesy illustration
Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website. Here’s an excerpt:
Snowpack levels across the entire state are currently below normal. This winter’s levels are shown in black, last winter’s levels are shown in orange, winter 2022-23 is shown in purple and the green line shows the 30-year median, or historic norm. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Courtesy illustration
While statewide snowpack levels are below normal, areas near Summit County are reporting above-normal levels, as indicated by the green and blue dots. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Courtesy illustration
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map February 6, 2025 via the NRCS.
The Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC) geographic forecast area includes the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB), Lower Colorado River Basin (LCRB), and Eastern Great Basin (GB).
Water Supply Forecasts
February 1 water supply forecasts across the CRB and GB are generally below to well below normal and summarized in the figure and table below. Snowpack, soil moisture, and future weather are the primary hydrologic conditions that impact the water supply outlook.
January Weather
Most of January 2025 featured a continuation of the relatively dry, northerly storm track that has dominated the winter season thus far. This pattern continued to favor northern portions of the GB and UCRB, although only limited areas received near to above normal January precipitation. The majority of the CBRFC area was very dry. Many locations in the LCRB have experienced their driest winter to-date on record. Adjacent basins in southern portions of the GB (Sevier) and UCRB (Dolores, San Juan) received near record or record low December–January precipitation amounts.
The large-scale weather pattern changed significantly at the end of January with the development of troughing over the West Coast. This funneled anomalously warm, moist, Pacific air into the Rockies, giving way to heavy precipitation in the northern reaches of the GB and UCRB into early February. Precipitation fell mostly as snow over the critical runoff areas, but given the oceanic origins of the air mass, snow levels became quite high (over 8,000 feet at times). At one point, an NWS employee observed rainfall in the Wasatch at elevations as high as 10,000 feet.
While this welcome pattern change has delivered beneficial precipitation to northern areas, southern portions of the GB, UCRB, and the entirety of the LCRB have yet to pick up any eye-catching precipitation this season. Precipitation is summarized in the figure and table below.
Snowpack Conditions
UCRB February 1 snow water equivalent (SWE) conditions range between 55-110% of normal and are most favorable across west-central CO areas including the White/Yampa, Colorado River headwaters, and Gunnison. SWE is below to well below normal elsewhere across the UCRB, with the least favorable conditions in the San Juan River Basin. UCRB February 1 snow covered area is around 65% of the 2001-2024 median. LCRB February 1 SWE conditions are at or near record low across southwest UT, central AZ, and west-central NM as a result of near record dry winter weather.
GB February 1 SWE conditions range between 50-85% of normal and generally improve from south to north. February 1 snow covered area across UT is around 45% of the 2001-2024 median. SWE conditions are summarized in the figure and table below.
Soil Moisture
CBRFC hydrologic model fall (antecedent) soil moisture conditions impact water supply forecasts and the efficiency of spring runoff. Basins with above average soil moisture conditions can be expected to experience more efficient runoff from rainfall or snowmelt while basins with below average soil moisture conditions can be expected to have lower runoff efficiency until soil moisture deficits are fulfilled. The timing and magnitude of spring runoff is impacted by snowpack conditions, spring weather, and soil moisture conditions.
A very dry June-October 2024 across southwest WY and UT resulted in soil moisture conditions that are below normal and worse compared to a year ago. NW CO soil moisture conditions are near to below normal and similar compared to a year ago. SW CO soil moisture conditions are closer to average and improved from a year ago due to a wetter than normal monsoon (mid-June through September). Monsoon precipitation was near/below normal across the LCRB, where soil moisture conditions are below average and similar compared to last year. CBRFC hydrologic model soil moisture conditions are shown in the figures below.
Upcoming Weather
The atmospheric river regime that arrived at the end of January is continuing into the first week of February. After a lull, confidence is growing in the return of a productive, southerly storm track around the middle of the month. The Climate Prediction Center’s (CPC) 8–14 day precipitation outlook is favoring increased chances of above normal precipitation across the western US during the February 14 20 period. It remains unclear where the focus of moisture will land, but it will likely benefit at least some portions of the CBRFC area. The best hope for the LCRB is that a series of storms tracks far enough south to soften the seasonal deficits. If that does not occur, the LCRB is well on its way to a record, or near record, dry season.
Colorado is in the midst of a nation-leading rulemaking for its state-waters protection program, established by HB24-1379: Regulate Dredge & Fill Activities in State Waters (HB1379) which Governor Polis signed into law on May 29th. This bill establishes a state regulatory program to permit dredge and fill activities that impact state waters not covered by the Clean Water Act (CWA). This encompasses removal, filling, or other alteration of wetlands and ephemeral streams from activities such as mining and infrastructure development. Audubon Rockies told the story of why Colorado needed new legislation following the Supreme Court’s Sackett Decision—which removed crucial wetland protections—and how the bill passed with bi-partisan support in our June 2024 blog post, “A Colorado Program the Colorado Way.”
Ephemeral streams are streams that do not always flow. They are above the groundwater reservoir and appear after precipitation in the area. Via Socratic.org
The core of this program’s regulatory jurisdiction are ephemeral streams and isolated wetlands. Existing federal and state-managed regulatory programs tend to undervalue these types of streams and wetlands, and inadequately mitigate for loss of these habitats and their ecological functions. HB1379 has given Colorado the opportunity to lead the nation in developing a regulatory program that not only fills the gap left by Sackett, but effectively addresses impacts to these key habitats that birds, and humans, rely on. Although the bill set a strong framework for the regulatory program, the gains made during the legislative session could be minimized if the next step isn’t done well. That next step, the rulemaking process, is currently underway.
Anatomy of a Rulemaking
Most of us who grew up with the American public school system likely remember Bill, that “sad little scrap of paper” who only ever dreamed of becoming a law (revisit that Schoolhouse Rock clip for a trip down memory lane). However, what our schoolhouse rock education left out was the long road ahead once poor Bill finally achieves his dream. Sadly for him, it’s not over yet. In most cases, a bill that passes through the state or federal legislature is a sketch or outline which sets the structure and parameters for how a law will function. The rulemaking process fills in the color and detail.
In our bill’s case, HB24-1379 outlines key requirements and structure for a state program to regulate dredge and fill impacts to state waters which are not covered under the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the Clean Water Act. The bill directs Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) to develop and promulgate rules detailing how the program will be administered by December 31, 2025. These rules will determine regulatory requirements for stream restoration projects; determine how permits are evaluated, including standards avoiding and minimizing impacts to state waters; and establish a compensatory mitigation program to ensure that all lost stream and wetland functions due to permitted activities are replaced. How these rules are written will determine how effectively the state program meets the bill’s objectives.
CDPHE began convening stakeholders, including Audubon and our partners, in September 2024. They then released the first draft of new regulations on December 6th. CDPHE is holding monthly stakeholder meetings through November 2025 to build consensus on priorities and draft additional language. WQCC will begin the formal rulemaking process in August 2025, which will include a public comment period for the proposed rules and the rulemaking hearing will be held on December 8, 2025.
What’s at Stake?
The United States Geological Survey’s National Hydrography Dataset estimates that 24 percent of Colorado’s streams are ephemeral and 45 percent are intermittent. These streams provide key habitat for more than 400 bird species throughout Colorado and are vital for mitigating climate and drought impacts, protecting water quality in downstream riverways by capturing sediment and other pollutants, and regulating late season flows and stream temperatures.
Colorado Rivers. Credit: Geology.com
One of the most critical components of a dredge and fill permitting program is compensatory mitigation. In the federal dredge and fill permitting program ((§) 404 of the CWA), which Colorado is modeling its program after, permittees must first avoid and minimize all impacts to regulated waters and then compensate for all unavoidable impacts. Wetland compensatory mitigation most commonly takes place through mitigation banks, where permittees purchase credits from a mitigation bank that has previously constructed wetlands. Mitigation can also be done through an in-lieu fee program or onsite, where the impacts are taking place, by the permittee.
Sunrise Over Wetland by NPS/Patrick Myers
While wetland mitigation has been a well-established practice for decades, stream mitigation has only become common in the last 20 years. Due to challenges unique to streams, and particularly ephemeral streams which are more challenging to create or replace through mitigation banks, stream mitigation has been largely ineffective at replacing the functions lost through dredge or fill impacts. One review of the efficacy of stream mitigation programs found that “existing methods often devalued partially degraded, small, and non-perennial streams and thus discouraged protection and restoration of these stream types.” Developing a compensatory mitigation program that effectively replaces the functions of ephemeral streams that are lost through unavoidable impacts is a key challenge this rulemaking will address.
HB24-1379 included three key provisions to ensure the program adequately protects ephemeral streams and isolated wetlands:
The rules must focus on avoidance and minimization of all adverse impacts [of permitted projects] and describe avoidance and minimization standards.
The rules must implement a compensatory mitigation program for all unavoidable impacts [of permitted projects]. Compensatory mitigation must compensate for all “functions of state waters that will be lost as a result of the authorized activity”
The rules must include an exemption [from permitting] for stream restoration projects in ephemeral streams that are designed solely for ecological lift. Ecological life refers to improvement in the biological and/or hydraulic health of the stream.
While the first draft regulation has been released, many of the sections of the rules that will address these issues are still under development.
Better Together – Working Collaboratively for the Environment
Audubon and our partners have been actively engaged with CDPHE through their stakeholder engagement processes to advocate for strong rules in these three areas. In November, Audubon along with 10 other conservation organizations contributed and signed on to a letter to CDPHE detailing our priorities. This coalition, Protect Colorado’s Waters, also submitted specific feedback on the draft regulations in early January and are continuing to be engaged in advocating for strong rules that ensure avoidance and minimization of wetlands impacts and effective mitigation when needed. Our priorities also include ensuring that qualified stream restoration projects, designed for ecological lift, can continue without undue regulatory burden.
While Audubon and our partners secured a major victory for birds and people with the passing of HB24-1379, our bill’s journey is not done yet. If CDPHE can develop and promulgate rules for this program that ensure that permitted projects are the least damaging available alternative, ensure any lost functions are replaced through mitigation, and streamline permitting for voluntary stream restoration projects, then Colorado’s program will be the first of its kind to effectively protect these vital habitats. To stay engaged and attend future stakeholder meetings, visit CDPHE’s dredge and fill engagement website.
Colorado River headwaters tributary in Rocky Mountain National Park photo via Greg Hobbs.
The Trumpster Rebellion – is it organized enough to call it a ‘Revolution’? – is making itself felt in the Colorado River Basin at this point by the hold being put on all federal funding from the two big infrastructure-related acts of the Biden administration. This included funding for the Upper Basin’s System Conservation Pilot Program, to pay farmers to leave some of their decreed water to flow down (it was hoped) to Powell Reservoirs; I believe it also included some of the money being used in the Lower Basin to pay farmers to leave a three million acre-feet of decreed water in Mead Reservoir for Water Years 2024-26. This is nothing ‘personal’ against Colorado River management; it is just collateral damage caught up in the president’s general vendetta against any achievement by the Biden administration.
We’ll see how all of this shakes out in the next few weeks, I guess, or months or years, as the legality or constitutionality of all this is worked out. On the cosmic justice level – Water Year 2025? The forecasters are saying, again, don’t get your hopes too high. But hope, that ‘thing with feathers,’ flies above that; surely we’re ripe for snow now after the longest, coldest, driest December and January in recent memory….
Members of the Colorado River Commission, in Santa Fe in 1922, after signing the Colorado River Compact. From left, W. S. Norviel (Arizona), Delph E. Carpenter (Colorado), Herbert Hoover (Secretary of Commerce and Chairman of Commission), R. E. Caldwell (Utah), Clarence C. Stetson (Executive Secretary of Commission), Stephen B. Davis, Jr. (New Mexico), Frank C. Emerson (Wyoming), W. F. McClure (California), and James G. Scrugham (Nevada)
CREDIT: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY WATER RESOURCES ARCHIVE via Aspen Journalism
Meanwhile, back in the bigger, longer picture…. In the last post, trying to heist myself up at least onto the edge of the ‘Compact Box’ – the box outside of which I think we all need to try to think, if only as a creative exercise – I raised the question: might it not be possible now to do what the seven Compact commissioners really wanted to do in 1922, when they gathered in Washington the last week of January, with U.S. Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover?
Remember – they had come together to try to free themselves from an interstate appropriation competition over use of the waters of the Colorado River, by effecting what their Compact preamble called an ‘equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters … to promote interstate comity (and) remove causes of present and future controversies.’
This was not strictly a ‘peace-making’ gathering; they knew they had to come to some kind of an agreement among themselves about the use of the river’s waters before the U.S. Congress would consider funding to ‘secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin’ – the last goal listed in the Compact preamble, but it was probably first in their minds. Only the federal government had the resources and the authority to build the big structures necessary to store and deliver the interstate river’s water to the states, really unleashing development of the water, at least half of which was still being ‘wasted’ to the ocean in the annual spring floods of snowmelt.
So they spent the first three days of their Washington meetings in an ultimately frustrating attempt to calculate an ‘equitable’ seven-way division of the use of the waters, to avoid a seven-way appropriation horse-race between fast-growing states like California, already at the first turn, while slower-growing states like Wyoming were still trying to get out of the starting gate.
They were stymied in that effort – almost to the point of abandoning the idea of a compact. In the manner of early 20th-century Americans, enough water for all the optimistic future visions they all brought from their home states tallied well beyond even the Bureau of Reclamation’s overly optimistic guesstimates for the flow of the river – then in its ‘pluvial’ period of high flows, peaking even as the commissioners were working in 1922.
Only Chairman Hoover’s leadership skills – and his desire (an engineer by training) to see the big structures built – kept them from abandoning the idea of a compact in January. But he wasn’t able to get them back together for serious work until November 1922, when they convened for a do-it-or-drop-it retreat at a resort near Santa Fe to consider a new idea hatched between Hoover and Colorado Commissioner and water lawyer Delph Carpenter.
Map credit: AGU
In 18 transcribed meetings over 11 days, and who knows how many pre-meeting breakfast caucuses and post-meeting saloon and suite connivances, they assembled the Colorado River Compact that divided the Basin into a four-state Upper Basin above the river’s major canyons and a three-state Lower Basin below the canyons, each of which would get half of the river’s mainstem water to further divvy up in their own good time.
A hundred years later, we can see that this did very little, even at that time, ‘to promote interstate comity (and) remove causes of present and future controversies’ – Arizona would not even ratify it at the time, and it took several years for the other six states to ratify it since the mathematics of only 7.5 maf precluded some of their grand visions. And it didn’t take long for the Upper Basin states to realize that their 7.5 million acre-feet ‘half’ of the diminishing post-pluvial river was probably not there – yet the Compact committed them to making sure the Lower Basin got its ‘half.’ To halve, and have naught.
The U.S. Congress, on the other hand, was generally eager to see the river developed as part of the ongoing national drive to see the nation’s lands settled by farmers and unsettled by miners – metal miners, fuel miners, tree miners, grass miners – developing the nation’s resources, and in 1928 passed the Boulder Canyon Act that set in motion construction on Hoover Dam, the Imperial Weir Dam, and the All-American Canal – a trifecta that was completed during the Great Depression years, and by the eve of the Second World War, was turning Southern California into an economic powerhouse of wartime industry.
The Boulder Canyon Act also set the allotments for each of the Lower Basin states: 4.4 maf for California, 2.8 maf for Arizona, and 300 kaf for Nevada (most of whose development was on the Sierra side of the state, very little along its short Colorado River border). Arizona immediately sued California over those allotments, and the two states were in and out of court over that until Supreme Court decisions in 1963-64 affirmed the Compact numbers for the use of water in the river’s mainstream, but granted Arizona, and the Lower Basin states in general, full use of tributaries entering below Lee Ferry, the Upper-Lower division point, outside of mainstem accounting for the water everyone hoped would go past Lee Ferry.
Receding waters at Lone Rock in Lake Powell illustrate the impacts of megadrought. Hydroelectric generation will be endangered if the lake continues to shrink. Credit: Colorado State University
The Lower Basin – abetted by the Bureau – persisted in believing that there was enough water in the river so that they could continue to write off their system losses and their half of the Mexico obligation to ‘surplus water.’ They maintained this fiction until, the early 2020s, it became obvious that they were just depleting the reservoirs. They appear to be willing now to accept that their substantial system losses have to be taken out of their share, although agreement persists in how that should happen.
The Compact obligation means that the Upper Basin states were already absorbing their losses – along with absorbing the full brunt of nature’s variability while the Lower Basin got its water regardless of Upper Basin problems. The river itself had gone from its pluvial glory of the first quarter of the century into what was its most serious dry spell until the present one; and the worst fears of the Upper Basin water managers were confirmed: there would probably only occasionally be 7.5 maf of water for them after they passed the Compact obligation on to the Lower Basin.
After World War II, the Upper Basin knew it was their turn for some development work; but first they had to create their own compact for dividing their share of the water – whatever it was. The did this between 1946 and 1948, but they did not even bother to do a four-way division in acre-feet of their alleged 7.5 maf. Instead they did percentages of whatever water they would get after meeting the Compact obligation. Still hoping, like the Lower Basin, that there would be enough ‘surplus’ – above and beyond the 15.0 maf Compact division – to handle the Mexican allotment of 1.5 maf negotiated during WW II. There’s a complex story there too, but not today.
Graphic via Holly McClelland/High Country News.
The percentages they created for their individual shares were: 51.75% for Colorado (providing 60-70% of the river’s water), 23% for Utah, 13% for Wyoming, and 11.25% for New Mexico. Their completion of the Upper Colorado River Compact in 1948 allowed the Bureau of Reclamation and its advocates in Congress – led by Wayne Aspinall from Colorado’s West Slope – to begin the process of passing the Colorado River Storage Project. This was no longer a slam dunk for the Bureau, due to a shift in the urbanizing industrialized public, from regarding the West as raw resources, to thinking of it as a source of vacation wonder and outdoor recreation. This in turn shifted the romantic vision of the river from pedal-to-the-metal development to… environmental awareness. As America got wheels and gauranteed vacations and took to the roads, Theodore Roosevelt’s brand of conservation – respectful use without waste – shifted toward preservation of natural aesthetics. But the residual momentum of development eventually got the CRSP Act passed in 1956, and several large projects and a host of small irrigation project eventually got built. At which point, by the early1970s, not only were nearly all of the good dam sites occupied by a dam, but the Bureau began to worry that much more reservoir development would reach the point where evaporation losses were prohibitive.
By the turn of the 21st century, Justice Greg Hobbs of the Colorado Supreme Court could say publicly: ‘We have developed the resource; now we have to learn how to share it.’ Some of the readers here will remember Greg Hobbs – a poet/philosopher as well as a fine water lawyer. In this context, a poet who tried to imagine the peace the river and its users need.
Do you get the sense that, by now, a century after the Compact, with everyone in agreement that the river is not only committed but probably over-committed – we might be able to finally do the seven-way division of the waters the Compact commissioners originally wanted to do? With all seven states reluctantly, grudgingly, accepting the fact that a) the water they’ve been getting in recent years is as much water as they will ever be getting – and that b) the river flows will almost certainly be gradually declining over the rest of the century, since we are doing next to nothing to address the problem causing the decline.
How do we share this?
We can set it up in a table, with numbers taken from Bureau records. I know there will be disagreements over the rough calculations herein, but they will be modest differences that should not undermine the validity of the attempt – which is an attempt to say, peace, brothers, there’s nothing left to fight over; the fight is all shadow-boxing with ourselves from here on out…. Here is the table, explained below. Click on the table to get an enlargable version:
The first two columns are pretty sef-explanatory – the states in each Basin, and the authority setting their allotment for consumptive use of the Colorado River.
Third column: The allotment of the river’s water decreed to each state by the Colorado River Compact. With the river guessstimated to be running almost 18 maf/year, it was assumed that surplus flows above the allotted 15 maf would be sufficient to cover Mexico’s share and system losses (evaporation, riparian growth, et cetera).
Fourth column: The average real allotment each state got for the run of the post-Compact 20th century, minus a share of the system losses proportionate to their calculated allotment. The average flow of the river for that period ws 14.6 maf. The Lower Basin got its full Compact allotment, thanks to Article 11(d) of the Compact, while the Upper Basin calculated its ever-varying allotments in percentages of what was left after the Lower Basin obligation was discharged.
Fifth column: The measured (with some guesstimating) actual consumptive use of the river by each state and Basin circa 2020 (before the Panic of 2022).
Sixth column: The percent of theirreal allotment (Column 4) that each state actually used. Column 5 quantities divided by Column 4 quantities. We see that Colorado and Utah in the Upper Basin and all the states in the Lower Basin have used more than their allotments when system losses are factored in, while Wyoming is well below its allotment (a situation that may be changed by current discussions concerning the Little Snake River). But for this rough analysis, those numbers are what we will use fior projecting forward.
Seventh column: The percent of the total 14.6maf ‘20th-century’ river that each state was using consumptively. Given the diminishing flows of the river, a fair and just system for allotments for the post-2026 era would be these percentages for all states and Mexico. The sharing-out of a diminishing river should not, would not in a moral society, be done through appropriation seniority; if anything, the seniors who have been using the river longest should maybe bear the larger responsibility. The Upper Basin alone does not ‘cause the flow to be depleted’; every user, and the society in general all cause that depletion; justice decrees that the resulting pain should be shared by all, proportionate to the their use. (Greg Hobbs might not agree – wish he were here to ask.)
Eighth column: What these percentages would mean when applied to the 12.6 maf average flow of the river since 2000. Read’em and groan.
Final note, on the First People water rights: Thanks to the McCarran Amendment, those must be dealt with – and are being dealt with – at the state (and in some cases interstate) level, some through court decrees, but most of them through negotiated settlements (unfortunately requiring the approval of our dysfunctional Congress). The Upper Colorado River Commission recently committed to making sure this happens for Upper Basin nations.
And that is enough for this post, wouldn’t you say? I expect to hear a few cries of outrage that we should try to face reality in a fair and just manner.
Another week with isolated precipitation and warmer-than-normal temperatures for much of the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) brought a mixture of degradations and some smaller areas of improvement. The Midwest, Northeast and Southeast generally saw one-category degradations near existing abnormally dry or drought areas. There was some improvement from Texas to West Virginia and northeastern Kansas into northwestern Illinois, which followed a band of beneficial precipitation that fell this week. The northern intermountain West saw minor improvements with isolated precipitation and decent snow (snow water equivalent). Washington saw some improvement along the eastern Cascades while abnormally dry conditions expanded southward into northwest Oregon. The Southwest and southern Plains saw extensive degradation. Another week with no precipitation continues drying out the region, with alarmingly low streamflows in some areas and high fire danger from south California into southern New Mexico. Many mountainous regions of the Southwest and into Utah and Colorado are showing abnormally low snowpack, leading to degradation in these areas…
Like much of the central part of the country, the High Plains were 5 to 10 degrees warmer than usual. Little precipitation led to minor improvements in southeast Nebraska, northeast Kansas and along the Wyoming Rockies. Due to prolonged dryness, South Dakota saw the expansion of severe drought in the north-central eastward and extreme drought in the southwest…
Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending February 4, 2025.
The Northwest saw below-normal temperatures while the rest of the Western states were near or above normal. The intermountain West saw temperatures of 5 to 10 degrees above normal. Precipitation fell along the western coast from Washington to northern California, central Idaho, and higher elevations in Montana and Wyoming. This precipitation, along with good snow water equivalents, aided dry and drought conditions in north-central Washington, northwest and northern Wyoming, and central Montana. Unlike the rest of the northwest, Oregon saw the expansion of abnormal dryness in the northwest. Despite precipitation, streamflow and soil moisture were below the 30th percentile, indicating abnormally dry conditions. The remainder of the West saw widespread degradations. Severe and extreme drought expanded in southern California into southern Nevada, Utah and Arizona. Exceptional drought was introduced in southern Nevada along the northwestern Arizona border. Conditions are alarmingly dry, with dry soil and high fire danger. Moderate drought and abnormally dry conditions expanded in central and northern Utah and western Colorado. One-category degradations continued into New Mexico, with abnormal dryness to extreme drought expanding across the state into west Texas…
Above-normal temperatures and the absence of this week’s precipitation led to widespread degradations across the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles, along the Red River and in central Oklahoma. Last week, a band of heavy rainfall fell, leading to improvements in central Texas, along the eastern edge of the Oklahoma-Texas border, along the Red River, and up into central and northern Tennessee. Outside the band of precipitation, Tennessee saw degradations in the West and along the Georgia and North Carolina borders….
Looking Ahead
Over the next five to seven days, some coastal areas of the West could see precipitation from the Oregon Cascades into northern and central California. Other higher-elevation areas in the intermountain West are also expected to receive some precipitation. Precipitation chances appear good over the southern Plains and across much of eastern CONUS, with the heaviest expected in the Appalachian region. Areas from northern Louisiana into West Virginia could see 3 to 5 inches of precipitation. Dry conditions will continue in the Southwest and Central Plains.
The 6-10 day outlook shows the greatest probability of below-normal temperatures is in the northern Plains and across the U.S.-Canadian border. Below-normal temperatures are leaning toward below normal as far south as north Texas. The best chances of above-normal temperatures will be across the Southeast, with the greatest chance being in the Florida Panhandle. Hawaii is also likely to see above-normal temperatures. Alaska could experience below-normal temperatures in the Southeast and above-normal temperatures along the state’s western side. The greatest chances of above-normal precipitation are in the southern Appalachian region and the West in south Oregon and north California. The best opportunity for below-normal precipitation is in the central and northern Alaska interior.
US Drought Monitor one week change map ending February 4, 2025.
Just for grins here’s a slide show of early February US Drought Monitor maps for the past few years.
In our desert climate, the water we use to shower, brush our teeth or do our landscaping with mostly originates from one area. That’s the Upper Colorado Basin snowpack, which is our long-term water storage system that’s replenished every winter. Currently, that snowpack sits at 76% of the 30 year average. That’s a pretty significant difference compared to the 91% reported just last month...That snowpack feeds the Colorado River, and that water drains into Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Both reservoirs remain relatively low. As of early February, Lake Mead is 34% full and Lake Powell is at 36%.
Lincoln Creek was orange just downstream of the mineralized tributary in July 2024. A team of scientists from the University of Colorado Boulder found that a mineralized tributary is also contributing rare earth elements to Lincoln Creek, in addition to other metals like aluminum. Credit: HEATHER SACKETT/Aspen Journalis
Recent sampling shows that a high-alpine tributary of the Roaring Fork River, in addition to having high concentrations of certain metals, also contains rare earth elements. But what that means for human and aquatic health is unclear.
Scientists from the University of Colorado Boulder presented the preliminary results from water-quality sampling on Lincoln Creek over last summer at a public meeting hosted by the Roaring Fork Conservancy at the Basalt Regional Library on Thursday.
Occupying a lesser-known corner of the periodic table, rare earth elements (which, despite their name, are commonly occurring in Earth’s crust) are a set of 17 heavy metals that are used in making products such as cellphones, fiber-optic cables and computer monitors. With names such as yttrium, lanthanum and neodymium, they often turn up at sites in Colorado where there is acid rock drainage, such as upper Lincoln Creek.
“You get a phone’s worth of neodymium coming down the mineralized tributary about every 5½ minutes,” said Adam Odorisio, a graduate student and researcher at CU’s environmental engineering department. “This translates to 96,000 phones per year. And what I think is the most striking fact in this is that this is for one tributary. You multiply this across hundreds of acid mine sites in Colorado and potentially thousands across the Western U.S. and it’s very exciting for resource extraction.”
CU scientists are also monitoring other high alpine acid rock and mine drainage sites in Colorado, including the Snake River. Odorisio said the concentrations of rare earth elements in a mineralized tributary that feeds Lincoln Creek was in the middle of the pack when compared to other sites around the state.
Twin Lakes collection system
In addition to the potential for mining valuable rare earth metals, scientists are eager to learn more about their impacts to human health and aquatic environments. There are no state or federal water quality standards for rare earth elements. Lincoln Creek is a source of drinking water for Front Range cities, including Colorado Springs.
“This is just wide open as an unknown area,” said Diane McKnight, a professor at CU’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. “It’s not clear that it’s something to worry about here. The water from (Lincoln Creek) that goes into the Twin Lakes system is highly diluted.”
Over nine days from June through October, the CU team collected 79 water samples from eight sites, took sediment core samples from the Grizzly Reservoir lakebed, and collected rock scrapings and bugs from the waterway. Early results also confirmed what the Environmental Protection Agency found in previous water-quality tests: The water is highly acidic, and concentrations of metals including zinc, copper and aluminum exceed standards for aquatic life. Scientists found that a groundwater source could also be adding metals to Lincoln Creek. They are still analyzing the data and plan to present more results at a spring meeting.
“For the greater scientific community, the fate of rare earth elements in aquatic systems is not well understood,” Odorisio said. “We are hoping to change that.”
The headwaters of Lincoln Creek upstream from the Ruby Mine and mineralized tributary. Recent water sampling by scientists from the University of Colorado Boulder found rare earth elements in the creek downstream, but implications for human health and aquatic impacts are unclear. Credit: HEATHER SACKETT/Aspen Journalism
The results may be of use to the Lincoln Creek workgroup, an ad hoc group – composed of officials from Pitkin County, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Independence Pass Foundation, Roaring Fork Conservancy and others – that is trying to understand how contaminants are impacting Lincoln Creek and the Roaring Fork River. The group has hired consultants LRE Water to compile water-quality data collected by several different agencies last summer and propose options to clean up the waterways.
“The rare earth metals is a group we haven’t really thought through,” said Kurt Dahl, Pitkin County’s environmental health manager. “That’s one of the things that we are talking through with the contractor, LRE Water.”
The water quality of Lincoln Creek has been under increased scrutiny in recent years as fish kills and discoloration of the water downstream of Grizzly Reservoir have become more frequent. In July, reservoir owner and operator Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. drained the reservoir for a planned dam-rehabilitation project, releasing an orange slug of sediment-laden water from the bottom of the reservoir downstream. Testing showed that the water had high levels of iron and aluminum, but not copper, which is toxic to fish.
An EPA report in 2023 determined that a “mineralized tributary,” which feeds into Lincoln Creek above the reservoir near the ghost town of Ruby, is the main source of the high concentrations of metals downstream.
Prior to mining, snowmelt and rain seep into natural cracks and fractures, eventually emerging as a freshwater spring (usually). Graphic credit: Jonathan Thompson
The process that causes metals leaching into streams can be both naturally occurring and caused by mining activities. In both cases, sulfide minerals in rock come into contact with oxygen and water, producing sulfuric acid. The acid can then leach the metals out of the rock and into a stream, a process known as acid rock drainage. The contamination from acid rock drainage seems to be increasing at other locations around Colorado and may be exacerbated by climate change as temperatures rise.
The recent water-quality-testing effort on Lincoln Creek is probably just the beginning of a long-term data-collection and monitoring program, Dahl said.
“I think there’s still a lot of energy around this,” Dahl said. “People are really invested in this, and it’s going to take a couple of years to get it characterized.”
Aspen Journalism, which is solely responsible for its editorial content, is supported by a grant from the Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund.
Click the link to read the article on the Land Desk website (Jonathan P. Thompson):
January 28, 2025
In the closing days of the Biden administration, the U.S. Geologic Survey released its National Water Availability Assessment Report, which is a whopper of a study not only on how much water Americans use and for what, but also on the quality of that water and whether and by how much demand is exceeding supply.
Most of what it says won’t be too surprising to Land Desk readers. Demand exceeds supply in swaths of the Southwest, and climate change threatens to exacerbate the imbalance. Irrigated agriculture is by far the biggest water guzzler nationwide, with Western farms consuming more than those in any other region. Municipal water consumption is staying fairly flat, even as populations increase. Thermoelectric power plants withdraw massive amounts of water, but then return much of it to the water body, keeping consumptive use relatively low.
I’m not going to try to sum up the report for you, though. Rather, I’ll give you a few of the more interesting morsels of data and maps and charts from the assessment, in no particular order, and you can make of them what you will.
This little chart sums up most of the consumption part of the report. The most surprising thing to me about this was that, in the West, groundwater withdrawals in equal or exceed surface water withdrawals for irrigation and public supplies. That means that for every gallon sucked out of the Colorado River or its tributaries, there’s roughly another gallon being pumped up from wells — and in a lot of places, like parts of Arizona, groundwater use isn’t monitored or regulated. Note that these are withdrawals, not consumptive use (which is the difference between withdrawals and water that is returned to its source). Source: USGS
This is a more detailed breakdown of agricultural water use in the West. The top number in each area is millions of gallons per day; the bottom number is millions of cubic meters per month. Notice that about 60-70% of total withdrawals are counted as consumptive use, with the remainder being returned to the water system as runoff. Source: USGS
This is a good one because it clearly shows the effects of drought on water consumption, i.e. we tend to use more water when there’s less of it available.
In this assessment, the USGS looked at how much water is used for coal and uranium mining and hydraulic fracturing oil and gas wells. They found that in 2020, fracking used about 317 million gallons per day. Since then drilling has increased, especially in the arid Permian Basin, so those numbers have likely shot up as well.
This is a striking one from the climate change chapter, showing how the number of extreme and very extreme fires has grown over time.
This is a striking one from the climate change chapter, showing how the number of extreme and very extreme fires has grown over time.
This is just a small sampling of what’s in the assessment. If you want to read more, check it out here.
The USGS assessment doesn’t break out data centers’ water use, but I imagine if the agency survives the current administration intact, it may get there in a decade or so. The computer processing centers suck up massive amounts of electricity to process those Google searches, Facebook posts, Twitter rants, and, especially, AI queries — not to mention for “mining” cryptocurrency. Less known is that they also can use large quantities of water to keep the processors cool.
A new report out of the Berkeley Lab is mostly focused on quantifying current and forecasting future energy use by data centers. But it also talks water. And the numbers are alarming: In 2023, U.S. data centers directly1 consumed about 66 billion liters (or 17.4 billion gallons) of water. The report’s authors expect that figure to double — at least — by 2028.
Hyperscale data centers are the type that power AI. Source: 2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report, by Arman Shehabi et al, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December 2024.
That is a crap-ton of water, for sure, especially given the large number of data centers located in the Phoenix and Las Vegas areas, neither of which has a lot of liquid to spare. But some perspective is warranted here. As Len Necefer points out in an All At Once By Dr. Len dispatch warning against AI-alarmism, data centers still use a heck of a lot less water than, say, growing hay or fracking oil and gas wells.
66 billion liters is 53,507 acre-feet (sounds a lot less alarming, yeah?). For some context, alfalfa and other hay growing in the Great Salt Lake Basin alone consumes about 900,000 acre-feet per year, and hydraulic fracturing gulps up about 353,000 acre-feet (a little over Nevada’s total allotment of Colorado River water) annually.
I’m still frightened by the invasion of the data centers, however. In his last days in office, Biden signed an executive order opening up federal sites and public land to new AI data centers and accompanying “clean” energy installations (which includes nuclear and even natural gas and coal, so long as they capture carbon). And Trump is now encouraging data center developers — i.e. tech-broligarchs like Musk and Bezos — to burn coal to power their AI bots (and Trump and Melania both issued their own cryptocoins).
Look, I don’t like writing about Trump any more than you like reading about him. Believe me. But he is the president, and the things he does and says sometimes have consequences. He also just makes stuff up. Like this “Truth” Social post:
Whaaaaaaat!?! I guess all that water assessment stuff is irrelevant, now, eh? I mean, here we’ve all been fretting about the Colorado River, and little did we know that Trump could make it all irrelevant by sending the military in to turn some valve somewhere and deliver all the water from the Pacific Northwest directly to the fire hydrants of L.A.
The first person who sends me a genuine picture of the giant faucet and who can mark on a map where the military turned the water on and where the pipelines or canals that carry it go gets a free Land Desk t-shirt.
But, in all seriousness, as Dr. Genevieve Guenther pointed out on her BlueSky social media feed, it’s kind of scary what’s being implied here (aside from the pure fabrication): A president is suggesting sending the military into a blue state to force his policy preferences on them. Not good.
And, finally, even the commissioners of Garfield County — or at least two out of three of them — realized it was a really bad idea to rename the Burr Trail after Trump. After a heated public hearing, they voted not to name any road in the county after him, for now.
The Burr Trail as it approaches the western boundary of Capitol Reef National Park. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
A bunch of Utah public lands. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
Click the link to read the article on the Landdesk.org website (Jonathan P. Thompson):
January 14, 2025
The latest public-land grab attempt is dead — at least for now. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Utah’s lawsuit attempting to seize control of 18.5 million acres of “unappropriated” federal lands in the state. This effectively ends Utah’s bid to take its case directly to the Supreme Court1, albeit not before it had spent over $1 million of the state taxpayer’s cash on legal expenses and a goofy PR campaign that included this bizarre ad aimed at inducing nostalgia for an era that never really was.
One might hope that this defeat at the hands of a conservative court would teach Utah’s elected officials to give up and be grateful for the abundance of public land in their state, which is actually the envy of folks everywhere. But alas, I kind of doubt they’d be that wise, because, well … Utah. So after licking their wounds, they’re likely to come back with some other strategy for purloining public lands.
Perhaps they’ll follow the lead of the Wyoming legislature, which just introduced a resolution “demanding that the United States Congress … extinguish federal title in those public lands and subsurface resources in this state that derive from former federal territory.” Which is to say that Wyoming is ordering the U.S. — i.e. all Americans — to surrender public lands within the state, with the exception of Yellowstone National Park, to the state, thus opening it up to be privatized.
Yes, the hard-right Freedom Caucus has taken control of the Wyoming legislature and, according to reporting by WyoFile, they plan to introduce “bold policies that probably have never had the opportunity to see the light of day” and that are based upon “godly principles.”
This would include public land grabs and repealing gun-free zones because, you know, Jesus was all about AR-15s. And it includes the — I kid you not — “Make Carbon Dioxide Great Again” law that would bar the state from designating or treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It would also nix Gov. Mark Gordon’s efforts to establish the state as a leader in carbon capture and sequestration technology and actually would relinquish any primacy over carbon storage to the feds. Go figure.
And just in case Congress isn’t cowed by the threat of a Wyoming-lawmaker-led revolt, then Rep. Harriet Hageman will step in with her own federal legislation. While it doesn’t attempt to transfer public land, it is aimed at neutering the Bureau of Land Management by nullifying management plans that have been years in the making. Hageman recently introduced a bill that would block implementation of the Rock Springs and Buffalo field office resource management plans.
Stay tuned. I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of these shenanigans.
The Paradox Valley in western Colorado. The proposed Mustang, née Piñon Ridge, uranium mill would be located on the far side of the valley (center right in the picture). Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
For the past few years, Western Uranium & Vanadium, based in Canada and Nucla, Colorado, has been making a lot of noise about plans to bring its Sunday Mine Complex in the Uravan Mineral Belt into production. It’s also proposing to establish a new uranium mill just outside Green River, Utah — thereby furthering the industrialization of the melon-farming town. So far, however, the mine has not produced any ore, nor has the mill progressed beyond the “baseline data collection” stage.
But that hasn’t stopped the company from keeping the hype going. Yesterday it announced it would begin data collection at the former Piñon Ridge uranium mill site in the Paradox Valley, which it’s now calling the Mustang Mineral Processing Facility.
You may recognize the Piñon Ridge name. Back in 2007, Energy Fuels — the current owner of the White Mesa Uranium Mill — purchased the site and proposed building a uranium mill there. At the time, George Glasier, who currently helms Western Uranium & Vanadium, was Energy Fuel’s CEO. A lot of locals were not so psyched about having a new radioactive site in their midst, and opposition to the proposed mill was fierce.
A twisted saga ensued, finally ending when the state revoked the mill’s permit in 2018. In the interim, Glasier had stepped down from the helm of Energy Fuels, which had acquired the White Mesa Mill, started his own company, and purchased the Piñon Ridge project. Last year, Western U&V acquired the Piñon Ridge project from Glasier’s company. And now Glasier seems to think he can get a newly designed mill permitted (he has yet to apply for a permit). Or maybe he’s just fishing for more investors’ dollars. In any case, the folks who led the resistance to the mill last time are ready to push back once again if necessary.
📖 Reading Room 🧐
Here come those Santa Ana winds again …
The National Weather Service has issued an extreme fire danger bulletin for a good chunk of the greater Los Angeles metro area, including a “particularly dangerous situation” alert, through tomorrow as the Santa Ana winds kick up again. This as the Palisades and Eaton fires continue to burn, having already taken 24 lives and an estimated 12,300 structures.
It’s been stunning to watch the destruction from afar and heartbreaking to imagine the collective sense of loss rippling across the sprawling metropolis of 18 million. The immensity of it all, the rate at which the fires spread, and the way the Santa Anas send flaming embers into the air to spawn their own blazes miles away is horrifying. Equally baffling is the way the tragedy seems to have opened up a firehose of stupidity, finger-pointing, and grandstanding, issuing forth from the President-elect, Elon Musk, political pundits, and and even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who asked: “Why don’t they use geoengineering like cloud seeding to bring rain down on the wildfires in California? They know how to do it.”2
I considered spending a bunch of words explaining how and why these folks are wrong. But even acknowledging their existence and repeating their inane lies makes me vomit a bit in my mouth, and trying to debunk even a fraction of the claims is to play a futile game of whack a mole, though that’s not stopping California’s government from trying. As an antidote, I’ve been reading some smart things about the fires, the Santa Ana winds, and Los Angeles, and I figured it would be nice to share some of them with you.
Start out with Joan Didion’s essay on the Santa Ana winds, in which she reminds us that this month’s raging Santa Anas aren’t entirely unprecedented. A two-week long Thanksgiving-time Santa Ana event in 1957 included 100-mph gusts that toppled oil derricks, propelled heavy objects through the air (some of which killed people), and drove a blaze through the San Gabriels for well over a week. She writes:
Then check out the opening lines of Raymond Chandler’s Red Wind(and how can you stop reading after this!?):
And the late Mike Davis’s “The Case for Letting Malibu Burn” should be required reading in these times. And yes, it’s quite a bit more nuanced than the title might suggest. Davis gives a good history of post-colonial fires in the Malibu area and explains how in 1930 Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., called for turning 10,000 acres there into a public park (that could have burned in natural cycles, without destroying homes).
Alas, that didn’t happen. Instead, Malibu was developed, and fires roared through there in 1930, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938. The city had the opportunity to acquire 17,000 acres for just $1.1 million and turn it into a preserve in 1938 — it passed up the chance. Housing came, instead, along with more destructive fires. He writes:
Each fire, then, was followed by reconstruction on a larger, more exclusive scale. Malibu went from being a ranching, rural area, to a bohemian enclave, to a high-end suburb. “Two kinds of Californians will continue to live with fire:,” Davis writes, “those who can afford (with indirect public subsidies) to rebuild and those who can’t afford to live anywhere else.”
Joshua Frank mentions Davis’s essay in a poignant piece for CounterPunch in which he asks folks to stop their victim-blaming and have a bit of compassion, even if they don’t like L.A.. He writes:
At his Public Lands Media Substack, George Wuerthner talks about how these are really urban wildfires, not forest fires, and so the old mitigation and prevention techniques don’t necessarily apply.
He argues that prescribed burns and thinning wouldn’t have worked, because the fires started in the chaparral, which has a natural fire regime of about 30 to 100 years. Prescribed burns tend to eliminate native species that are then replaced by more flammable grasses.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, fire experts Jack Cohen and Stephen Pyne also talk about how these fires don’t fit into conventional notions of wildfire. In both the Palisades and Eaton fires, there were unburned trees sitting right next to homes that had been totally destroyed. Cohen:
Here’s hoping for an ember-free day for Los Angeles.
1 This was corrected from saying it effectively ended their legal bid. As reader Slickrock Stranger pointed out, that’s not necessarily the case. Utah could still take its case to the lower courts and keep losing until it ends up at the Supreme Court (which could again decline to hear the case, or something else). But SCOTUS did shoot down this particular strategy of going straight to the Supreme Court for a decision.
2 Oh, that’s right, because “they” modified the weather so that Hurricane Helene would wreck the southeast and keep all those Republicans from voting. Yeah. No. First off, Marge, while the theory behind cloudseeding is legit, there is scant evidence that it significantly increases precipitation. And, even so, it only works if there are already moisture-laden clouds present to seed. Thus the name. Now, maybe if They sent a hurricane to L.A. blowing inland from the Pacific, it would cancel out the Santa Anas, which blow toward the ocean, and then we’d be fine. Alas, They can’t control the weather.
This hayfield near Rifle is irrigated with water from a tributary of the Colorado River. The future of Colorado River management is almost guaranteed to include a conservation program for the Upper Basin. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
After years of studying and experimenting with pilot programs, the future of Colorado River management will almost certainly include a permanent water conservation program for the Upper Basin states.
Upper Basin officials have submitted refinements to their March 2024 plan for how water should be released from Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and how shortages should be shared after the current guidelines expire in 2026. In it, they offer up the potential for up to 200,000 acre-feet per year of water conservation.
“The kind of conservation activities, I think the exact contours of that and how that would work, all that is yet to be determined,” said Amy Ostdiek, chief of the interstate, federal and water information section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “But conservation activities across the Upper Division states, in one way or another, I think, will likely continue.”
The proposal by the Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) now includes two water-savings accounts in Lake Powell. One is a Lake Powell Conservation Account that will store up to 200,000 acre-feet per year from conservation and from quantified and settled but unused tribal water. The second, a Lake Powell Protection Account, would store water released from upstream reservoirs — Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Blue Mesa — when Lake Powell drops below 3,535 feet in elevation.
These pools would be part of what the Upper Basin is calling “parallel activities,” and details would be hammered out in agreements separate from the new reservoir operation guidelines, which the seven Colorado River basin states are negotiating. Conservation is based on each year’s hydrology, with more water saved in wet years.
For the past several years, Upper Basin officials 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 (California, Arizona and Nevada) overuses its share. At the same time, however, the Upper Basin has been exploring programs that would pay water users to cut back. These programs include the System Conservation Pilot Program and the state of Colorado’s study of a demand management program.
In March, each basin submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation competing proposals for future river management, with the Lower Basin calling for cuts to be shared by the Upper Basin under the most critical conditions. For months, each basin dug in their heels, saying their alternative was best. The result was a stalemate when talks ground to a halt by the end of the year.
According to state officials, representatives of the seven basin states have recently resumed talks.
“I’m happy to report that the seven states are continuing discussions,” Becky Mitchell, a commissioner to the Upper Colorado River Commission and who represents Colorado in talks among the seven states, said at the Colorado Water Congress annual convention Thursday in Aurora. “We are working hard to identify potential areas of consensus.”
Colorado River expert and author Eric Kuhn said the Upper Basin’s proposal for the two water savings pools in Lake Powell is a sign of optimism.
“I kind of see it as a change in tone and putting something on the table that is closer to the Lower Basin’s proposal,” Kuhn said. “That seems like fairly significant progress to me.”
The watchwords for these types of conservation programs have always been “temporary, voluntary and compensated.” But in the face of a hotter, drier future with less water to go around, officials are acknowledging the inevitability of a more permanent Upper Basin water-conservation program.
“I think it’s almost guaranteed,” said Amy Haas, executive director of the Colorado River Authority of Utah.
Navajo Bridge spans the Colorado River downstream from Lake Powell near Lee Ferry, the dividing line between the upper and lower basin. Upper Basin officials have proposed up to 200,000 acre-feet of water conservation a year in Lake Powell. Photo credit: Aspen Journalism
Western Slope concerns remain
Paying water users to cut back is not a new concept in the Upper Basin.
In 2023, using federal money from the Inflation Reduction Act, the Upper Basin states rebooted the System Conservation Pilot Program, which first took place from 2015 to 2018. Over two years, the program saved 101,000 acre-feet of water at a cost of $45 million. SCPP has been criticized for a lack of transparency, for not tracking conserved water to Lake Powell and the high cost.
And although all water-use sectors — including agriculture, cities and industry — were invited to participate, in practice all the participating water users in the state of Colorado were Western Slope irrigators.
This disproportionate participation by one area of the state and the potential harm it could cause to rural agricultural communities has long been something the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District has warned against. The district, which leads in the protection, conservation, use and development of water across 15 Western Slope counties, had sought to play a role in setting criteria and approving applications for the SCPP. But in the end, the Upper Colorado River Commission had the sole authority for deciding who could participate.
Now that the Upper Basin seems poised for more permanent and robust conservation, the River District is reasserting the need for rules that protect the Western Slope.
“Our state and the three other Upper Basin states have put it on the table as a negotiating chip,” River District General Manager Andy Mueller said at the district’s regular board meeting Jan. 21. “We will see some form of program come out of this. The question is: When it gets operated inside of our state, can we influence how it gets operated? Can we create a situation where we avoid every drop of that water coming out of the West Slope?”
The River District board on Jan. 21 authorized writing a letter to state officials and Colorado’s congressional delegation about creating a conservation program that avoids disproportionate impacts to Western Slope water users. One of the River District’s fears is that Front Range cities — which have junior water rights from the Colorado River and have deep pockets — in a version of “buy and dry” could pay for water conservation in Western Slope agriculture and store the water in Lake Powell to protect themselves from future mandatory cutbacks.
“That’s not something we would be supportive of,” Mueller said. “That’s the kind of guidelines we want to see come out of the state for conditions on participating in a program.”
Lake Powell is seen in a November 2019 aerial photo from the nonprofit EcoFlight. The Upper Basin states are proposing two pools of stored water in Lake Powell: A Lake Powell protection account and a Lake Powell conservation account. Credit: EcoFlight
Utah demand management
The future of SCPP in 2025 is unclear, with federal funding authorization pending. But the state of Utah is not waiting for a basinwide program to materialize. With a $4 million appropriation, the state is funding a two-year demand-management pilot program, which will pay irrigators to take water off their fields, switch to more efficient irrigation methods or release downstream water stored in reservoirs. Haas said the program has received 26 applications for 2025.
A main goal of Utah’s conservation program is to track and account for the saved water in Lake Powell, something the SCPP has failed to do in its first years. The Upper Colorado River Commission recently penned an agreement with Reclamation that will allow Upper Basin water users to account for water saved through conservation programs in Lake Powell.
“Utah really believes that in order to put teeth on our commitments in the Upper Basin post-2026, we’ve got to be undertaking these conservation activities,” Haas said. “I think that’s why we are headed in this direction, and we are leading among the four Upper Division states in terms of piloting our own demand-management program.”
The state of Colorado did a two-year study of its own potential demand-management program beginning in 2019, but the state has since shelved that work.
Federal water managers also seem to be gravitating toward conservation in the Upper Basin. On Jan. 17, the Bureau of Reclamation released a report on five potential alternatives for reservoir operations and shortage sharing. Three of the four “action” alternatives include the provision for storing up to 200,000 acre-feet of water annually in Lake Powell. (The analysis also includes a “no-action” alternative as a formality, which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act.)
Even though the Upper Basin states will commit to some amount of future water conservation, officials say exactly how much will vary by year.
“That number is going to be driven by hydrology,” Ostdiek said. “We also know in the Upper Basin, our ability to store water in that type of account will probably be greater in wetter years. … It’s not an assumption that we would be able to do 200,000 acre-feet in every year.”
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Change is the only constant, all around us at all times. In our natural, human, and political systems, the pace of change feels particularly intense right now. How will we participate in this change, appropriate to its scope and scale, to shape or be shaped by it?
For the past several years, the Colorado Farm & Food Alliance has focused on three broad “avenues” (or approaches) for local solutions regarding rural climate action. In each of these, the new federal administration and shift in Congress could impede or derail progress already made and potentially into the future.
Avenues for climate action that the CO Farm & Food Alliance has focused on are (1) meeting landscape-level conservation goals to secure water supplies and boost ecological and climate resilience; (2) producing more locally generated and community-centered clean energy; and (3) helping small-acreage agricultural producers benefit from and support the shift to more regenerative practices that increase climate mitigation and adaptation, and boost farm health.
In 2025, we expect ongoing attempts to rollback current environmental and conservation policy – based on stated intent from the new administration and Congress, along with early action and leadership changes in agencies and on committees – with a hard shift away from natural resource protection, environmental justice, and climate action.
The CO Farm & Food Alliance is troubled by this change in federal direction. We will work with partners to defend the progress made and seek opportunities to continue that progress.
With our model of local action and community-rooted solutions, the CO Farm & Food Alliance will work to prevent harm and continue to advance on all of these fronts in partnership with national and local allies.
meeting landscape-level conservation goals to secure our water supplies, wildlife, and quality of place
The Colorado Farm & Food Alliance began with the premise that healthy lands and clean water protect Colorado farms, food, and drink. At the time of our founding, we sought to unify as a local voice for farm and food leaders who supported the protection of the public lands and water source areas surrounding the North Fork Valley.
As our focus broadened to include food security and climate change, among other issues, we also recognized that land use, specifically the conservation and restoration of natural places and systems is a powerful way to help address climate anomalies.
The Colorado Farm & Food Alliance remains committed to working with our partners to secure and maintain protection for critical public and watershed lands in western Colorado. Protecting cherished places such as the Thompson Divide and Clear Fork area, the North Fork Valley, and Dolores Canyons enjoys broad public appeal.
Conservation also helps address the biodiversity crisis and makes watersheds and Colorado farms more resilient to drought. These iconic landscapes are foundational to the character of this place and its residents. They protect our water supplies, essential wildlife habitats, and popular hunting and recreation areas. This means we will join with others to defend public lands and conservation policies from rollbacks and other emerging threats in Washington. However, there will also be opportunities to champion the importance of public lands to Colorado and highlight their values.
producing more locally produced and community-centered clean energy
Rural communities’ powering of farms, businesses, and homes—and the growth of renewable energy projects in rural areas—can significantly improve people’s lives and livelihoods. However, rollbacks to clean energy, environmental justice, and other climate programs could set western Colorado back and be a “gut punch” we do not need.
The Colorado Farm & Food Alliance supports deploying more community-based renewable energy for farms and rural communities. We will closely monitor how Washington’s changes might impact local communities’ ability to develop their own home-grown power solutions.
For transitioning coal and power-plant communities, like the North Fork and other places in Colorado, environmental justice means supporting local solutions for front-line communities. This is recognized in climate funding laws passed during the last Congress, which directly benefit places like Craig, Naturita, and Pueblo, as well as communities in Delta County. However, a recent January 2025 White House Executive Order seeks to defund many of these programs.
Despite this, we will continue working with partners to help advance innovative community-based clean energy projects – like the Thistle Whistle Community Solar project. We will advocate for the preservation of funding that allows coal-mining and power-plant communities – whether rural or urban, red or blue – to envision and implement their own home-grown energy solutions.
The North Fork River valley. Photo credit: Colorado Farm & Food Alliance
supporting small-acreage agricultural producers in benefiting from a shift to more regenerative practices
The Farm Bill, which is central to agriculture in the United States, was recently extended for a third time. This has made a normally five-year bill into an eight-and-counting ordeal. It is not certain that it will be settled this year, but it will have a far-reaching impact when it is.
That’s because the Farm Bill touches many things, from nutrition to farming to clean energy. Even with an uncertain passage, the debate over this bill will continue in committees in both the House and the Senate, now under narrow Republican control.
The Farm Bill is one place rural renewables get funded, through the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This is another place where cuts might come to clean energy under a new Congress and priority shifts in the administration.
Clean energy is just one small part of the Farm Bill. Several vital programs funded by this legislation could be at risk of cuts or elimination. These include nutrition programs such as SNAP (“food stamps”) and Doubleup Foodbucks. This program, which could be targeted, addresses hunger in our communities and supports local farmers by increasing SNAP benefits at local farmers’ markets.
Farm and ranch conservation funding is another area likely to see proposed Farm Bill cuts. This includes helping small-acreage farmers implement more regenerative and climate-adapted practices. Programs that support small-acreage farmers are essential for conservation. In the U.S., the number of farmers is decreasing, but the average size of farms is increasing. Many small farms will be converted to other uses and will not stay in agriculture if farming becomes nonviable.
The loss of a farm is personally devastating and sends ripples through the local economy. It also limits the type and scope of nature-based climate solutions that can be implemented. In important headwaters and agricultural areas, like the Gunnison River basin, ensuring the viability of agriculture–which smaller and mid-sized farms and ranches dominate–and protecting our farm economies are critical strategies to support rural, farm-based climate action.
Conservation funding and nutrition programs that allow farmers to provide food directly into local markets are key tools that improve farm outputs, provide income, boost resilience, and address food insecurity in western Colorado.
The Colorado Farm & Food Alliance is sharing and we will continue to develop new and additional resources to help farmers and others navigate policy and program changes at the USDA and other agencies. We will also highlight growers and ranchers practicing techniques that make their farms and pastures more resilient, productive, and sustainable. Showcasing our successes and our shared work will be important in the years ahead.
A North Fork Orchard. Photo credit: Colorado Farm & Food Alliance
The Future is here: We are it.
Despite all these changes and challenges coming our way, we can find security in our community and shared endeavors. We can create something new, sustainable, and fair that emerges right here.
But first, we must persist. This means securing and defending what we have and value most. It means standing up for the vulnerable and those people and places that are targets of attack.
Still, that cannot be all we do. We should neither feel defeated nor content to just wait for a different time. We should imagine new ways to connect with each other now, to celebrate what we cherish and to replicate and share out what we do well.
The future is up to us, but we are mighty together. Now we must become the change we seek.
I write with a steadfast commitment to Hopi – the land, animals and people that have been in so-called Arizona since life began. We Hopi claim responsibility not just for Arizona life, but for biodiversity throughout the world, endowed to us by the Creator. In my political and nonprofit positions, I’ve worked to protect Bears Ears National Monument, Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, and Chaco Canyon. In my current role as a consultant on land protection campaigns with WildEarth Guardians, I am engaged in the Greater Gila campaign, protecting Hopi ancestral homelands in the Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Unrelenting uranium mining, fracking, livestock grazing and recreational abuse have decimated the land as well as our sacred sites. Tribes, nonprofits and community members cannot afford to backslide during this second Trump administration, and we cannot give away our power by waiting four years.
Through my work with environmental nonprofits and elected officials, I have witnessed small strides toward LandBack, tribal sovereignty and less extractive management of public lands. While I am certainly grateful for actions to protect places sacred to the Hopi and other tribes, I am deeply concerned about this second Trump administration, and the disturbing pattern of Democrats crafting campaigns that are disconnected from the poorest in this country – in rural America and on tribal lands. To address the polycrises of the current moment, we need bold action from decision makers. Standing in the middle of the road will only continue to perpetuate the harms of colonization.
The founding of the United States, and its subsequent accrual of wealth and power, were built on slavery and genocide. Most Native people have never fully recovered from this, continuing to live without access to running water, concerned about our water rights in general, and well aware that the federal government could break treaties at any time – a practice that has never stopped or been fully remediated. We do not need more apologies or statements. We need meaningful, direct action – legislative and community-led, before the Trump administration begins eviscerating the work we have done.
My work with WildEarth Guardians relies on decolonization and addressing past harms – including those done by the conservation movement – to ensure they are not repeated in the future. From the Native perspective, we have always cared about the land, through common teachings, oral history, ceremony and relationships. From the nonprofit perspective, conservation has historically been rooted in science and law. Steps towards honoring and uplifting traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom through co-stewardship, co-management and LandBack efforts must not be abandoned. Courageous allyship from our public servants – congressional and state officials alike – in dismantling an oligarchic takeover of both parties is imperative. We invite you to stand arm in arm with us in a bold renunciation of campaign contributions from entities that enable genocide (both at home and abroad), empower the fossil fuel industry, and generally create more poverty, climate change, racism and extinction. It will not be possible to achieve the continuation of life while also prioritizing re-election through corporate contributions and political vanity.
Clark Tenakhongva, former vice chairman of the Hopi Nation and former co-chairman of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition via his Facbook page.
To protect our sacred lands and, at minimum, hold the line on what tribes have fought for (and won), there must be a bold alternative to Trump’s authoritarianism.To meet these trying times, members of Congress, federal and state agencies, and state legislatures must:
Protect and defendthe existing boundaries of the most vulnerable national monuments, including Bears Ears, Ancestral Footprints, Grand Staircase, and others targeted by the Trump administration.
Recognize that water is life. Contamination of our rivers and streams and underground aquifers are a perpetual problem. Hopi people have significant rates of cancer due to uranium poisoning.
Congress must reform the archaic 1872 Mining Law, which gives free reign to corporations (many of them foreign) to exploit our lands and poison our bodies.
Congress must also ratify and fund the Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 2024.This urgent matter has already cost our tribes millions of dollars as we’ve searched for an agreement. Securing these water rights is potentially the most important thing Congress can do to immediately benefit the Hopi.
The U.S. government must fully fund agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. Lack of capacity and law enforcement has led to increased vandalism, looting and illegal ATV use, as well as recreational overuse. The Schultz Fire, in the Coconino National Forest, was started by an abandoned campfire. The 15,000-acre burn destroyed much of our sacred Douglas Fir that we use for ceremonies, and resulted in a new, bureaucratic process for Hopi with the U.S. Forest Service. Permits are now required in a place our ancestors had gathered freely for centuries. This is one example of how an underfunded, understaffed agency, coupled with a push for more tourism, had devastating and far-reaching consequences.
The Biden administration’s Executive Order 13175 mandatesthat federal agencies consult with tribes regarding land management. Congress should uphold this mandate and, in fact, increase contact with tribal governments and communities in order to honor all perspectives. This mandate has not yet resulted in deep or meaningful changes. Support and directives for agencies to meaningfully engage with tribes, even under a second Trump administration, is critical.
As a veteran, I support our troops and responsible military behavior. But low-level military flights over current and ancestral Hopi lands have resulted in poor nesting conditions and survival outcomes for golden eagles and hawks. Military flights have increased over the tribal and ancestral lands of the White Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, Tohono O’odham, Hopi and others. We ask that Congress continue to hold the Department of Defense accountable for reckless overflights, dropping flares (which have caused forest fires) and dropping chaff (toxic military training material which contains PFAS and other contaminants).
It is my hope that if elected officials, community members and agencies truly act out the values they purport, we can start down a path of healing. I close this letter with a sincere prayer and a reminder that life is precious.
President Trump issues executive orders on energy production, water supplies, and climate change.
Other executive orders target foreign aid, FEMA, and the Paris agreement.
In settlement with EPA, California mobile home park operator agrees to fix failing water system.
Reclamation publishes a report detailing five options it will analyze for post-2026 Colorado River management.
And lastly, President Trump visits recent disaster zones in California and North Carolina.
“I wanted to go to Los Angeles and see what was going on with California, why they aren’t releasing the water. Millions and millions of gallons of water, they’re sending it out to the Pacific. Someday, somebody’s going to explain that one. In the meantime, they have no water in Los Angeles, where they had the problems.” – President Donald Trump, on January 24, while visiting Fletcher, North Carolina to see damage from Hurricane Helene before he flew to Los Angeles.
Trump’s comments displayed a misunderstanding of California water. Water flowing to the Pacific through the Golden Gate is necessary to prevent salt water from encroaching in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, a source of local drinking water and irrigation in addition to fish habitat. Hydrants in Los Angeles went dry in some areas during the fires because of the massive strain on the municipal water system from firefighting. Trump said he wanted to make disaster aid to California contingent on sending more water to the Central Valley and Southern California.
By the Numbers
12: Biden administration executive orders repealed in President Trump’s order on “Unleashing American Energy.” The repealed orders dealt with climate risk, forest protection, environmental justice, and clean energy.
News Briefs
The First Week President Donald Trump spent his first week in office beginning to unravel the energy and environment legacy of his predecessor.
In a flurry of executive orders, Trump made good on campaign promises to reject international entanglements and promote the fossil fuel industry while trimming America’s financial commitments to the rest of the world.
Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement and froze international spending on climate mitigation and adaptation. The Biden administration estimated U.S. climate finance for developing countries was $9.5 billion in 2023. The executive order intends to claw back unspent funds and revoke policies that support international climate action.
Other foreign spending is at risk. Trump paused, for 90 days, new “obligations and disbursements” of foreign aid, saying in the order that foreign aid is “not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values.”
On the domestic side, another order directed the Commerce and Interior departments to begin the work to send more water from northern California to southern California via canals. In Trump’s view – supported by big farm groups that would benefit from the action – water that exits the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta is “wasted,” when in fact those flows are necessary to keep salt water out of the largest estuary on the West Coast. The order resurrects an attempt from the first Trump administration to rewrite water export policy. That attempt was halted by a federal district court.
In disaster policy, Trump signed an order to review FEMA’s mission and possibly eliminate the agency. A council of no more than 20 agency heads and people outside of government will make a recommendation. “I think, frankly, FEMA is not good,” Trump said while in North Carolina.
And in energy policy, Trump ordered a review of all policies that burden not only the development of domestic energy sources, but also their use. That means reviewing and possibly rescinding water and energy efficiency standards for appliances and showerheads. The order suspends Inflation Reduction Act funds for clean energy projects.
The order tells agencies to reconsider decisions that withdrew public lands from mineral exploration, such as mining leases near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Trump also revoked Biden administration orders that required agencies to account for the financial risks of climate change, consider the social cost of carbon, find opportunities to use nature-based solutions, protect old growth forests, and make climate change a foreign policy priority.
All told, the federal government’s priorities have been reordered, and agencies will evaluate future projects with new criteria for costs and benefits.
California Mobile Home Park The operator of Oasis Mobile Home Park, located in Riverside County, California, reached a settlement with the EPA to fix the community’s failing water system, which is contaminated with arsenic and sewage from leaking septic systems.
The agency noted the failures for years, including an administrative order in 2021, but the operators did not comply, the complaint states. In addition to the fixes, the operators will pay a $50,000 fine.
The park is located within the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Reservation, in Thermal, California.
Studies and Reports
Colorado River Management Options The Bureau of Reclamation published a report detailing the five options it will analyze when deciding how to manage the Colorado River after current guidelines expire in 2026.
The options present a range of water conservation plans and water release schedules that were submitted by states, tribes, and environmental groups in the basin.
On the Radar
Panama Canal Hearing On January 28, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will hold a hearing to discuss the Panama Canal’s influence on U.S. trade and national security.
President Trump has suggested that the U.S. try to take back the canal, which it handed over to Panama in 1999. House Republicans introduced a bill to authorize purchasing the canal.
RFK Jr. Confirmation Hearing On January 29, the Senate Finance Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that the U.S. handed over the Panama Canal in 1978. The treaty authorizing the handover was ratified that year.
Federal Water Tap is a weekly digest spotting trends in U.S. government water policy. To get more water news, follow Circle of Blue on Twitter and sign up for our newsletter.
In 2024, the City of Fort Collins applied for a 1041 permit from Larimer County. As a part of the permit process, two public hearings will take place with the county’s Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
The meetings are scheduled at the Larimer County offices at 200 W. Oak St. in Fort Collins at the following times:
Planning Commission: February 19, 2025 at 6 p.m.
Board of County Commissioners: March 24, 2025 at 6:30 p.m.
The Planning Commission holds its hearing to provide a permit recommendation to the County Commissioners. The County Commissioners hold a hearing to make a final decision on the permit application.
The Halligan Project requires a 1041 permit from Larimer County because it includes the enlargement of a reservoir resulting in a surface area at high water line in excess of 50 acres. The permit process looks at all aspects of the project. To view the application, visit the county’s portal by clicking the button below.
Information Session on Larimer County Permit Application
As someone who is interested in the Halligan Water Supply Project, we are reaching out to inform you about recent developments. In 2024, the City of Fort Collins submitted an application for a 1041 permit from Larimer County. The City, acting through Fort Collins Utilities, is proceeding with this permitting process now as the project is moving through phases of design and closer to construction. The permit process looks at all aspects of the project. To view the application, visit the county’s website by clicking this link.
To increase awareness, the City is hosting an Information Sessionon Feb. 12, 2025 from 6-7:30 p.m. at the Livermore Community Hall. City staff will be on hand to highlight elements of the application and answer questions. While this won’t be part of the official public comment process with Larimer County, we encourage you to engage directly with us. To RSVP, click the button below. Light refreshments will be provided.
A bill advanced Tuesday by the Arizona House Committee on Natural Resources, Energy and Water aims to allocate $1 million to defend the Grand Canyon State’s water rights as part of the ongoing battle over the Colorado River. The bill, known as House Bill 2103, seeks to set aside the funds to support litigation in the event that negotiations among the seven states dependent on the river break down. Arizona is preparing for the possibility of legal action if the ongoing discussions fail to resolve water allocation disputes. The bill passed with unanimous support from the committee, though Democrats indicated they will propose an amendment to increase the allocation to $3 million, in line with Governor Katie Hobbs‘ proposed budget…
At the center of the debate are two factions: the Upper Basin states—Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming—and the Lower Basin states, which include Arizona, California and Nevada…But as the clock ticks down toward 2026, when potential cuts could be enforced by the federal government, tensions are mounting over the distribution of the river’s limited water supply…Arizona’s position is clear: it wants to be able to fight its corner if necessary and needs funds to do it. The request for funds to potentially fight a legal battle was first proposed in September 2024 by Tom Buschatzke, the director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
It’s time for an agreement in the Colorado River Basin, Colorado water and climate experts say.
Colorado River officials are at odds over how to store and release water in the basin’s reservoirs when the current rules lapse in 2026. Publicly, state negotiators stick close to their original, competing proposals, released early in 2024. Colorado experts watching the process understand the difficulty — it’s painful to talk about cutting water use — but time is of the essence.
Jennifer Pitt, the National Audubon Society’s Colorado River program director, paddles a kayak through a restoration site. (Source: Jesus Salazar, Raise the River)
“I have no idea what’s going to get them to agreement,” said Jennifer Pitt, the Colorado River program director for the National Audubon Society. “To me, the biggest pressure seems like time is running out.”
But there seems to be a lack of trust between the state negotiators, said Jennifer Gimbel, senior water policy scholar at the Colorado Water Center at Colorado State University.
“Not only is there this lack of trust, but there almost seems to be this effort to promote your own proposals by denigrating other proposals,” Gimbel said. “That frustrated me to no end. It’s like they have these political rallies.” [ed. emphasis mine]
If states are going to propose a united plan, then they need to do it by the end of 2025, preferably sooner, experts said.
“We continue to stand firmly behind the Upper Division States’ Alternative, which performs best according to Reclamation’s own modeling and directly meets the purpose and need of this federal action,” Colorado’s negotiating team said in a prepared statement Tuesday.
The basin is also about to see new leadership at the federal level. Colorado water experts are waiting to know who President Donald Trump will appoint to key positions, like the commissioner of Reclamation and the assistant secretary for water and science.
“They’re in a really tough spot. I would understand that,” said John Berggren with the environmental group Western Resource Advocates. “I hope they’re continuing to negotiate and have productive conversations, and I hope they’re open to some more creative options.”
Planning for the extremes
So what options are they considering? In the absence of a seven-state agreement on how to manage the basin’s water supply, the Bureau of Reclamation outlined five possible plans in November:
No action: Included as a formality and shows the risk of doing nothing
Federal authorities: Includes maximum Lower Basin cuts of 3.5 million acre-feet in extremely dry years
Federal authorities hybrid: Includes maximum cuts of 3.5 million acre-feet in the Lower Basin and conserving up to 200,000 acre-feet in the Upper Basin
Cooperative conservation: Includes maximum cuts of 4 million acre-feet in the Lower Basin and conserving up to 200,000 acre-feet in the Upper Basin
Basin hybrid: Includes maximum cuts of 2.1 million acre-feet in the Lower Basin and conserving up to 100,000 acre-feet in the Upper Basin
Colorado experts want to make sure the federal planning process is broad enough to include the worst possible conditions.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
The Colorado River Basin’s flows are about 20% lower now than in the 20th century, said Brad Udall, senior water and climate research scientist at the Colorado Water Center at Colorado State University. That’s a drop from about 15.2 million acre-feet per year to about 12.4 million acre-feet, he said.
That’s not enough for the 15 million acre-feet allotted to the seven U.S. states, much less the additional water owed to Mexico and tribal nations.
Udall wants to make sure officials are planning for scenarios in which the river’s flow drops by an additional 10%, or down to 11 million acre-feet.
“The question is … who takes the pain? Is it all Lower Basin? Is Upper Basin sharing that?” he said.
One new detail for the Colorado experts who reviewed the report was the duration of the next management plan: Reclamation wants it to last for at least 20 years after 2026. It is unlikely to be a short-term, interim plan to give negotiators more time to reach a unified agreement.
The revised proposal submitted by the Upper Basin states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — also highlighted conserving up to 200,000 acre-feet of water (depending on river conditions), which seemed to move the states closer to alignment with Reclamation, experts said…
The Upper Basin’s revised proposal, and the federal options, include different “pools” in Lake Powell on the Utah-Arizona border, which would function like savings accounts and could store water conserved by Upper Basin states. Colorado water experts are keeping a close eye on how these accounts might work.
“Putting water in Powell is a good thing, but nobody in the Upper Basin wants to send water to protect Powell that ultimately just runs downstream,” said Steve Wolff, general manager of the Southwestern Water Conservation District based in Durango.
The experts wanted to know more about how conservation pools would function; how federal authorities in the basin might expand; which reservoirs will be included in the plan; what the impacts to the Grand Canyon would be under the different plans; and ultimately, what plan will stabilize the system.
They’ll have to wait to find out: The bureau is expected to release a deeper analysis of how each alternative could impact water management in different conditions later this year.
The Bureau of Reclamation’s final selection will likely mix and match elements of the different alternatives, said Carly Jerla, senior water resource program manager with the Bureau of Reclamation in a December presentation in Las Vegas.
“It’s a shame we don’t have a combined Upper Basin and Lower Basin plan right now,” Udall said. “Once Reclamation does its modeling, we’ll learn a lot. But we need a combined plan.”
Click the link to read the release on the ADWR website (Doug MacEachern):
January 30, 2025
A breakdown of water-related investments included in the recently released Executive Budget proposal from Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs:
$14.6M Deposit to WIFA Water Conservation Grant Fund
Governor Hobbs has now allocated $14.6 million to the Water Conservation Grant Fund to enable the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) to continue investing in generational water conservation projects.
Thanks to $200 million awarded by the State in federal funds allocated through the American Rescue Plan Act, WIFA has been able to fund conservation-focused projects across Arizona. To date, WIFA has funded over 150 water conservation projects. The Governor’s 2025 Executive Budget proposal includes investments in current and future water solutions, including WIFA’s funding for rural water supply development and long-term augmentation.
These critical resources will help ensure that rural areas can invest in the infrastructure they need to be water resilient, statewide efforts continue their investment in the infrastructure Arizona needs to find sustainable, renewable water supplies for the future. These investments speak directly to the mission of WIFA, which has been to augment and expand Arizona’s water supplies.
$12M Grant for City of Buckeye Renewable Water Infrastructure
By enrolling in the new Alternative Designation of 100-year Assured Water Supply (ADAWS) Program, the City of Buckeye has committed to increasing the sustainability of its water resource portfolio, a major step forward toward creating sustainable growth. This allocation of $12 million will help Buckeye build infrastructure to reuse its effluent supplies and recover them from a hydrologically connected area; facilitating sustainable growth and increased use of renewable water supplies.
$7M Statewide Groundwater Monitoring and Data Collection
These allocations will provide ADWR with much needed additional tools to ensure that Arizona’s groundwater resources are properly managed and protected. Governor Hobbs has invested $7 million to ADWR to install groundwater monitoring index wells throughout rural Arizona to observe declining groundwater levels and inform ongoing groundwater protection efforts. Without these index wells, ADWR hydrologists are less able to accurately assess the health of groundwater supplies in rural areas.
$5.5M For ADWR Hydrogeologic Studies in Priority Groundwater Basins
To help rural communities understand and protect their groundwater supplies, ADWR hydrologists create groundwater models that help water managers and community leaders understand the conditions of their aquifers. This $5.5 million investment will allow ADWR hydrogeologists to collect key hydrogeologic information to build these critical models in groundwater basins experiencing severe water declines.
$3.45M ADWR Leading Edge Satellite Water Monitoring Systems & Equipment
This investment with ADWR funds the acquisition and use of cutting-edge technologies including absolute gravity survey equipment to monitor aquifer conditions, funding for the Arizona Continuously Operating Reference Stations (AZCORS) Network that provides critical GPS data for scientists, engineers, and surveyors throughout Arizona. It provides funds for satellite monitoring of statewide water demand, and funding for ADWR contractual partnerships with the US Geological Survey (USGS) to collect key water use data.
A dry week dominated the weather over much of the country with only portions of southern California and in the South along the Gulf Coast recording significant precipitation for the week. The current week started with a significant, even historical, winter storm event that impacted the coastal areas of the Gulf Coast. Several locations set all-time records for snow amounts with some locations in Louisiana having 9-10 inches of snow for the event. Some locations in the Florida panhandle also recorded 6-9 inches of snow during this event. Colder-than-normal temperatures dominated the country with the coldest readings in the Southeast, where departures were 10-15 degrees below normal, and in the northern Rocky Mountains with similar departures from normal. Portions of the northern Plains were warmer than normal, with temperatures 5-10 degrees above normal in the Dakotas and into portions of eastern Montana and western Minnesota…
Northern areas were warmer than normal with departures of 3-9 degrees above normal in the Dakotas and northeastern Montana. Colder-than-normal temperatures dominated the rest of the region with some areas of Wyoming 12-15 degrees below normal for the week. Areas of western South Dakota, southwest North Dakota, southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming improved this week as conditions over the last few months were reassessed and the indicators were not aligning with the drought depiction. In many instances the drought is still considered severe or worse, but where the intensity was reduced, it was due to not all the indicators converging to what was being shown. In Wyoming, conditions were improved in the central and southwest where severe and moderate drought as well as abnormally dry conditions were improved. Some extreme drought was extended in the Wind River where snow and precipitation numbers supported the change…
Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending January 28, 2025.
Temperatures were colder than normal over almost the entire region, with departures of 9-12 degrees below normal in the northern Rocky Mountains and 3-6 degrees below normal most other places. Most of the region was drier than normal this week with only some areas of southern California, western Arizona and eastern Montana recording above-normal precipitation. The dryness allowed for the expansion of moderate drought into the central valley of California where the water year has continued to be drier than normal. In Arizona, the winter continues to be on the dry side and allowed for the expansion of moderate, severe and extreme drought conditions over the western, northern and southern portions of the state. In Nevada, moderate and severe drought were expanded over the eastern part of the state and were also expanded in the southern portions of Utah. Abnormally dry and moderate drought conditions expanded over western Washington and abnormally dry conditions were filled in over northwest Montana. In Colorado, abnormally dry conditions and moderate drought expanded over the west, south and southwest portions of the state with a new area of severe drought added in the south…
Most of the region was dry for the week outside of those areas impacted by the winter storm that traversed across the Gulf Coast areas of Texas and into central Louisiana and Mississippi. Temperatures were cooler than normal over the entire region with the greatest departures over southern Louisiana into Mississippi where temperatures were 12-16 degrees below normal. Improvements were made to the abnormally dry conditions in Mississippi and in portions of east Texas. Severe and extreme drought was expanded in southern Texas with regards to the long-term drought signals in place, especially on the hydrologic systems in the region. Dryness continues in Tennessee with degradation in the southern, middle and eastern potions of the state as moderate, severe and extreme drought all expanded this week…
Looking Ahead
Over the next five to seven days, it is anticipated that some of the coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest could see some dryness alleviated with rains from northern California to Washington. Precipitation chances appear to be good over the northern and central Rocky Mountains. The most active rainfall pattern is expected to be from the southern Plains into the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic where some areas of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas will see 2-3 inches of rain. Dry conditions will continue in the Southwest and northern Plains along with most of the Florida peninsula.
The 6-10 day outlooks show that the probability of below-normal temperatures is greatest in the Pacific Northwest and across the northern part of the United States into the High Plains. The best chances of above-normal temperatures will be over the Four-Corners region and along the southern tier of the U.S. into the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic. The greatest chances of above-normal precipitation will be over northern California into the Great Basin and the northern Rocky Mountains as well as over the Midwest. The best chances of seeing below-normal precipitation are over the Southwest and along the Gulf Coast of Florida.
US Drought Monitor one week change map ending January 28, 2025.
Coyote Gulch, Bike to Work Day 2024. The photo was taken on the Clear Creek Trail on my way to the N-line Commuter Rail so I guess it was “Bike and Ride Trains to Work Day” for Coyote Gulch.
74% of Gen Zers say climate change threatens the clean water supply in the U.S.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Jan. 28, 2025 — The Walton Family Foundation and Gallup releaseda new report today examining Gen Z’s experiences with climate change and water issues, shedding light on their concerns about climate events and the potential impact on their generation’s future. The research finds water issues top the list of Gen Z’s climate worries, with individual perspectives shaped by diverse experiences and beliefs.
Of 12 climate-related issues measured in the study, majorities of Gen Zers express “some” or “a great deal” of worry about nine, including five related to water. This is true regardless of location, with water pollution and the health of fish and oceans ranking among the top three concerns in every U.S. Census region. While a majority of Gen Zers nationwide (61%) have reported experiencing a water-related climate issue in the past two years, water-related problems are more commonly reported by those in the Central and Western U.S.
When considering how these issues may affect their future, Gen Zers report concern about the availability of clean water and the potential need to relocate. Those who have experienced climate-related events at a higher rate are more likely to worry about these impacts . T here are notable differences across demographic groups. Hispanic (36%) and Black (34%) Gen Zers are more likely than their White (27%) peers to have experienced unsafe tap water . They are also more likely to believe there will not be enough clean water for their generation to live in the future (41% of Hispanic and 34% of Black Gen Zers, compared with 24% of W hite Gen Zers). Adult Gen Zers are significantly more likely to worry about needing to move due to climate change compared with their 12- to 17-year-old counterparts (40% vs. 27%, respectively).
Denver School Strike for Climate, September 20, 2019.
There is large-scale unity among young people on the importance of protecting water quality. Seventy-four percent of Gen Zers say it is “very important” to protect oceans, lakes and rivers from pollution, with another 19% saying it is “somewhat important.” Gen Z acknowledges the adverse effects of climate change on water resources: 74% of Gen Zers say climate change impacts the amount of clean water available in the U.S. “somewhat” (47%) or “a great deal” (27%). There is solid bipartisan agreement on the inadequacy of current water protection efforts: M ajorities of both Democratic (88%) and Republican (63%) Gen Z adults say the U.S. is “probably” or “definitely” not doing enough to protect water.
“Gen Z is united in their deep concern for water protection and availability, recognizing it as a critical issue that touches us all — regardless of where we live or who we are,” said Moira Mcdonald, Environment Program Director at the Walton Family Foundation. “As we look to the future, there’s a growing sense of urgency. Young people fear inheriting a world where clean water is scarce and climate change continues to worsen. We need to work on solutions to ensure clean, safe water remains accessible for generations to come.”
Looking ahead, Gen Zers are pessimistic about the trajectory of climate change — 67% believe climate change will worsen in their lifetime. And rates of pessimism are about 10 percentage points higher among those who have recently experienced a climate-related issue such as flooding, drought or unsafe tap water. Among voting-age Gen Zers, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans believe it is very or somewhat unlikely that climate change will be stopped.
Methodology
Results are based on a Gallup Panel™ web survey conducted Aug. 6-14, 2024, with a sample of 2,832 12- to 27-year-olds from across the U.S. The Gallup Panel is a probability-based panel of U.S. adults. Data were weighted to match demographic targets of age, gender, education, race, Hispanic ethnicity and Census region for 12- to 27-year-olds, using the most recent five-year population estimates from the American Community Survey.
Twelve- to 17-year-old children, as well as some 18-year-olds, were reached through adult members of the Gallup Panel who indicated they had at least one child aged 18 or younger living in their household. The remaining 18- to 27-year-old respondents are members of the Gallup Panel.
For the total sample of 2,832 respondents, the margin of sampling error is +/-2.9 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Margins of error for subgroups are higher; selected subgroups are reported below. All margins of error reported are adjusted to account for the design effect.
Lee Ferry, the dividing line between the upper and lower basin states of the Colorado River Basin. Photo credit: Allen Best
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
January 28, 2025
It’s part of a theme. Does Colorado need to start planning for potential Colorado River curtailments?
Snow in southwestern Colorado has been scarce this winter. Archuleta County recently had a grass fire. A store manager at Terry’s Ace Hardware in Pagosa Springs tells me half as many snowblowers have been sold this winter despite new state rebates knocking 30% off the price of electric models.
Near Durango, snowplows normally used at a subdivision located at 8,000 feet remain unused. At Chapman Hill, the in-town ski area, all snow remains artificial, and it’s not enough to cover all the slopes. A little natural snow would help, but none is in the forecast.
Snow may yet arrive. Examining data collected on Wolf Creek Pass since 1936, the Pagosa Sun’s Josh Kurz found several winters that procrastinated until February. Even when snow arrived, though, the winter-end totals were far below average.
All this suggests another subpar runoff in the San Juan and Animas rivers. They contribute to Lake Powell, one of two big water bank accounts on the Colorado River. When I visited the reservoir in May 2022, water levels were dropping rapidly. The manager of Glen Canyon Dam pointed to a ledge below us that had been underwater since the mid-1960s. It had emerged only a few weeks before my visit.
That ledge at Powell was covered again after an above-average runoff in 2023. The reservoir has recovered to 35% of capacity.
A ledge that had been used in the construction of Glen Canyon Dam emerged in spring 2022 after about 50 years of being underwater. Photo May 2022/Allen Best
Will reservoir levels stay that high? Probably not, and that is a significant problem. Delegates who wrangled the Colorado River Compact in a lodge near Santa Fe in 1922 understood drought, at least somewhat. They did not contemplate the global warming now underway.
In apportioning the river flows, they also assumed an average 17.5 million acre-feet at Lee Ferry, the dividing line between the upper and lower basins. It’s a few miles downstream from Glen Canyon Dam and upstream from the Grand Canyon. Even during the 20th century the river was rarely that generous. This century it has become stingy, with average annual flows of 12.5 million acre-feet. Some worry that continued warming during coming decades may further cause declines to 9.5 million acre-feet.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Colorado State University’s Brad Udall and other scientists contend half of declining flows should be understood as resulting from warming temperatures. A 2024 study predicts droughts with the severity that formerly occurred once in 1,000 years will by mid-century become 1-in-60 year events.
How will the seven basin states share this diminished river? Viewpoints differ so dramatically that delegates from the upper- and lower-basin states loathed sharing space during an annual meeting in Las Vegas as had been their custom. Legal saber-rattling abounds. A critical issue is an ambiguous clause in the compact about releases of water downstream to Arizona and hence Nevada and California.
Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office
Might Colorado need to curtail its diversions from the Colorado River? That would be painful. Roughly half the water for cities along the Front Range, where 88% of Coloradans live, comes from the Colorado River and its tributaries. Transmountain diversions augment agriculture water in the South Platte and Arkansas River valleys. The vast majority of those water rights were adjudicated after the compact of 1922 and hence would be vulnerable to curtailment. Many water districts on the Western Slope also have water rights junior to the compact.
In Grand Junction last September, Andy Mueller, the general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the primary water policy agency for 15 of Western Slope counties, made the case that Colorado should plan for compact curtailments — just in case. The district had earlier sent a letter to Jason Ullmann, the state water engineer, asking him to please get moving with compact curtailment rules.
Eric Kuhn, Mueller’s predecessor at the district, who is now semi-retired, made the case for compact curtailment planning in the Spring 2024 issue of Colorado Environmental Law Review. Kuhn’s piece runs 15,000 words, all of them necessary to sort through the tangled complexities. Central is the compact clause that specifies the upper basin states must not cause the flow at Lee Ferry, just below today’s Glen Canyon Dam, to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feet on a rolling 10-years basis.
That threshold has not yet been met — yet. Kuhn describes a “recipe for disaster” if it is. He foresees those with agriculture rights on the Western Slope being called upon to surrender rights. He and Mueller argue for precautionary planning. That planning “could be contentious,” Kuhn concedes, but the “advantages of being prepared for the consequences of a compact curtailment outweigh the concern.”
Last October, after Mueller’s remarks in Grand Junction, I solicited statements from Colorado state government. The Polis administration said it would be premature to plan compact curtailment. The two largest single transmountain diverters of Colorado River Water, Denver Water and Northern Water, concurred.
Front Range cities, including Berthoud, above, are highly reliant upon water imported from the Colorado River and its tributaries. December 2023 photo/Allen Best
Recently, I talked with Jim Lochhead. For 25 years he represented Colorado and its water users in interstate Colorado River matters. He ran the state’s Department of Natural Resources for four years in the 1990s and, ending in 2023, wrapped up 13 years as chief executive of Denver Water. Lochhead, who stressed that he spoke only for himself, similarly sees compact curtailment planning as premature.
“It just doesn’t make sense to go through that political brain damage until we really have to,” he said. “Hopefully we won’t have to, because (the upper and lower basins) will come up with a solution.”
Lochhead does believe that a negotiated solution remains possible, despite the surly words of recent years…
“We need to figure out ways to negotiate an essentially shared sacrifice for how we’re going to manage the system, so it can be sustainable into the future,” he said. This, he says, will take cooperation that so far has been absent, at least in public, and it will also take money.
Instead, we’ll have to slog along. The runoff in the Colorado River currently is predicted to be 81% of average. It fits with a theme. Unlike the children of Lake Wobegone, most runoffs in the 21st century have been below average.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Colorado Farm & Food Alliance leads effort to advance in Department of Energy Community Power Accelerator Prize
HOTCHKISS, CO (January 27, 2025) — The U.S. The Department of Energy (DOE) announced this month that a North Fork Valley solar partnership is one of four teams to win a national $200,000 Community Power Accelerator Prize. The North Fork based team now advances to the third and final round, and a $150,000 prize, in this community solar competition sponsored by the DOE National Solar Energy Technologies Office.
The Colorado Farm and Food Alliance-led team seeks to advance several community-based solar projects that prioritize agriculture, community benefit and renewable energy generation. The Accelerator Prize award will be used for engineering and other studies at Thistle Whistle Community Solar project near Hotchkiss and to study the feasibility of a second installation at a former coal mine site near Paonia. Both locations are in Delta County, Colorado.
Partners in developing these projects include Colorado Farm & Food Alliance, Thistle Whistle Community Solar, Mirasol Agrivoltaics and Switchback Restoration, along with community leaders. The award will help to advance at least two community solar projects, starting with a small agrivoltaic array at Thistle Whistle Farm near Hotchkiss. This innovative project will pair agricultural production with solar energy and provide clean power to local farms and residents through the Delta Montrose Electric Association (DMEA) grid.
“I am eager to see this project completed, to benefit my farm and to help provide energy cost savings to other local farms and households,” said Mark Waltermire, owner of Thistle Whistle Farm. “The Community Power prize has been vital in helping to keep this project moving forward.” Now completing pre-development, the Thistle Whistle Community Solar project will:
Generate clean, renewable energy for local communities
Preserve agricultural land through dual-use farming practices
Increase energy equity through community-solar, returning cost savings to system subscribers
Create new economic opportunities for local farmers
Support local food systems while advancing clean energy goals
Document best practices for agrivoltaic system design and lessons learned for community solar
Monitor wildlife corridors and habitat enhancement
Research water conservation benefits in dual-use systems
The second project is in early pre-development, but will help support mine-site remediation and climate harm reduction at a former coal mine as well as provide an additional community-solar benefit. “This recognition from the Department of Energy validates our vision for community-based rural renewables that support both our agricultural heritage and greater energy equity,” said Pete Kolbenschlag, with the Colorado Farm and Food Alliance and prize team captain. “These projects demonstrate how rural communities can lead the way in innovative clean energy solutions that preserve farmland, benefit residents and integrate with local livelihoods.” The North Fork Valley team is still participating in this national competition. In the third, and final, round teams must demonstrate that they have secured the funding necessary to develop their community solar projects. As part of the Phase 3 competition, the project team will be able to present their vision at the Community Power PitchFest event at the DOE Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on March 6,
The Community Power Accelerator Prize is part of the American Made Challenge program, with funding coming from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed by Congress in 2021. As part of its mission, the Colorado Farm and Food Alliance provides a platform for rural leadership to develop and implement local solutions that model climate action and strengthen farm and food system resilience. It is the named partner of the Community Power Accelerator Prize.
Mirasol Agrivoltaics is a recently established Colorado nonprofit with a mission to educate about and to help develop community solar projects in the North Fork Valley. With this award it will be able to fill a new and needed leadership role in supporting clean energy, cost savings, and community-based solutions through the Thistle Whistle Community Solar and future projects.
Learning and demonstration gardens at Arbol Farm, Paonia, CO. Photo credit: Colorado Farm and Food Alliance
Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
Click the link to read the article on the Getches-Wilkinson Center website (Oliver Skelly, Aidan Stearns, and Andrew Teegarden):
December 17, 2024
The Annual Colorado River Water Users Association (CRUWA) Conference in Las Vegas was one of the busiest in recent years. Part of the increased participation stems from the current impasse in negotiations for the Post-2026 Operating Guidelines for Lakes Powell and Mead. Tensions could be felt in the hallways and discussions by nearly 1,500 attendees.
Pressures came to a head during the Upper and Lower Basin Panels. Colorado’s lead negotiator, Becky Mitchell, noted it was disappointing that all seven of the basin states were in Las Vegas and were unable to set a meeting where potential compromises could be discussed. Another Upper Basin Negotiator, Brandon Gebhart, spoke out against the posturing and inability to compromise.
Others on the Lower Basin Panel, such as JB Hamby, struck a different chord; the Lower Basin has been taking steps to lower water use despite the massive population, agricultural economy, and climate change. These realities are extremely troubling because it seems to be further entrenching the states in their own positions and is reducing their ability to compromise. In fact, Arizona’s Governor Katie Hobbs has begun setting aside money within the state budget for potential litigation efforts on the Colorado River. However, litigation did not seem to be the preferred alternative to solve the current breakdown in negotiations. A separate panel talked about the realities of litigation which could take decades, cost millions of dollars, and put the power to decide the outcome in the hands of judges which cannot fully capture the complexity and needs of each community partner along the river.
Outside of the programming, the entire Getches-Wilkinson Center Staff was honored to attend the Water & Tribes Initiative Luncheon which kicked off the start of the conference. During the lunch, attendees discussed potential alternatives for the Bureau of Reclamation to consider which would provide operational flexibility and account for tribal water usage.
Another highlight was the ability to talk with other colleagues and peers in the water space. Networking at large conferences has been one of the best parts of these events because they allow for more understanding within the water community. Despite the tensions, the water community was able to come together and discuss how we can solve the problems on the Colorado River equitably.
Unfortunately, CRUWA did not result in any big break through or give the states more clarity on how the Colorado will be managed. Although, leaders painted a clear picture of how difficult litigation will become if we are unable to agree. Complex scenarios require complex solutions and until someone can capture and account for all of them, compromise may be difficult to obtain. Allowing compromise and the goal of a stable river basin to drive the creation of alternatives will bring us to a place where all who utilize the river feel heard. Negotiators can get there, but it will take more time and dedicated effort to do so.
Aidan Stearns current 3L at Colorado Law and GWC Research Assistant:
From December 4-6, a variety of Colorado River advocates including lawyers, engineers, legislators, scientists, and tribal representatives gathered at the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada for the Colorado River Water Users Association (CRWUA) Conference. This year, which was my first time attending the conference, CRWUA was focused on post-2026 operations of the Colorado River. Negotiations over post-2026 operations have been contentious, to say the least. CRWUA served as an opportunity to share all the various points of view with the Colorado River community.
Since it was my first time attending CRWUA, I had one simple goal heading into the conference: listen. CRWUA further affirmed a belief I held when I started law school almost three years ago: that a degree in environmental engineering would be a beneficial foundation for legal practice. One of the first sessions I attended was about the risks of litigation, where attorneys representing various upper and lower basin interests discussed what the path of litigation may look like based on past precedent. Those panelists are often tasked with the challenge of applying modern engineering and scientific concepts to legal doctrine dating back to the 1800s, something I hope to pursue in my own legal career.
Outside of the conference sessions, my most impactful interactions came from meeting conference attendees and listening to their unique perspective on Colorado River water issues. I spoke to a range of individuals including attorneys who worked solely with upper basin agricultural water users to lower basin tribal councilmembers.
Despite the difficult conversations that were had at CRWUA regarding post-2026 operations, a thread of hope seemed to weave through every session. Julie Vano, the Research Director for Aspen Global Change Institute, emphasized in a panel on extreme weather events the importance of not becoming paralyzed by uncertainty when using models. Panelists also expressed that they felt hope because of the resilience of people. Panelists expressed that there is no one to blame but us, but in that, there is hope in the innovation and partnership that people are capable of. No one person is going to have the magic solution to managing water issues in the Colorado River Basin. The solution is going to come from collaboration along with being able to listen to and respect the perspectives that people bring to the table.
Oliver Skelly, current 3L at Colorado Law and GWC Conscience Bay Company Western Water Policy Fellow:
When the GWC invited me to spend the week before final exams with them in Las Vegas I could hardly contain my excitement: My first CRWUA! And what a time for it, with the ongoing negotiations over the post-2026 guidelines atop the agenda. Studying could wait.
As the conference unfolded, most of what I’d heard about CRWUA’s substance proved true: If you wanted platitudes, pay attention to the panels; if you wanted juicy hot takes, plug yourself into the hallway conversations. “The Upper Basin can’t just keep saying no to everything!” “Lots of snarky remarks from the Lower Basin today.” One attendee told me the words “climate change” were not even allowed in the agenda 10 years ago – a shocking and rather unnerving remark given where things stand now. (Fortunately for all involved, it’s allowed now.)
That said, the official events were not without their fireworks. The threat of litigation has entered the discourse as negotiations appear to be breaking down, and both basin panels made that abundantly clear. And the conference had many other panels discussing interesting ideas, including recent developments with tribal water rights, regenerative agriculture, urban water efficiency measures, and Kevin Fedarko discussing his new book about his walk through the Big Ditch. Still, the large, seemingly immovable rift between Upper and Lower Basin proposals remained center stage.
The ultimate takeaway is nothing new: The future of the Colorado River remains uncertain. But CRWUA lives on, and it has found itself a new repeat customer. Many thanks to the GWC and its sponsors for making this trip possible for me.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain.net website (Eric Kuhn, John Fleck, and Jack Schmidt):
January 22, 2025
On January 16th, the Bureau of Reclamation released the January 2025 24-Month Study. Based on the January 1st runoff forecast into Lake Powell, the projected “most probable” annual release from Glen Canyon Dam for Water Year 2026 is now 7.48 maf. This needs to be taken as a significant caution sign because it shows that we are on a clear trajectory to hit what Colorado’s Jim Lochhead first called the 1922 Compact’s first “tripwire” (82.5 maf/10-year) as early as 2027. Given the current stalemate between the Upper and Lower Division States over how the reservoir system should be operated, it means the potential for basin-wide litigation is now in the “Red Zone.”
The January 24-Month study is the first in each water year to be based on a published forecast from the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center’s runoff model – the first to be based on actual snowpack. The January 1st runoff forecast for unregulated April-July inflow to Lake Powell was 5.15 maf (about 81% of average). This results in a projected 12/31/2025 elevation of Lake Powell of less than 3575’ making the annual release for Water Year 2026 7.48 maf. Of course, the forecast will change as the winter progresses. In fact, the January mid-month forecast dropped by 300,000 acre-feet to 4.85 maf. At this point in the winter our confidence in the “most probable” forecast is low and in recent years, the track record has been to overstate future runoff suggesting that the we should pay equal attention to the “minimum probable” forecast. (See Wang et al, Evaluating the Accuracy of Reclamation’s 24-Month Study Lake Powell Projections.) Also remember that the actual decision on the WY 2026 release is not made until the Spring runoff is over and the August 24-Month study is released.
Lee/Lee’s/Lees Ferry on the Colorado River. Photo by John Fleck
A 7.48 maf release from Glen Canyon Dam bodes trouble for the basin because it takes us very close to the tripwire. Simply put, the tripwire is the ten-year flow at Lee Ferry at which the Lower Division States can claim the Upper Division States are in violation of the 1922 Compact. Under the compact, the Upper Division States have two specific flow obligations at Lee Ferry: (1) to not cause the ten-year flow to be depleted below 75 maf every ten consecutive years, and (2) to deliver one half of the annual delivery to Mexico under the 1944 Treaty if the “surplus” is not sufficient. If there is no surplus and the delivery to Mexico is 1.5 maf/year, the Upper Division’s share is 750,000 af/year, resulting in a total ten-year delivery obligation of 82.5 maf. Since under Minute 323, Mexico shares in mainstem shortages, recent annual deliveries have been less than 1.5 maf. To keep the math simple, let’s call the current obligation (with no surplus) 82.0 maf. With a 7.48 maf release in WY 2026, the ten-year flow for 2017-2026 will be about 82.8 maf.
Keep in mind that the obligation of the Upper Division States to Mexico under the 1922 Compact has been a disputed issue since the Treaty was signed in 1944. The Lower Division believes there is no current surplus, thus the obligation is one half of the Treaty delivery. The Upper Division believes that since the Lower Basin is currently overusing its 1922 Compact apportionment, this overuse is surplus, and thus, must be delivered to Mexico. Following this thread, if the overuse is greater than 1.5 maf/year, the Upper Division would have no obligation to Mexico.
With an 82.8 maf ten-year flow at the end of Water Year 2026, the Upper Division States are still slightly above the tripwire with a cushion of about 800,000 af. The problem is what happens in the next one to three years. From 2015-2019 annual the annual Glen Canyon Dam releases were 9.0 maf/year. Note, the annual release from Glen Canyon Dam and the flow at Lee Ferry are not quite the same, the Paria River and leakage around the dam contribute another 100,000 -150,000 af/year to the flow at Lee Ferry (bonus flows). Because of the way the ten-year math works, at the end of WY 2027, the Lee Ferry flow for WY 2017 (~9.2 maf) will drop out and be replaced by the 2027 Lee Ferry flow, thus, to keep the ten-year flow greater than 82.0 maf, the 2027 flow will have to be at least 8.4 maf. AND, there are two more 9.0 maf releases in the pipeline, WYs2018 and 2019! That means that when those drop out of the sequence, the risk of the basin stumbling across the tripwire into litigation grows.
To stay above 82.0 maf, the total deliveries at Lee Ferry for the three-year period of 2027-2029, the annual release from Glen Canyon Dam will have to average about 8.8 maf/year (factoring in the bonus flows). Since 2012, the average unregulated inflow to Lake Powell is about 8.2 maf/year. After deducting 500,000 af/year of gross evaporation from the reservoir, the “net-of-evaporation” annual inflow is only about 7.7 maf/year. Going back to 2000, the net inflow is about 7.9 maf/year. Thus, to avoid going below the 82.0 maf tripwire, it will take either above average (post-2000) hydrology or continuing to draw down Lake Powell levels. If the hydrology is a bit drier than the post-2000 (or post-2012) levels, maintaining at least 82.0 maf/10-year may require drawing Lake Powell below minimum power. As Lake Powell levels approach minimum power, we approach environmental and power generation tripwires.
The fact that we’re on track for another year of below-average inflows to Lake Powell, another 7.48 maf/year annual release from Glen Canyon Dam, and on a trajectory to drop below a 1922 Compact tripwire adds another level of urgency for the basin states to break their current impasse over the how the system will be operated post-2026. The chances of Lee Ferry flows dropping below the 82 maf tripwire are high. The Colorado River Basin needs to be fully prepared before this occurs. With every 24-Month study, the basin’s litigation clock is getting closer and closer to that midnight hour.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
The Colorado River flows through the Shoshone diversion structure on Jan. 29, 2024. A group trying to purchase Shoshone’s water was set to receive $40 million from the federal government. Their efforts, along with dozens of other projects across the West, will have to wait. Photo credit: Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC.org website (Alex Hager):
January 27, 2024
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Colorado River, produced by KUNC and supported by the Walton Family Foundation.
Payments to help Western states respond to drought are on pause after an order from President Donald Trump. A pool of $388.3 million from the Inflation Reduction Act had already been allocated to fund water conservation projects by the Biden administration, and its future now hangs in the balance.
The Colorado River supplies water for about 40 million people from Wyoming to Mexico, but its stretched thin. Climate change is cutting into supplies, and the cities and farms that depend on it are struggling to cut back on demand. Federal funding has been a pivotal part of Western states’ response to that reality, with billions of dollars from the Biden administration helping pay for a wide variety of programs – incentivizing farmers to use less water on their crops, improving wildlife habitat and much more.
This latest tranche of money was originally destined for projects in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, and four different Native American tribes. A specific list of projects the Biden Administration wanted to fund was released in the waning days of its time in the White House. Days later, shortly after his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the government to “immediately pause disbursement of funds appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act.”
Those awaiting the federal funds hope that the pause is only temporary.
Steve Wolff, general manager of the Southwestern Water Conservation District in Durango, Colorado, is awaiting news on the fate of $25.6 million originally designated for his group to improve habitats in wetlands and streams.
“I just hope that both Democrats and Republicans across the West recognize the importance of this funding and what it does for local communities,” Wolff said. “And that they will be able to push the right political buttons in D.C. to make this money get distributed as it was presented by the Bureau of Reclamation.”
Officials with the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency which manages dams and reservoirs across the West, did not respond to KUNC’s request for comment.
A moose walks alongside the Green River in Sublette County, Wyoming on March 27, 2024. A project to improve riparian habitat along the Green River is among those awaiting details on $388.3 million in federal grants. Photo credit: Alex Hager/KUNC
The list of projects awaiting funding is long. Colorado alone accounts for 16 different projects, all of which are awaiting at least half a million dollars. Money was also allocated to ten projects in Utah, five in Wyoming, two in New Mexico, six on tribal land and three that span state lines.
Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources would receive up to $37.2 million for five different projects. A spokeswoman for that agency told KUNC that its experts “seem confident” that the projects will still be funded, and the agency understands the federal pause on Inflation Reduction Act funding to be more focused on energy-related programs.
Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant back in the days before I-70 via Aspen Journalism
The single largest grant in the funding pool is for the Shoshone Water Rights Preservation Project in Colorado. The Colorado River District is in the midst of a yearslong push to buy water currently used by a hydroelectric plant and make sure it keeps flowing to Western Colorado. The plan would quell long-held anxieties that a fast-growing city in the Denver area could buy the water instead. The agency has been slowly pooling money from local governments towards its $99 million goal, but this federal grant of up to $40 million represents the biggest chunk of money it would put toward the purchase.
Alex Funk, a water policy expert at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said the government typically has a lengthy review process for grants like these, and the Biden Administration reviewed and announced them extraordinarily quickly.
“We’re certainly anticipating a thoughtful review of some of these awards,” Funk said. “But we’re hoping that that momentum continues.”
Some of Funk’s work receives funding from the Walton Family Foundation, which also supports KUNC’s Colorado River coverage.
While Trump’s team has given relatively few indications about how it will deal with Colorado River matters, Interior Secretary nominee Doug Burgum spoke about them briefly during a Senate confirmation hearing. Funk called those comments “largely encouraging,” especially when it comes to the tense negotiations about water sharing between states that use the Colorado River.
“[Burgum] certainly signaled that he wanted his agency to be supportive of ongoing dialog and collaboration to keep that process on track,” Funk said.
Shortly after Trump won the 2024 election, top water negotiators said they did not expect the new president to shake up their talks, and said federal water policymakers have typically been technocrats, shielded from partisan turnover in Washington, D.C.
In December, a number of water policy experts expressed concern about the future of federal funding after the Biden Administration supplied Colorado River users with a “once-in-a-generation windfall.”
John Kerry, then U.S. secretary of state, with China’s special representative on climate change, Xie Zhenhua, at the 2015 Paris climate conference. FRANCOIS MORI / AP PHOTO
Click the link to read the article on the Grist website (Joseph Winters & Naveena Sadasivam):
January 20, 2025
Within hours of being sworn into office on Monday, President Donald Trump announced a spate of executive orders and policies to boost oil and gas production, roll back environmental protections, withdraw from the Paris climate accord, and undo environmental justice initiatives enacted by former president Joe Biden.
Conventional wisdom — and political donations — would indicate that Republicans are friendlier than Democrats to the oil and gas industry. And, in fact, that’s probably true: Democrats are more likely to pass regulations on drilling; Republicans are more likely to give oil corporations massive tax cuts. But in spite of all of that, Over the last fifty years, Republican presidents have been more likely to oversee crude oil production declines, while production has generally increased under Democrats, with the exception of the Clinton administration. In fact, the current surge in production began during Obama’s first year, and has continued through Biden’s entire term. This doesn’t mean that Democrats spur production. What it means is that more regulations don’t hamper production, and rescinding those regulations — and corporate tax cuts — don’t spur production. There are many forces in play, and the occupant of the White House is merely one of them, and a relatively insignificant one at that. Source: EIA, Land Desk.
Trump has called climate change a “hoax,” and appointed oil industry executives and climate skeptics to his Cabinet. His first-day actions represent a complete remaking of the country’s climate agenda, and set the tone for his administration’s approach to energy and the environment over the next four years.
‘Drill, baby, drill‘
Among the most significant actions Trump took Monday was declaring “an energy emergency,” which he framed as part of his effort to rein in inflation and reduce the cost of living. He pledged to “use all necessary resources to build critical infrastructure,” an unprecedented move that could grant the White House greater authority to expand fossil fuel production. He also signed an executive order “to encourage energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf,” and another expediting permitting and leasing in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
“We will have the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it,” Trump said during his inaugural address. “We are going to drill, baby, drill.”
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve can store 714 million barrels of crude oil, but currently holds about 395 million. Under his administration, he said, the cache will be filled “up again right to the top.” He also said the country will export energy “all over the world.”
“We will be a rich nation again,” he said, standing inside the Capitol Rotunda, “and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help.”
Richard Klein, a senior research fellow for the international nonprofit Stockholm Environment Institute, noted that fossil fuel companies extracted record-high amounts of oil and gas during the Biden administration. Even if it is technologically possible to boost production further, it’s unclear whether that will reduce prices.
Dan Kammen, a professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley, said it is a “direct falsehood” that increasing fossil fuel extraction would drive down inflation. He agreed that the U.S. should declare a national energy emergency — but for reasons exactly the opposite of what Trump had in mind. “We need to quickly move to clean energy, to invest in new companies across the U.S.,” Kammen told Grist.
Denver Water’s sustainability operations include generating energy from solar power panels installed on the roof of its Administration Building, parking garage and over its visitor’s parking lot at its Operations Complex near downtown. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Exiting the Paris Agreement (again)
Trump delivered on his promise to once again withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement, the United Nations pact agreed upon by 195 countries to limit global warming that the new president referred to on Monday as a “rip-off.” In addition to signing an executive order saying the U.S. would leave the agreement — titled Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements — Trump also signed a letter to the United Nations to set the departure in motion. Due to the rules governing the accord, it will take one year to formally withdraw, meaning U.S. negotiators will participate in the next round of talks in Brazil at the end of the year. By this time next year, however, the U.S. could join Iran, Libya, and Yemen as the only nations that aren’t part of the accord.
“It simply makes no sense for the United States to voluntarily give up political influence and pass up opportunities to shape the exploding green energy market,” Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said in a statement. Only 2 in 10 Americans support quitting the Paris Agreement, according to a poll by the Associated Press.
Trump’s announcement came just 10 days after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared 2024 Earth’s hottest year on record, one marked by life-threatening heat waves, wildfires, and flooding around the world. Experts say things will only get worse unless the U.S. and other countries do more to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
“Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled,” climate scientists wrote last October. They noted then, even before Trump’s election, that global policies were expected to cause temperatures to climb 2.7 degrees Celsius (6.9 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. One analysis by Carbon Brief estimated that a second Trump administration would result in an extra 4 billion metric tons of climate pollution, negating all of the emissions savings from the global deployment of clean energy technologies over the past five years — twice over.
Coyote Gulch’s Leaf in Byers Canyon on the way to Steamboat Springs August 21, 2017.
“In other words, you’ll be able to buy the vehicle of your choice,” he said during his inaugural address — even though there is no national mandate requiring the sale of electric vehicles and consumers are free to purchase any vehicle of their liking. [ed. emphasis mine] The Biden administration did promote the technology by finalizing rules that limit the amount of tailpipe pollution over time so that electric vehicles make up the majority of automobiles sold by 2032. Under Biden, the U.S. also launched a $7,500 tax credit for consumer purchases of EVs manufactured domestically and planned to funnel roughly $7.5 billion toward building charging infrastructure across the country.
“Rolling back incentives to build electric vehicles in the United States is going to cost jobs as well as raise the price of travel,” said Costa Samaras, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University who served as a senior policy leader in the Biden White House. “Fueling up an electric vehicle costs between one-third and one-half as much as driving on gasoline, not to mention the benefits for reducing air pollution. Ultimately, to lower the price of energy for U.S. consumers, we need to diversify the sources of energy that we’re using and ensure that these are clean, affordable, and reliable.”
Youth activists rally for climate justice in front of the US Capitol in Washington,DC (photo from earlier in the year). Image: Lorie Shaull,CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Rescinding environmental justice initiatives
Trump signed a single executive order undoing nearly 80 Biden administration initiatives, including rescinding a directive to federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions. The Biden-era policy protected communities overburdened by pollution and directed agencies to work more closely with them.
That move was part of a broader push that Trump described as an attempt to create a “color-blind society” by stopping the government from “trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.” Klein said the objective was “embarrassing.” Kammen said it was a “huge mistake” to move away from environmental justice priorities.
Cheyenne Ridge, located between Burlington and Cheyenne Wells, near the Kansas border, is one of many wind projects on Colorado’s eastern plains. Soon, new transmission will enable far more wind and solar projects. Photos/Allen Best Photo credit: Allen Best/The Mountain Town News
Blocking new wind energy
Trump officially barred new offshore wind leases and will review federal permitting of wind projects, making good on a promise to “end leasing to massive wind farms that degrade our natural landscapes and fail to serve American energy consumers.” The move is likely to be met with resistance from members of his own party. The top four states for wind generation — Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kansas — are solidly red, and unlikely to acquiesce. Even Trump’s pick for Interior secretary, Doug Burgum, refused to disavow wind power during a hearing last week, saying he would pursue an “all of the above” energy strategy.
Many state and local policymakers, including the members of America Is All In, a climate coalition made up of government leaders and businesses from all 50 states, pledged to take up the mantle of climate action in the absence of federal leadership.
“Regardless of the federal government’s actions, mayors are not backing down on our commitment to the Paris Agreement,” said Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, in a statement. “Our constituents are looking to us to meet the moment and deliver meaningful solutions.”
Fountain Creek photo via the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District
Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Politics website (Savannah Eller). Here’s an excerpt:
January 22, 2025
The El Paso County Board of County Commissioners will soon have an option on the table to formalize a forever chemicals testing agreement with the Air Force over wells at Fountain Creek Regional Park. Todd Marts, El Paso County director of community services, said in an informal meeting with commissioners on Tuesday that the U.S. Air Force has been regularly testing wells for two forever chemical types in “surrounding areas” including the park. The agreement would formalize continued access for the military…
Widefield aquifer via the Colorado Water Institute.
Residents in and around Fountain and Security-Widefield were previously exposed to elevated levels of forever chemicals from firefighting foams used on Peterson Space Force Base. The communities have since put in systems to treat groundwater…The county did not have immediate plans to mitigate forever chemicals in park water, with Melvin pointing out that the chemicals lived up to their name. El Paso County’s parks department is considering the addition of a third well to serve the Fountain Creek Nature Center, will would also be subject to testing under the access agreement with the Air Force. The contract will allow military access for testing for one year, with the option to renew for nine years. The El Paso County commissioners will vote on the agreement as an item at an upcoming public meeting.
At the confluence of Canyon Creek and the Colorado River. Photo credit: Friends of Canyon Creek
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
The pilot program has paid water users — mostly farmers and ranchers — in the four states in the Colorado River’s Upper Basin to voluntarily use less river water than their water rights allow. Farmers from Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah could choose not to irrigate some of their land or to grow a crop that uses less water. Over the last two years, the Upper Colorado River Commission has spent $44.6 million to conserve 101,441 acre-feet of water, enough water to supply more than 200,000 households with a year’s worth of water. But federal lawmakers late last year failed to pass a bill that would reauthorize the System Conservation Pilot Program, or SCPP. That lapse has forced the program’s managers to cancel plans to begin accepting applications early this month for 2025 projects and has jeopardized the effort’s near-term future. Congressional leaders from Colorado and other states in the drought-stricken river basin on Tuesday filed legislation that would restart the System Conservation Pilot Program. The bill — the Colorado River Basin System Conservation Extension Act — is sponsored by lawmakers from both political parties who represent Colorado, Wyoming and Utah…
President Donald Trump, on the first day of his new administration, issued an executive order freezing spending from the Inflation Reduction Act. That law was part of billions of dollars of investments by former President Joe Biden’s administration into clean energy and climate change-related projects, including $125 million for the SCPP. While more than $80 million remains allocated for the SCPP, the program cannot continue until Congress reauthorizes it and the administration allows Inflation Reduction Act spending again.
Chris Bowers (right) surveys a site where nonfunctional turf is being replaced on the University of Northern Colorado campus on January 15, 2025. The landscaping change will bring water use on that patch of campus down from about 3 million gallons each year to 1 million. Photo credit: Alex Hager/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Alex Hager):
January 23, 2025
This story is part of ongoing coverage of water in the West, produced by KUNC in Colorado and supported by the Walton Family Foundation. KUNC is solely responsible for its editorial coverage.
Way before spring, when the trees are leafless skeletons and the grass is dry and beige, the people in charge of helping plants blossom at the University of Northern Colorado were hard at work. Chris Bowers, the school’s energy and sustainability manager walked through the churned-up dirt of a construction site near the campus commons building. Sparse and brown on a chilly January day, he laid out a vision for the space’s future in warmer months.
“There will be people hanging out and studying and eating lunch and using a space that was not used at all before,” Bowers said.
This site is an experiment in reshaping the unused grassy expanses that sprawl across campus. For decades, the area was a patch of green grass that fell into the category of “nonfunctional turf” – a term water experts use to describe grass that serves no purpose besides aesthetics.
Now, as part of a statewide effort to save water, Colorado’s government is trying to convince people and institutions to rip out their thirsty grass lawns and replace them with native plants and more functional space. It comes amid an urgent need to cut down on water use, but there are limits to the amount of water that can be saved.
With the help of a state grant and money from the nonprofit Western Resource Advocates, UNC’s patch of grass — which long served no purpose besides looking pretty — will be replaced with a patio, spots for hammocks and native prairie grasses.
“This is the first step in what we hope is a push forward in this becoming more of a standard across campus,” Bowers said.
While UNC is only replacing grass in a relatively small area for now, the water savings are fairly substantial. That area will see its water use go down from about three million gallons each year to about one million. UNC officials said the native plants in that area may actually demand more water than is currently used during their first three years of growth but will need less in the long term. Some years, they said, those plants might require no irrigation water and grow using only water that falls from the sky.
The project is part of a program from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the state’s top water management agency. It gave grants to fifty different water-saving projects, the majority of which are on the Front Range.
A car drives by a turf replacement project at the University of Northern Colorado on January 15, 2025. Proponents of the work hope its location near a busy road, will help raise awareness about water-saving landscaping. Photo credit: Alex Hager/KUNC
As Colorado – and more broadly, the arid Southwest – struggles with drought and long-term drying due to climate change, policymakers are under pressure to cut back on water use. Colorado’s turf replacement program is borne out of that reality, but it may only be able to make a minuscule dent in the state’s overall water use.
The overwhelming majority of the state’s water — between 80-90% — is used for agriculture. Only 7% of the state’s water is used by cities and towns, and only 2.7% of the state’s water is used outdoors in cities and towns. So any efforts to cut down on lawn watering will only be working within that tiny slice of the state’s overall water portfolio.
A 2024 report from the CWCB estimated how much water could reasonably be saved through turf replacement programs. After taking out water used for trees and shrubs, and functional turf like sports fields or city parks — which experts say are worth watering — state officials think they can save .004% of the state’s total water use.
The CWCB requested $1.4 million in its 2025 budget to run a more complete analysis of land cover across Colorado and get a more accurate appraisal of how much nonfunctional turf there is across the state.
Jenna Battson, the agency’s outdoor water conservation coordinator, said programs to replace nonfunctional turf are still worthwhile, especially as a way to give people a visible reminder of ways to cut back on water use.
“They think, ‘Oh, I can do this and save water,’ and then it might cascade and allow them to start thinking about other ways that they can reduce their water use,” she said. “Which I think will have a broader impact than just the water savings on its face.”
Battson said a turf replacement project like UNC’s, on a college campus near a busy road, might have an added impact because of what she called “the neighbor effect.”
“If you’re doing more really public spaces that are highly visible,” Battson said.” That impact can also spread because people are seeing it.”
Larger projects like the one on UNC’s campus will certainly deliver water savings, but what actually happens to that saved water is another question entirely. In cities across the arid West, conserving municipal water rarely means more water is left in the rivers that supply them.
Around Colorado and the Southwest, some cities have instituted conservation measures to help facilitate further growth. In Colorado Springs, for example, a regime of grass replacement and lawn watering restrictions has allowed the city to grow by about 40% while bringing average per capita water use down by nearly 40%, and total water deliveries down by about 25%.
Those kinds of savings are especially important in Greeley, where population growth has exploded in recent years. Between 2022 and 2023, Greeley grew by 3.1%, far and away the largest rate of growth among Colorado’s 15 largest cities.
Lindsay Rogers, policy manager for municipal conservation at Western Resource Advocates, says those water savings are still valuable.
“It’s very possible that the savings from the UNC project are not going to end up back in the Poudre River,” she said. “But there’s still a huge benefit to using those savings to support new growth, as opposed to relying on new supplies.”
Western Resource Advocates helped pay for the UNC project. The group also receives funding from the Walton Family Foundation, which supports KUNC’s Colorado River coverage.
Clinton Meagher nails artificial turf into the ground at a Henderson, Nevada home on June 15, 2021. Aggressive water conservation measures have helped the Las Vegas area bring its water use down while adding population. Photo credit: Luke Runyon/KUNC
Turf replacement programs have been switched into hyperspeed in the cities that need it most. While the practice is still gaining traction in Colorado, fast-growing cities elsewhere in the Colorado River basin have leaned hard into it.
In Las Vegas, which has a relatively small allocation of water from the Colorado River, the city has grown by about 750,000 people since 2002 and managed to bring down its use of Colorado River water by 26%. Those kinds of savings are partially thanks to a turf removal program going back more than two decades, but also a uniquely aggressive enforcement strategy in which a team of investigators drives around issuing fines for water waste.
While similar efforts are unlikely in Colorado anytime soon, policymakers are pushing ahead to cut back on nonfunctional grass to save more water in cities.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board is still taking proposals for more water conservation projects like the one at UNC. It recently picked seven projects that are close to getting approved. Battson said there’s already high demand for the next round of funding, which is about $470,000.
Starting January 1, 2026, a new statewide law will go into effect prohibiting local governments from allowing new nonfunctional turf to be planted.
Erosion and years of freezing and thawing after more than six decades of use have left the San Luis Peoples’ Ditch with large cracks in multiple places along the channel. Credit: Mark Obmaskic
The San Luis Peoples’ Ditch, an acequia that holds the first adjudicated water rights in the region, granted in 1852, is the oldest continuously used community irrigation ditch in Colorado. The ditch has significant ties to local cultural heritage and a storied past connected to traditional water management practices. It’s also in desperate need of repairs.
Years of wear and tear on the channel have resulted in a cracked concrete infrastructure that reduces the efficiency of water transport and harms irrigators. The San Luis Peoples’ Ditch Rehabilitation Project is working to solve this problem.
At last week’s Rio Grande Basin Roundtable meeting, funding for Phase I of the project was approved. Now, sponsors will work to get final approval from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and figure out contracts. If everything goes to plan, all three tasks in Phase I, expected to cost a combined $45,000, will begin in the fall of 2025.
A marker commemorating The San Luis Peoples’ Ditch as the oldest continuously used community irrigation ditch in Colorado. Credit: Mark Obmaskic
Originally a shallow hand-dug acequia, the San Luis Peoples’ Ditch was lined with concrete in the early 1960s to maximize water delivery to the area. It was incorporated in 1967, and currently serves 16 parciantes, affiliated water-users, irrigating more than 2,000 acres of crops like hay and alfalfa.
Having already lasted more than 60 years, this concrete addition has long outlived the usual expected lifespan of 25 years. Now, erosion from more than six decades of use has left it in urgent need of attention. Years of freezing and thawing has caused large cracks in multiple places along the channel, significantly reducing the amount of water delivered to irrigators.
Acequias – gravity-fed, community-managed irrigation systems – distribute water and snowmelt through hand-dug channels to agricultural fields for both crops and livestock. The acequia system was brought to the southwest United States by farmers emigrating to the San Luis Valley from Mexico. Used in arid landscapes around the world, the practice originated in North Africa to distribute water from rivers to desert valleys. It was brought to Spain by the Moors, and brought to Mexico by the Spaniards during the colonial period.
Traditionally, acequias function on the idea of communal maintenance and equal water sharing during times of abundance and shortage, overseen by a mayordomo or ditch manager. This structure instills important cultural values centered around collective responsibility and respect for community and the environment.
The unique, longstanding cultural practices as well as the physical structures of the nearly 1,000 acequias that exist in Colorado and New Mexico today are facing a multitude of threats, including modernization, socio-economic, political, and environmental pressures.
While just one of many factors impacting acequias and agricultural communities in the San Luis Valley, drought and environmental changes that impact water availability are a serious concern. Demand for water already exceeds supply in the region, and drought conditions like increased temperatures continue to intensify such processes as evapotranspiration that decrease accessible irrigation water. The drought that the southwest has experienced in the last two decades is severe, with 2002 being the worst drought on record. Identified by climate scientists and the USDA Climate Hub as a potentially emerging megadrought, it’s been the driest 22-year period in over a thousand years.
Changing precipitation patterns, even with potential increases in the form of intense rainstorms, put acequia systems at risk due to a lack of major water storage capabilities. Adapting to these changes could mean shifting growing seasons and irrigation schedules. Ultimately, compounding impacts of climate change make maximizing available water even more crucial for irrigators and farmers in the Valley.
“Every drop counts as we face these dry times,” said Amber Pacheco, deputy general manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, emphasizing the importance of improving aging infrastructure to lessen water loss.
Credit: Mark Obmaskic
Phase I of the Rehabilitation Project will get these improvements started. With three main tasks, this phase is focused on surveying and assessing the current conditions of the ditch infrastructure in order to recommend repairs and improvements.
The first task will encompass a GPS and aerial drone survey, and a component survey of the 3.5 mile ditch. The surveys will check structures, turnouts, piped road crossings, and more, taking note of sections that need to be repaired or upgraded.
The second task will involve an engineer analyzing the structural integrity of the concrete infrastructure, identifying weak spots and areas most at risk of failure. An evaluation of the hydraulic efficiency will also take place, modeling how the water is moving through the channel to find obstructions or specific structures that are problematic.
The third task is a comprehensive final report detailing all of the findings, recommending locations for repairs and improvements, and estimating costs for the next phase of the project. It will be used to determine an actionable plan and request funding for the actual concrete replacement.
The existence of the Peoples’ Ditch acts as the physical legacy of those who built it hundreds of years ago. Many current users of the ditch are descendants of the original builders, marking generations of connection and rich heritage embedded in the land and acequia system. The San Luis Peoples’ Ditch Rehabilitation Project aims to enhance the performance and longevity of the ditch while preserving the existing infrastructure and its deep-rooted cultural significance.
Evan Arvizu is an intern with the Rural Journalism Institute of the San Luis Valley. She’s a senior at Colorado College majoring in Environmental Anthropology and minoring in Journalism. More by Evan Arvizu
San Luis People’s Ditch March 17, 2018. Photo credit: Greg Hobbs
Merrimack River, New Hampshire | Merrimack River Watershed Council
Click the link to read the article on the American Rivers website (Leda Hua):
January 22, 2025
Following his inauguration, President Trump issued a number of executive orders focused on climate and energy—actions that could have major impacts on the rivers and clean water that all Americans depend on. President Trump has said he wants our country to have “the cleanest water,” which is why we must prevent any actions that harm our rivers and drinking water sources.
That’s why we need a responsible national energy strategy that is considerate of our water resources. Responsible energy development means meeting the needs of people without damaging the environment that our health and water wealth depend on.
No matter who you are or where you live, we all need clean, safe, reliable drinking water. Most of our country’s water comes from rivers. Public opinion research shows that Republican, Democrat, and Independent voters of all ages and races overwhelmingly support protections for clean water. Clean water is a basic need, a human right, and a nonpartisan issue we can all agree on.
The details and implementation of these executive orders will matter as we pursue the dual goals of energy and water security.
We cannot return to days where polluters were allowed to devastate rural and urban communities and their natural resources. But these executive orders eliminate efforts to safeguard communities from environmental harm, putting their drinking water at risk.
In addition to protecting Americans from pollution, we also need to help families and businesses prepare for increasingly extreme weather. As Asheville, North Carolina and other communities in the Southeast continue to recover from Hurricane Helene, and thousands in Los Angeles are without homes following recent catastrophic fires, we should be bolstering policies to fight climate change and working to strengthen communities in the face of severe floods, droughts, and fires.
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.
Stable isn’t good enough. Credit: Jack Schmidt/InkStain
Click the link to read the article on the InkStain.net website (John Fleck and Jack Schmidt):
January 14, 2025
Preliminary year-end Colorado River numbers are stark. Total basin-wide storage for the last two years has stabilized, oscillating between 30 and 27 maf (million acre-feet), where storage sits at the start of 2025[1]. That is lower than any sustained period since the River’s reservoirs were built (Fig. 1). Stable is better than declining, but we did not succeed in rebuilding reservoir storage during 2024’s excellent snowpack but modest inflow. Although reservoir storage significantly increased after the gangbuster 2023 snowmelt year, we have not protected the storage gained in 2024 when inflow to Lake Powell was ~85% of normal from a 130% of normal snowpack. We can’t rely on frequent repeats of 2023; we must do better at increasing storage in modest inflow years like 2024.
Why is this happening?
Less water. Credit: InkStain
The phrase “the new normal” can be misleading, suggesting a new, more stable state for the climate. It’s not gonna be stable. But by one reasonable measure – total estimated natural flow in the Colorado River at Lees Ferry – Calendar Year 2024 was typical of the first quarter of the 21st century, with a preliminary estimate of 12.1 million acre-feet “natural flow.” Thus, the calendar year average annual natural flow at Lees Ferry between 2000 and 2024 has been 12.4 maf/yr, down from 14.3 maf for the period 1930-1999. An additional 770,000 af/yr in side inflows between Lees Ferry and Lake Mead add to the available water supply[2].
That we made the cuts needed to stabilize reservoir levels with a natural flow at Lees Ferry as low as 12.1maf would have been a substantial achievement in the wetter “before times.” Now, it’s table stakes. The most important point is that we absolutely did not rebuild storage in 2024, despite a 130 percent snowpack. We must do better in reducing total basin consumptive use.
Once again in 2024, we saw substantial water use reductions among the states of the Lower Colorado River Basin. Total U.S. Lower Basin main stem use of 6.08 maf is the lowest since 1985 (meaning the lowest since the Central Arizona Project came on line). California’s use, based on preliminary numbers published by Reclamation seems to be the lowest since 1950, and use by the Imperial Irrigation District seems to be the absolute lowest in a dataset that goes back to 1941. These are important achievements, to be celebrated.
With regard to the other two major U.S. areas of use – Lower Basin tributaries and the Upper Basin as a whole – we have no idea what 2024 consumptive use was. This is a problem. Lower Basin main stem use is quantified through Reclamation’s annual accounting reports and reported on a nearly daily basis during the course of the water year. River flows and reservoir levels across the basin are similarly reported in public, transparent ways. That’s how we’re able to provide the data you see above. Anyone can download and crunch the numbers. The general public can’t readily do that for consumptive use in the Upper Basin or Lower Basin tributaries.
As Elinor Ostrom noted in her classic book Governing the Commons, shared understanding of the resource is crucial to successful water management. Increasingly, areas of uncertainty have become contested ground, as the genuine technical uncertainties collide with the motivated reasoning of political actors across the basin. [ed. emphasis mine]
With respect to the Upper Basin, we note that the rhetoric that Upper Basin water users suffer shortages in dry years has shifted to a broader claim that Upper Basin users always suffer shortages. We quote here from the Upper Basin states’ January 2 press release: “There are acute hydrologic shortages in the Upper Basin every year – there simply isn’t enough water in any year to satisfy current needs in the Upper Basin every year. The Upper Basin has made uncompensated cuts to their water users every year for the past 24 years.” Some of the data to support this assertion was presented at the December 2024 UCRC meeting, and we look forward to a more complete and transparent accounting of these data, because these data are crucial to a robust Colorado River management discussion. The Upper Basin’s experience of “acute hydrologic shortages … every year” is exactly what John Wesley Powell described in 1878 in the first edition of The Arid Lands Report. Nothing has changed, and the challenge of agriculture throughout the watershed has been well known for 150 years. We also note that consumptive use data throughout the basin has not been integrated with the important findings of Richter et al (2024) who documented the proportion of water used by different agricultural sectors. They estimated that 55% of all Colorado River water use supplies livestock feed.
We leave a discussion of Lower Basin tributary use for another post but note that in both the cases of the Upper Basin use and Lower Basin tributary use, the numbers are entangled in the current Upper Basin-Lower Basin feud, which makes serious efforts to think about how to manage water at the Basin scale, rather than simply defending parochial interests, much more difficult. It is important that the general public not employed by a state or water agency, and therefore not beholden to local parochial interests, help the basin community as a whole navigate these technical issues.
Conclusion
The stable reservoir levels at the end of 2024, despite another year of deep Lower Basin water use reductions, should be cause for alarm. Deeper cuts are needed. But without a shared understanding of water use elsewhere in the basin, we’re flying blind.
[1] Basin-wide reservoir storage reached a peak of 29.7 maf on 13 July 2023 and was subsequently drawn down to 27.5 maf by mid-April 2024. Inflow from 2024 snowmelt rebounded basin-wide storage to 30.0 maf on 6 July 2024, and storage was subsequently drawn down to 27.4 maf by 31 December 2024. Retention of storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell has been somewhat better during the same period. Combined storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell peaked in mid-July 2023 at 18.0 maf, declined to 17.1 maf by mid-May 2024, increased to 18.5 maf on 8 July 2024, and was 17.3 maf on 31 December 2024. Thus, storage in the two largest reservoirs at year’s end was slightly greater than it was at its spring 2024 minimum just before storage increased when significant snowmelt reached Lake Powell.
[2] This estimate is calculated as the difference between annual flow measured just upstream from Diamond Creek in western Grand Canyon and measured at Lees Ferry.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall
Yampa River near Deer Lodge Park. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Premiered Jan 22, 2025
Discover the magic of the Yampa, the last wild river in the Colorado River Basin, and learn how to build a movement to protect a wild river near you. Step 1: Be proactive… Since 2012, OARS has joined forces with American Rivers and Friends of the Yampa, to host an annual Yampa River Awareness Project (YRAP) river trip. This initiative invites key decision-makers, stakeholders, and activists on a transformative rafting journey along the free-flowing Yampa River, offering them the chance to experience firsthand what could be lost if the river is threatened by a major dam, diversion, or dewatering project. Filmed during the 2024 YRAP trip, A Guide to Fighting for Wild Rivers illustrates how immersing people in a river’s beauty and sharing its ecological significance fosters deep, personal connections that inspire long-term conservation. Each trip builds a growing network of passionate river defenders, united by a shared commitment to preserving the Yampa for future generations. Explore Yampa River rafting trips: https://bit.ly/49DoNCA The step-by-step conservation model shared in the film takes a cue from early river crusaders like David Brower, Bus Hatch, and Martin Litton, whose advocacy efforts helped achieve several major conservation wins for western rivers, galvanized by people’s love of a place.
Firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals is responsible for contamination in Fountain Valley. Photo via USAF Air Combat Command
From email from CDPHE:
January 24, 2025
The Water Quality Control Division (division) is pleased to announce the Request for Applications (RFA) for the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program. This RFA is open as of January 24, 2025.
This program helps non-transient, non-community or community public water systems in small or disadvantaged communities. The funds can help with planning, design, and infrastructure to reduce public health risks from emerging contaminants, including PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances), manganese, and others.
The details of this RFA are located on the division’s website. Written questions and inquiries regarding the RFA are due on February 7, 2025, by 2:00 p.m. MDT.
The application deadline is March 21, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. MDT.
Lenguaje y accesibilidad Si necesita ayuda en español o en otro idioma, póngase en contacto con la división escribiendo a cdphe.commentswqcd@state.co.us.
Dillon Reservoir is Denver Water’s largest reservoir. It sends water to the Front Range via the 23-mile-long Roberts Tunnel under the Continental Divide. Photo credit: Denver Water.
On Friday, in the last hours of the Biden administration, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced it would spend $388.3 million for environmental projects in Colorado and three other Colorado River Basin states.
Now that funding is in limbo.
The money was set to come from a Biden-era law, the Inflation Reduction Act. On Monday, President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to halt spending money under the act. Lawmakers were still trying to understand whether the freeze applied to the entire Inflation Reduction Act or portions of it as of Wednesday afternoon.
Shoshone Falls hydroelectric generation station via USGenWeb
The new executive order focused on energy spending but also raised questions about funding for environmental projects in the Colorado River Basin, including $40 million for western Colorado’s effort to buy powerful water rights tied to Shoshone Power Plant on the Colorado River and 16 other projects in Colorado.
Past regulations have been burdensome and impeded the development of the country’s energy resources, according to the executive order.
“It is thus in the national interest to unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources,” the order said. “This will restore American prosperity — including for those men and women who have been forgotten by our economy in recent years.”
Where spending is stalled, federal agencies will have 90 days to review their funding processes to make sure they align with the Trump administration’s policies.
The proposed projects focus on improving habitats, ecological stability and resilience against drought in the Colorado River Basin, where prolonged drought and overuse have cast uncertainty over the future water supply for 40 million people. Reclamation also awarded $100 million for Colorado River environmental projects in Arizona, California and Nevada.
Coloradans were promised up to about $135 million from the Inflation Reduction Act as part of the Upper Basin Environmental Drought Mitigation Program. It’s one of many buckets that have distributed money from the act to Colorado.
This map shows the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River near Grand Junction, home to four species of endangered fish. Map credit: CWCB
With the funding, people around the state hope to upgrade infrastructure to help protect 15 miles of key habitat near Grand Junction for endangered species on the Colorado River. They want to improve aquatic habitats along rivers in Grand County, where low flows threaten fish and aquatic life, and restore ancient, water- and carbon-storing fens.
“It wasn’t surprising, but we still need to wait to see how it gets interpreted, and what it’s going to apply to or not apply to,” said Steve Wolff, general manager of the Southwestern Water Conservation District. The district joined with local partners to apply for funding for 17 projects in southwestern Colorado and was awarded $25.6 million.
“We would all be very disappointed if any of this money was removed,” Wolff said. “These funds are really bipartisan and are meant to get put on the ground and do good work.”
One of those projects aims to restore ancient fens along Highway 550, known as the Million Dollar Highway, between Silverton and Ouray in southwestern Colorado.
These fens, between 6,000 and 14,000 years old, naturally store carbon and slow runoff from the mountains, helping to maintain flows into the summer when water runs low and demand outpaces supply. Drought, a history of mining, and human impacts in the area have degraded the fen ecosystems over time, said Jake Kurzweil, a hydrologist with Mountain Studies Institute in southwestern Colorado.
The project managers want to hire locally to help the rural economy. And the work would help restore river ecosystems where they begin — at their headwaters — if the funding actually comes through.
“Until there’s a contract in place, we won’t be including it in our budgets,” Kurzweil said. “We’re optimistically hopeful, but not counting our chickens before they hatch.”
Southern Ute Indian Tribe’s Pine River Environment Drought Mitigation Project: Up to $16.7 million: The funding would improve the health of the Pine River watershed, fish passage, deteriorating infrastructure, and water quality while addressing drought impacts.
Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant back in the days before I-70 via Aspen Journalism
Shoshone Water Rights Preservation Project: Up to $40 million: The funding would go toward the $99 million purchase of the Shoshone Power Plant’s water rights by the Colorado River Water Conservation District. The district says it will protect future water supplies for ecosystems, farms, ranches, communities and recreational businesses.
The Dolores River shows us what’s at stake in the fight to protect the American West — Conservation Colorado
Addressing Drought Mitigation in Southwestern Colorado: Up to $25.6 million: The funding would support 17 projects in the Dolores and San Juan river basins in southwestern Colorado. The projects aim to restore ecosystems and enhance biodiversity and water resources while supporting local communities and endangered species.
Tomichi Creek, a tributary of the Gunnison River, runs through the Peterson Ranch property. The Colorado Water Conservation Board holds an instream flow water right for 18 cfs on the creek in this stretch.
CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Grand Mesa and Upper Gunnison Watershed Resiliency and Aquatic Connectivity Project: Up to $24.3 million: The funding would restore watersheds to combat drought impacts to water quality and habitat in western Colorado.
Orchard Mesa circa 1911
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District Conveyance Upgrades for 15-Mile Reach Flow Enhancement: Up to $10.5 million: The funding would convert open canals into pressurized pipelines, improving water delivery efficiency and reducing environmental stressors. This upgrade aims to support endangered fish species by enhancing streamflow in a critical stretch of the Colorado River.
A man fishes along Blue River. The federal government Dec. 19, 2023, announced a $1.8 million grant for a habitat restoration on a section of the Blue River. Blue River Watershed Group/Courtesy photo
Enhancing Aquatic Habitat in Colorado River Headwaters: Up to $7 million: The funding would restore stream habitats along the Fraser, Blue and Colorado rivers in Grand County through channel shaping and bank stabilization.
Coyote Gulch on the Yampa River Core Trail August 24, 2022.
Yampa River/Walton Creek Confluence Restoration Project: Up to $5 million: The funding would restore river and floodplain habitat around Steamboat Springs.
Yellow-billed cuckoos have nearly been extirpated from the western U.S. Photo courtesy Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.
Drought Resiliency on Western Colorado Conserved Lands: Up to $4.6 million: The funding would help improve wetlands, floodplains, erosion control structures and habitat for at-risk species like the yellow-billed cuckoo and Gunnison sage-grouse.
The Colorado River, which feeds into Lake Powell, begins its 1,450-mile journey in Rocky Mountain National Park near Grand Lake, Colorado. Denver Water gets half of its water from tributaries that feed into the Colorado River. Some of these tributaries include the Fraser River in Grand County and the Blue River in Summit County. Photo credit: Denver Water
Upper Colorado Basin Aquatic Organism Passage Program: Up to $4.2 million: The funding would restore stream habitat in Grand County to improve biodiversity, habitats, fish passage and drought resilience.
Palisade peach orchard
Conversion of Wastewater Lagoons into Wetlands: Up to $3 million: The funding would turn outdated sewer lagoons into wetlands to improve biodiversity and habitat for migratory waterfowl and endangered fish species in Palisade.
Fruita Reservoir Dam Removal: Up to $2.8 million: The funding would remove a dam on Piñon Mesa to restore wetlands, habitat and biodiversity.
Beaver dam analog. Photo: Juliet Grable
Monitoring and Quantifying the Effectiveness of Beaver Dam Analogs on Drought Influenced Streams in the Upper Colorado River Basin: Up to $1.9 million: The funding would restore degraded headwater meadows by implementing structures that mimic the natural functions of beaver dams.
Uncompahgre River Valley looking south
Uncompahgre Tailwater Rehabilitation Project: Up to $1.8 million: The funding would stabilize stream banks, restore aging infrastructure and improve the river habitat to help with ecological health and recreational opportunities.
Photo credit: Town of Gypsum
Eagle River Habitat Improvement, Gypsum Ponds State Wildlife Area: Up to $1.5 million: The funding would improve fish habitat and water quality along the Eagle River in Eagle County.
Bicycling the Colorado National Monument, Grand Valley in the distance via Colorado.com
Orchard Mesa and Grand Valley Metering Efficiency Project: Up to $1.5 million: The funding would improve water management in the Grand Valley through the installation of advanced metering technology and real-time remote monitoring systems.
Biologists say federal target numbers are too low to ensure recovery of the Gunnison sage-grouse, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The bird’s largest population is in the Gunnison basin. Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Habitat Restoration in the Gunnison Basin: Up to $750,000: The funding would use low-tech restoration structures to restore habitat for the endangered Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison River Basin.
Toxic-algae blooms appeared in Steamboat Lake summer of 2020. The lake shut down for two weeks after harmful levels of a toxin produced by the blue-green algae were found in the water. As climate change continues, toxic blooms and summer shutdowns of lakes are predicted to become more common. Photo credit: Julie Arington/Aspen Journalism
Cyanobacteria Monitoring and Treatment for Drought-driven Blooms in a High Elevation, Upper Colorado Reservoir to save Ecosystem Function: Up to $518,000: The funding would use real-time water quality monitoring tools and targeted treatments to combat algal blooms and restore aquatic health at Williams Fork Reservoir.
