Below is the Snow Water Equivalent in South Platte graph from the NRCS for October 26, 2026. Snowpack is 44% of the median (down 92% one week, wild swings this time of the accumulation season) and 4% of the median peak (up 1% one week). There are 181 days until the median peak. I’ve added the lines for 2026, 2018, 2012, and 2002 since the statewide drought is still very pronounced.
Below is the Precipitation Accumulation in South Platte graph from the NRCS for October 26, 2026. This morning precipitation, at the SNOTEL stations, is at 79% of the median (down 15% one week), and 5% of the water year median (up 1% one week), There are 340 days left in the water year. I’ve added the lines for 2026, 2018, 2012, and 2002 since the statewide drought is still very pronounced.
There is a slight chance for snow showers Saturday and a chance for rain and snow showers Sunday in the central mountains. There is a slight chance for showers Saturday and a chance for showers Sunday in the northern mountains. There is a chance for showers Saturday and Sunday, down here, about 439 miles from the Four Corners National Monument near where the San Juan River is raging out of its banks flooding the Navajo Nation downstream to Lake Powell which has risen 10 feet from all the water. From Wikipedia:
Here’s a look at the Colorado 7-Day precipitation map through October 25, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center. Precipitation in the South Platte Basin along the Continental Divide of the Americas ranged from 0.00” to 1.75″.
Here’s the Colorado 7-Day percent of normal precipitation map through October 25, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center. Precipitation in the South Platte River Basin along the Continental Divide of the Americas ranged from 0% to 800% of normal.
Here’s the most recent 7-Day Departure from Normal Temperature (F) for Colorado through October 25, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center.
Below is the 7-day Quantitative Precipitation Forecast for the week of October 26, 2026. Precipitation is anticipated for the mountains of the South Platte River Basin and may total up to 0.10″
Below are the 8-14 day outlooks from the Climate Prediction Center, issued October 25, 2026, for temperature and precipitation, for the week starting November 2, 2026. The CPC expects above normal temperatures and above normal precipitation for the mountains of the South Platte River Basin.
Below is the Colorado Drought Monitor map from October 20, 2026. There were one category improvments in Larimer, Weld, Boulder, Broomfiled, and Adams counties in the South Platte River Basin. There were one category degradations in Morgan County in the basin. Drought and abnormal dryness covers 83.50% of Colorado. The South Platte Basin is experiencing Abnormally Dry, Moderate, Severe, Extreme, and Exceptional drought conditions.
Below is the Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending October 20, 2026.
Here’s the US Drought Monitor Map from last week along with the one week U.S. change map.
“Holy crap,” said one of my acquaintances in Colorado when I passed along the news that Colorado, during the last water year, had an average temperature of 2 degrees Fahrenheit above the previous record year of 1934. For me, it wasn’t a great surprise. I remember all too well trying to write stories in 95 degree heat during summer in my former home/office. But it was a sucker punch nonetheless…This, many have said, is clear evidence that the current warming is just part of a phase. But this new report from Colorado State University researchers speaks to just how extraordinary these times are. The report comes after the conclusion of the 2025-26 water year, which starts in October and ends in September.
“Water year 2026 was one for the record books in Colorado,” the report says. “It was our warmest on record by a substantial margin, and it was also one of our driest.”
The mountain snowpack, the lowest ever, had implications across many sectors, from agriculture and wildfire to human health and recreation, the report continues. Once again, the temperatures continue to amaze. Colorado had four months — December and January, March and August — that were warmest ever. But 11 of the 12 months ranked among the top-15 warmest of those months on record. The researchers found that, statewide, temperatures were 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the averages seen between 1991-2020.
Click the link to read the article on the 9News website (Matt Renoux, Alexander Kirk). Here’s an excerpt:
October 20, 2026
Customers of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District in western Colorado cut their water usage by 30% this summer. The savings is more than triple the 9% reduction achieved by Denver Water customers, thanks to a strong messaging campaign, strict fines, and a sharp drop in outdoor watering. Denver Water had asked customers to reduce use by 20%. Many Colorado water districts statewide saw drops of 10% to 20%…Vail Valley customers saved more than 1,000 acre-feet of water…Officials say the district faced an uphill battle because many residents are part-time, especially in summer, and may not know about restrictions. Staff took their message on the road, speaking with people face-to-face at events and festivals. Despite the savings, the district remains at high risk for low water storage and is keeping restrictions in place. Reservoirs and rivers will need help filling in the spring.
Members of the Colorado Mountain Club looking west towards Grand Lake from on top of the Continental Divide. Many outdoor-oriented activities opposed the C-BT project, fearing environmental damage and the intrusion of commerce into wild Western landscapes. History Colorado Collection, 83.495.3.17
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Magazine from History Colorado.
Few visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park will ever visit the East Portal. And why would they? Located just a few miles south of Estes Park, the East Portal contains no views of snow-capped peaks or broad valleys teeming with wildlife. Instead, it is framed by low-lying hills and power lines that draw energy from water flowing out of an odd-looking tunnel and pooling into a nondescript reservoir. It is, compared to some of the area’s more breathtaking vistas, an unremarkable landscape with seemingly little connection with the one drawing hordes of sightseers and adventurers into nearby Rocky Mountain National Park.
Yet appearances can be deceiving. Even while unsuspecting visitors explore one of the nation’s iconic landscapes, the tunnel is redirecting the natural flow of the Colorado River underneath the Rocky Mountains and out the East Portal, en route to users across Northern Colorado. Completed in 1944, the Alva B. Adams Tunnel forms the critical undermountain link in the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT), a piece of hidden infrastructure that, as you read this, is supplying water to farms and municipalities across the Northern Front Range.
Despite the C-BT’s importance, few Coloradans consider it when they turn on their showers or dig into a plate of seasonal Front Range veggies. But from 1933, when it was proposed, until 1937, when Congress approved the project, the C-BT inspired passionate support and vitriolic opposition from a range of interest groups that Coloradans today would recognize immediately.
The supporters’ side included farmers, industrialists, local boosters and scientists. In the midst of a decade characterized by drought and depression, they argued that C-BT water would rescue the region’s agricultural economy from collapse by the simple act of moving water from a region that possessed it in comparative abundance to one desperately needing it.
First water through the Adams Tunnel. Photo credit Northern Water.
On the other side were conservationists and nature-lovers who complained bitterly that the Adams tunnel would desecrate Rocky Mountain National Park. They wrote protest letters, pamphlets, and editorials, and appeared before hearings in Congress and the Department of the Interior. Some complained that the tunnel was a commercial intrusion into a national park. They excoriated the business interests and town developers for wanting to scar a landscape set aside for preservation and the enjoyment of the American people. They worried that it would set a precedent for the exploitation of other national parks. Other conservation-minded opponents argued that the tunnel violated the need to preserve wild places for the sake of wilderness. To remove water from the woods and pump it onto the plains, they said, would be to fundamentally alter fragile western ecosystems. The war of words reached such a fever pitch that historian Donald Swain says that the C-BT offered one of the most consequential examples of water project opposition in American history.
It’s not news that water is central to life, and that’s especially true here in arid Colorado. Access to water and the sanctity of public lands—issues that defined the fight over the Colorado-Big Thompson Project—resonate perhaps more than ever as climate change challenges our ability to engineer around aridity. Vitriolic discussions over water use for agriculture, for growing cities, for energy development, and for recreation are happening with just as much ferocity today as they did nine decades ago. Colorado’s central urban strip continues attracting residents at a breakneck pace, in part due to the outdoor lifestyle afforded by such close access to public lands. Cities on the Front Range are still buying C-BT water rights from farmers…even as the oil and gas industry injects some of that same water thousands of feet into the earth to be lost to underground hydraulic fracturing.
No matter what the use, hardly anybody gets to use water in Colorado without a fight. It’s as true today as it was in 1933, when the Colorado-Big Thompson project threatened to forever change one of the nation’s most prominent protected landscapes: the snowy peaks and verdant valleys of Rocky Mountain National Park.
Tyndall Glacier in Rocky Mountain National Park. Meltwater from the park’s many glaciers feed water needs across Colorado. History Colorado Collection, 83.495.1.57
Origins of Conflict
Ever since gold’s discovery near Denver in 1858, Front Range residents have far outnumbered those living in the western half of the state. But eighty percent of the state’s precipitation falls west of the Continental Divide, creating a problem for the many urban Front Range residents who live in a much drier climate. So, as Colorado’s population grew throughout the late 1800s, it did not take long for the water-starved majority to devise methods for circumventing geographic barriers.
Grand River Ditch July 2016. Photo credit Greg Hobbs.
Moving water underneath or around a mountain from one watershed to another—a process called transmountain diversion—was nothing new when the C-BT controversy emerged during the 1930s. The largest of these early projects, called the Grand River Ditch, transported water in an unlined ditch and wooden flumes to Fort Collins through an area that would eventually become part of Rocky Mountain National Park. In 1904 the Bureau of Reclamation, with sights set on a much larger diversion, suggested damming Grand Lake and then constructing a twelve-mile tunnel that could fill the ditches of Northern Colorado farmers. However, high construction costs and complex engineering tabled the project.
As water users created precedents for gravity-defying projects, conservationists developed a reputation for opposing them. The most notable example involved San Francisco’s 1907 proposal to dam Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley for water and power generation. Though Congress eventually approved San Francisco’s application, the project galvanized opposition from conservation organizations such as the Sierra Club. Protesters argued that national parks existed for the beauty and enjoyment of the nation and its people and that commercial development violated those core principles.
Politicians and federal officials took note of this growing tension between water developers and conservationists, spurring them to craft laws and principles for human activities in national parks. When Congress established Rocky Mountain National Park in 1915, Franklin Lane, Secretary of the Interior, sought to ensure the legality of water projects within park boundaries. As a former attorney for the city of San Francisco, Lane played a critical role in the bruising battle over damming Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley. Head of the vast Interior Department, which oversaw both national parks and the water project builders at the Bureau of Reclamation, Lane worried that national park designation might present too many obstacles to water development. So, the wily attorney inserted the following language into Rocky Mountain’s founding document: “The United States Reclamation Service may enter upon and utilize for flowage or other purposes any area within said park which may be necessary for the development and maintenance of a Government reclamation project.”
That language offered a legal justification for diverting water through the park. However, the following year Congress muddied the waters a bit. In 1916, legislators approved the Organic Act, a lengthy bureaucratic document which, among other things, established the National Park Service. According to the Act, that new agency’s mission was to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” For conservationists and park service employees, the Organic Act was a manifesto for resistance to all kinds of commercial development. Certainly, they reasoned, dynamiting a tunnel through the length of Rocky Mountain National Park would impair the public’s enjoyment and break the illusion of standing in an untouched wilderness.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project elevation profile map. Courtesy of Northern Water.
Circumstances brought the potential of a massive hole through the national park into public consciousness during the 1930s as Colorado suffered through drought and economic collapse. As crops dried up, an array of Northern Colorado groups came together to request that the federal government investigate the feasibility of blasting a tunnel that could divert Colorado River water through Rocky Mountain. These included five counties, all but one member of Colorado’s Congressional delegation, editors of each of the region’s major newspapers, a majority of local elected officials, and Front Range farmers. In 1934 the Bureau of Reclamation agreed to conduct engineering studies in advance of a project proposal. Reclamation Commissioner John C. Page followed up with a letter to Acting Park Service Director Arthur Demaray requesting entry. Demaray refused.
In a formal letter of denial addressed to Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, Demaray penned the opening arguments in the fight over the tunnel. He complained that engineering studies taken in the park would require test drillings, resulting in “scars” and “unsightly debris.” According to Demaray, such surveys and any tunnel which might be built required constructing access roads and trails to “places where roads and trails should not rightfully go.” Demaray’s letter rhetorically transformed a local irrigation project into a national issue, pointing out that conservationists had fought to keep national parks “inviolate from such projects,” and that the proposed survey could be “an opening wedge in a hard-won wall of protection which surrounds our park system.” In response, Ickes, a noted supporter of national parks, nonetheless authorized the engineering surveys, believing that he was obligated by the fact that water diversion projects were embedded in Rocky Mountain’s founding legislation.
Conservationists Make Their Case
Following Ickes’ approval, conservation forces quickly mobilized in opposition. Organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society mailed flyers to their supporters and placed ads in newspapers throughout the country. Individuals then sent dozens of protest letters to federal agencies. While some letters appear entirely original, others were variations on templates developed by conservation organizations. Many of these letters are housed at the Broomfield branch of the National Archives. In addition, nationally recognized figures in the National Park Service, directors of conservation organizations, and scientists wrote op-ed pieces in magazines and newspapers.
Their strident opposition came during a period when national parks were drawing patrons in record numbers as many sought escape from the crushing economic collapse of the Great Depression. As the federal government considered the Colorado-Big Thompson Project between 1934 and 1937, annual visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park nearly doubled to 650,000. This was motivated in part by the recently built Trail Ridge Road, which offered stunning views to motorists as they traveled across the Continental Divide between Estes Park and Grand Lake.
The arguments made by conservationists in opposition to the tunnel probably resonate with today’s Coloradans who enjoy recreating in the state’s public lands. Letter writers universally expressed concerns that a massive engineering project inside park borders would mar the scenery and set the stage for similar projects in national parks elsewhere. Most protesters extolled the uniqueness of the landscape inside Rocky Mountain National Park, arguing that it was the highest expression of nature and the people of the nation had afforded it the most stringent degree of protection available at the time. Consequently, only development that enhanced the scenery and natural beauty of the parks should be allowed. Many made this distinction clear when they offered support for farmers’ need for water, as long as the conduits that delivered the resource were outside of the park boundaries. Other writers expressed concerns about the declining number of wild places in America, arguing that national parks offered the best opportunity for humans to have unimpaired encounters with wild nature. Finally, many protesters viewed Rocky Mountain through patriotic lenses. They claimed that national parks existed for every American and that a tunnel would prioritize local interests over national ones.
Among the varied written protests, none received more attention than a 1936 pamphlet titled, “A Protest of Conservation Organizations Against the Exploitation of Rocky Mountain National Park.” Its signatories included the most notable conservation organizations of the 1930s, including the Wilderness Society, the American Forestry Association, The Izaak Walton League, the Sierra Club, and the National Parks Association. They argued that the tunnel “violates the most sacred principle of National Parks, namely, freedom from commercial or economic exploitation,” and that if approved by Congress it would “establish a precedent for the commercial invasion of other parks.”
The most likely author of that pamphlet, Robert Sterling Yard, took the protest a step further, by arguing that the proposed tunnel was an assault on one among a dwindling number of wild places in America. By the 1930s, Yard was in a strong position to make this claim. As the head of the National Park Service’s Educational Division from 1916-1919, he promoted national parks as America’s “scenic masterpieces” which, like great art, had the potential to build a more enlightened public. For Yard, irrigation projects in national parks were akin to defacing a Rembrandt painting. So, during the 1920s, he directed much of his energy toward fighting water projects in parks such as Yellowstone, Glacier, and Grand Teton.
During the same period, Yard became increasingly concerned that parks such as Rocky Mountain were being overrun with tourists who seemed more interested in driving through than in enlightening their minds. Though not the same as boring a hole through the mountain or clearcutting a forest, Yard regarded the assault of asphalt and autos as commercial invasions just the same, since they encouraged visitors to rapidly consume landscapes while disregarding their geologic or biologic value. For Yard, blasting holes through the park and the proliferation of roads were two sides of the same coin. Both compromised the core mission of national parks.
By 1930, Yard concluded that the best way to preserve the scientific and scenic qualities of the nation’s iconic parks was to promote vast roadless tracts called wilderness areas. So, in 1935, even as the first tunnel engineering surveys were getting underway, he helped to form the Wilderness Society. According to the Society’s first publication, wilderness areas are “virgin tracts in which human activities have never modified the normal processes of nature. They thus preserve the native vegetation and physiographic conditions which have existed for an inestimable period. They present the culmination of an unbroken series of natural events stretching infinitely into the past, and a richness and beauty beyond description or compare.” In short, Yard and his allies argued that the proposed tunnel would do more than deface park scenery; it would violate the fundamental laws of nature. To restore nature’s balance, Rocky Mountain needed less construction and more wilderness.
The most common protest expressed by Robert Sterling Yard and his conservationist allies was that the C-BT prioritized local needs over national ones. Yard’s Wilderness Society colleague Bernard Frank expressed that sentiment when he wrote that the national parks were areas “dedicated to the service and enjoyment of the people of the United States as a whole and not to any narrow interests of any particular locality.” Frank later emphasized that it would be the “primeval qualities” of the park which would be compromised should local “narrow interests” prevail. Letter writers Laurel and Lincoln Ellison of Montana cited national interests as well, claiming that the country’s need for outdoor recreation in “unspoiled nature…should take precedence over such local demands for irrigation and water power.” In an editorial in the New York Times, former National Park Service Director Horace Albright chimed in with similar reasoning. He cited the five million tourists who had visited Rocky Mountain National Park since 1915, the 550,000 travelers who entered the park in 1936, and the seven-and-half million dollars spent by park visitors, arguing that the C-BT would destroy “the natural charm of the landscape.” He concluded that “private interests should give way to the general good.”
The arguments against the tunnel put forth by conservationists resonate in Colorado today. Presently, there are forty-two wilderness areas in the state, most of which have been designated since Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964. Each wilderness is intended to minimize human impacts by restricting all forms of mechanized travel. In fact, four of these wilderness areas border Rocky Mountain National Park. Moreover, much of the park has been managed as wilderness since 1974. At the same time, the visitor’s desire to motor through has only increased. It took twenty years for total park visitation to hit the five million mark. Today, nearly that many people tour the park by car annually. These numbers are especially evident when spontaneous traffic jams occur at sites where elk or moose grace the roadside. Whether those scenes support or violate the conservation mission of Rocky Mountain remains the subject of sometimes heated debate.
Making the Case for the C-BT
Let’s return now for a moment to the East Portal, where Colorado River water flows out of the Alva B. Adams Tunnel and exits Rocky Mountain National Park. From there the water plunges 2,900 feet through twelve reservoirs and over one hundred miles of canals before it is available to farmers, municipalities, and businesses in Northern Colorado. In 1937, the intended beneficiaries of that water needed to address some of the arguments made by conservationists, even as they directed the debate away from the sanctity of national parks and toward economic benefit. Would the C-BT bring enough benefit to justify its price tag, estimated to be $44 million in 1937? To gain Congressional support and to counter conservationists’ arguments that the Adams Tunnel would desecrate a national treasure, they had to make the case that the C-BT would bring substantial economic benefit to the nation.
Ralph Parshall squats next to the flume he designed at the Bellevue Hydrology Lab using water from the Cache la Poudre River. 1946. Photo Credit: Water Resource Archive, Colorado State University
Among the many people clamoring for the C-BT, Ralph Parshall stands out. While Parshall was not the loudest voice in the debate, his arguments and evidence were perhaps the most convincing. A resident of Northern Colorado himself, Parshall graduated at the top of his engineering class at Colorado Agricultural College (CAC—the forerunner of Colorado State University) in 1904. After completing a master’s degree at the University of Chicago, he was hired by his alma mater in 1907. As a professor at CAC, Parshall engineered reservoirs, dams, and irrigation canals in Northern Colorado. Then, in 1913, Parshall took a position as an irrigation engineer with the USDA’s Bureau of Agricultural Engineering where he worked for the next forty years. While at the USDA, Parshall’s office and lab remained on the campus of CAC where he collaborated with students and faculty throughout his career.
By the time the C-BT came into public consciousness in the 1930s, Parshall was a well-known figure due to his namesake invention, the Parshall Flume. That innovation made water distribution to agricultural users more equitable wherever it was installed as it increased measurement accuracy in canals and ditches by up to thirty percent. This helped farmers to know how much water they were receiving and prevented water users from taking more than their allotted shares. By 1935, Parshall had also distinguished himself as a pioneer of snow surveys and for developing devices to remove debris from irrigation canals. Combined, Parshall’s work enabled farmers to plan their operations effectively since they could predict the quantity of water available to them. He also earned the respect of individual farmers since he frequently supervised the design and installation of his inventions on their land. Consequently, when the USDA needed a knowledgeable and well-respected figure to prepare an economic analysis of the C-BT, Parshall was a clear choice. He possessed an unshakeable reputation as a skilled irrigation engineer with intimate knowledge of the Northern Colorado landscape.
Parshall’s Agricultural Economic Summary Relating to the Colorado-Big Thompson Project came out in January 1937. It contained a dizzying array of economic data collected by Parshall and his team of researchers. They compiled statistics on value, acreage, water rights, and loan status for every irrigated farm in the region. They also collected precipitation records, breaking down the quantity of water available for every irrigation district and mutual irrigation company in the C-BT’s service area. Parshall went to pains to show how C-BT water would be an affordable and effective solution to the region’s water woes.
Even as the data spoke loudly, Parshall’s applied understanding of Northern Colorado’s irrigation-dependent farmers amplified statistics. Aware that a massive Reclamation project might be viewed as a government handout in the midst of the Depression, Parshall characterized the region’s farmers as “hardy, self-reliant American farmers and townspeople” who needed additional water to “stabilize the present economic achievement and make secure the possibilities of future progress.” In a nod to popular Depression-era programs, Parshall stated that the guarantee of sufficient water would be like “social security” for existing farmers, enabling them to gain the same security in their later years that working class Americans received. Seeking to demonstrate that the C-BT was a difference maker, Parshall argued that its greatest value would be that its flows would be available late in the growing season, when some water users ran out of water and when an additional application of water to high value crops might make the difference between breaking even and crushing debt. In stark financial terms, Parshall stated that irrigation provided $64 million worth of property value to Northern Colorado, a region valued at $200 million. This additional property value resulted in local, state, and federal taxes that could be invested in schools, infrastructure and economic development.
In Parshall’s analysis of the seventy years of irrigation in the region prior to 1935, he concluded that land values were high because of “greater assurance that crops will be produced and the possibility of growing crops of higher value than could be grown without irrigation.” According to Parshall, the economic gains made possible by irrigation were far higher than the C-BT’s estimated $44 million price tag. But Parshall extended his analysis far beyond the farm, arguing that prosperous Northern Colorado farmers supported the growth of local businesses, increased railroad traffic, enabled more construction, strengthened financial institutions, and made possible the sort of increased highway traffic that carries with it travelers and tourists eager to spend their money in local businesses.
Sugar beets back in the day. Credit: UC Berkeley
Knowing that C-BT opponents might argue that the nation was suffering from too much agricultural production, Parshall turned that caution on its head by claiming that more water would shift agricultural production away from crops grown in surplus and toward crops not grown in sufficient quantities. For example, he argued that wheat, whose national supply had far outstripped its demand, was a crop of choice in Northern Colorado only when water was in short supply. By contrast, sugar beets, the most lucrative crop in the region, demanded more water than wheat. Yet, the majority of the nation’s sugar was imported. Consequently, according to Parshall, increasing Northern Colorado’s water supplies would push farmers to grow more beets and less wheat, thus aligning the nation’s agriculture more closely with consumer demand and reducing dependency on foreign sugar. Parshall concluded that the C-BT would support self-reliant, productive Americans who created real economic value that extended to the nation. In short, the C-BT was an overwhelmingly good investment.
No entity agreed more with Parshall’s assessment than Great Western Sugar, the nation’s largest supplier of domestic sugar and Northern Colorado’s most important economic driver. Great Western’s factories depended on the same water as the farmers who sold the company its beets. Moreover, as a late arrival to the region, its junior rights weren’t secure. In fact, during the 1934 refining campaign, the company’s ditches ran dry, and it had to beg local irrigation companies for water to complete its operations. So, the company always craved more water, either by cultivating relationships with its growers or through projects such as the C-BT. To energize local C-BT support, Great Western made liberal use of its grower magazine, Through the Leaves. In it the company published reader-friendly versions of scientific articles showing how their beet harvests would increase with just a little more water. In 1936, the company said it more explicitly: C-BT water would result in an average annual income increase of $400 per grower.
To make the national case for the C-BT, Great Western employed lobbyists in Congress. This was nothing new since the company had always pressured legislators to enact high tariffs against foreign sugar. In 1937, those lobbyists shifted from taxes to water. Great Western also took to the airwaves to make its case. In cooperation with other western beet sugar companies, it paid the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) to do a series of short radio programs titled, “Sugar Beets Tell the World.” The broadcasts emphasized how sugar beets grown in the irrigated regions of the West contributed to the American economy, providing figures on grower income, railroad shipments, resources used in refining beets into sugar, and the varied ways beet sugar was consumed. To hear Great Western tell it, beet sugar was essential to the American economy, and the C-BT was essential to the beet sugar industry.
Ultimately, the arguments made by Ralph Parshall, Great Western Sugar, and supporters of the C-BT proved successful. After spirited debate in June and July of 1937, Congress passed bills approving the project and authorizing an initial $900,000 in funding. The following year, prospective water users signed a contract to pay a maximum of $25 million over the course of forty years for the project, with the remainder of the costs being paid for by hydroelectric power generation. That $25 million cap turned out to be quite a bargain. When Reclamation finally completed the C-BT in 1957, total costs had soared to over $160 million.
Conservation, Cattle, and Water
The completion of the C-BT in 1957 heralded shifts in Northern Colorado’s agricultural landscape that would make the region look familiar to the present-day observer. Former Colorado Agricultural Commissioner Don Ament recently reflected on some of these changes while talking about his family’s long history in the region. During the 1930s, Ament’s family emphasized sugar beets on their irrigated lands near Sterling. As Ament transitioned into farming for himself in the 1950s and 1960s, he shifted from sugar beets to corn. As he explains, the C-BT played a critical role in the move to corn, a crop that required more water. More importantly, Ament’s well-watered corn found a ready market in the growing commercial cattle feeding industry. By 1970, Northern Colorado possessed the world’s largest collection of commercially fed cattle, and the region’s farmers cultivated most of their feed. Today, this is still true. As Ament points out: “two-thirds of Colorado’s agricultural output is livestock, primarily cattle.” Most of those animals are fed with corn from farms irrigated by C-BT water.
Don Ament (right) at a Colorado Foundation for Water Education (now Water Education Colorado) event May 2016.
If the C-BT’s story in the 1960s and 1970s revolved around agricultural possibilities through increased water, the project’s story today is about growing municipal demands for water. During the 1950s, Northern Colorado possessed a population of fewer than 200,000 mostly rural residents. The 2020 census shows that the region’s population today is well over one million, with the majority concentrated in cities within thirty miles of the Front Range. Each of the cities receives an allocation of C-BT water for residential use. In support of this shift, the Bureau of Reclamation built new storage reservoirs and increased the capacity of existing ones, while extending water supply lines to previously underserved areas. This has led to increased tensions between municipalities and farmers over selling water rights. During the last thirty years, Northern Water—the agency that administers the C-BT—agreed to supply water to cities outside of original C-BT boundaries such as Broomfield, Superior, Lafayette, and Louisville. Other cities, such as Thornton, have been more aggressive. In 1986, to accommodate aggressive growth, it paid $55 million to buy up more than 20,000 acres of farmland and the associated water rights in Weld and Larimer Counties. All of this adds greater pressure to conserve remaining supplies.
One of Monfort of Colorado’s feedlots, ca. 1970. Its pens could hold up to 100,000 steers. Courtesy of Greeley Museum.
For conservationists, the unsuccessful fight to block the construction of the Alva B. Adams Tunnel through Rocky Mountain National Park turned out to be just the first in many battles over water projects within the Colorado River watershed. During the early 1950s, Congressional legislators proposed a series of large-scale projects called the Colorado River Storage Plan, to be constructed for irrigation, power, and flood control at various locales along the river. The most controversial piece of the plan involved constructing two dams along the Green River, within the boundaries of Dinosaur National Monument. In opposition, conservationists, led by the Sierra Club, undertook a massive publicity campaign that successfully removed the dams from the bill. However, it came at a cost as conservationists made a deal to withdraw their opposition to another project dam in a little-known area of sandstone cliffs rich in Native American artifacts known as Glen Canyon. In 1963, that dam was completed creating Lake Powell, which dams the Colorado, San Juan, Escalante, and Green Rivers. Presently, drought, climate change, and water demands have reduced Lake Powell to one-quarter of its capacity, prompting some conservationists, scientists, and others to call for tearing down the dam holding it back.
If there is a single thread that ties together the water and conservation issues of the 1930s with those of the present, it is that the process of moving and storing water is value-laden. For 1930s farmers in Northern Colorado C-BT water was money, since accessing sufficient water at a reasonable price during the Depression would support increased crop production. For conservationists, the cost of the water was too dear, since it would defile one of the most iconic landscapes in America, setting a precedent for the commercial exploitation of other national parks. Both sides tried to answer questions about the relative value of our natural and scenic resources. Those questions are as pertinent today as they were back then.
Michael Weeks
Michael Weeks
Guest Author
Michael Weeks is a lecturer in the Department of History and Political Science at Utah Valley University. He is the author of Cattle Beet Capital: Making Industrial Agriculture in Northern Colorado, which tells the story of how Greeley evolved from a planned agricultural colony to become the world’s epicenter for commercial cattle feeding.
Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office
Halligan Reservoir. Photo credit: The City of Fort Collins
Below is the memo sent by John Sanderson to the Fort Collins City Council:
NOTE: Post edited to correct the title and last name of Chris Pletcher, General Manager of the Fort Collins – Loveland Water District.
October 12, 2026
Dear City Council and Utilities Leadership,
Thank you for the thoughtful and committed work you do to keep Fort Collins the city we love. Because I know you are committed to community and sustainability, I want to share with you an important perspective on the October 20, 2026 Council agenda item “Resolution/Ordinance-1st Reading – Water Storage Agreements, Re-appropriation of Project Funds, and Withdrawal of Permit Application.”
This ordinance is a major step toward abandoning the Halligan Water Supply Project after 20 years and $50 million of rate-payer investment with a plan to join the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP). This is a major decision that is being advanced inconsistent with our City’s values. Specifically, this decision is being advanced with little transparency (the ordinance itself does not even mention “Halligan”) and no public engagement.
My request: Postpone the vote on this ordinance and create a transparent process for citizen input to this decision.
I make this request because, once made, this decision is likely irreversible. If the City does abandon Halligan, there is good reason to believe the outcome would be bad for rate payers, bad for water reliability, bad for community, and bad for the environment.
Here is why:
1) Cost. According to Utilities Finance Director Joe Wimmer, Fort Collins has already spent $50 million on the Halligan Water Supply Project.¹ According to the project website, the total cost is estimated at $308 million to store 8,200 acre-feet of water.² To our south, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District was slated to get less water from NISP (8,100 acre-feet) for more money (at least $400 million).³ In April, Fort Collins-Loveland withdrew from NISP, saying “participation no longer aligns with the District’s responsibility to provide reliable, cost-effective water service.”⁴ The Fort Collins-Loveland District Chief Chris Fletcher [General Manager of the Fort Collins – Loveland Water District, Chris Pletcher].said, “major spenders like Fort Collins-Loveland are being asked to risk unlimited costs with no promise of delivered water amounts.”⁵ Echoing a similar sentiment, when the City of Evans pulled out of NISP in late 2025, Evans’ City Manager Cody Sims said, “The unfortunate reality is the costs have grown beyond what is sustainable for our community, potentially putting an unacceptable burden on Evans’ water utility ratepayers.”⁶
Utilities staff has explained to me that there is not a one-to-one comparison between Fort Collins joining NISP and the Fort Collins-Loveland District abandoning NISP. Nonetheless, there is no denying that NISP is now a $2.7 billion dollar project.⁷ Steadily rising costs have compelled 6 of the original 14 NISP participants to withdraw from the project.⁸ As with all water projects, these costs will continue to rise, calling into question any suggestion that abandoning Halligan for NISP would be more affordable for Fort Collins Utilities customers.
2) Reliability. Halligan allows Fort Collins to maximize the value and reliability of an existing water portfolio that already includes many highly reliable (“senior”) Poudre River rights. In contrast, NISP will depend on much less reliable (“junior”) water rights that would be a greater risk as our climate continues to warm. This leads me to ask: Why should Fort Collins stop investing in infrastructure designed around its own long-held, reliable water rights and instead rely on a regional project built around a less-reliable water supply?
As important, Halligan is shared with only one other user (North Poudre Irrigation Company), whereas NISP is a much larger, more complicated, multi-participant project in which Fort Collins will have a much smaller role in managing, begging more questions: Why would Fort Collins abandon a project that is almost entirely in our sphere of control for one that is largely outside our control? And why would we mix up our highly reliable rights with much less reliable rights that, for example, would have yielded no water this year and future dry years?
NISP’s uncertain reliability was expressed by Fort Collins-Loveland District Chief Fletcher when he noted that the project came with “no promise of delivered water amounts.”
3) Environment. The Halligan website states, “The City of Fort Collins has a strong stewardship ethic that provides the foundation for the management of current and future water use in the Poudre Basin.” By replacing a dam that already exists on the North Fork of the Poudre, the Halligan project will improve streamflow conditions along ~16 miles of river. This opportunity to improve conditions exists because the existing dam that Fort Collins will replace has had serious negative impacts on the North Fork of the Poudre for over a century, including:
a. Current streamflow does not meet the basic needs of fish and wildlife.
b. High flows, needed to maintain river health, currently are sporadic and unnatural.
c. Fish can reproduce only within certain temperature bands. Current Halligan management does not support native fish reproduction.
With the expansion of Halligan, future water management is designed to address these negative impacts and to improve the environment. The Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, developed for the Halligan project over years of work by the City and its partners,⁹ describes how the Halligan Project will use science-based recommendations that will return positive results for the environment, going above and beyond what is required by law.
4) Community and Collaboration. The Halligan website says that the City is “also taking into account what the surrounding communities have said . . . ” City staff have worked diligently for more than 20 years with partners who have an interest in the North Fork of the Poudre and the landscapes that surround it. Withdrawing the Halligan permit now rejects that community and collaboration. Fort Collins can best honor its responsibility to current and future residents by investing in a water strategy that is community-based, financially accountable, and aligned with the city’s own environmental and growth priorities.
Notably, Attachment B of our City’s One Water Action Framework¹⁰ reports that two seasoned water professionals with the City were asked, Which of the City’s past, ongoing, or planned projects do you think would be the best role model projects to showcase the City’s commitment to a One Water approach and mindset? Their answer: Halligan.
5) Save the Poudre’s Guidance is Untrustworthy. Like many in Fort Collins, I am strongly aligned with Save the Poudre’s sentiment that we should do what we can to maintain a healthy Poudre River. But their motives and their guidance are suspect as they have urged Fort Collins to abandon Halligan and join NISP.
Regarding Halligan, their comments about Halligan’s impacts are misleading, and they completely ignore the potential for Halligan to improve river conditions.
Regarding NISP, Save the Poudre says, “NISP and its Glade Reservoir would be enormously expensive, it isn’t needed, and it would cause great harm,”¹¹ a position they have maintained for 20 years. It turns out, however, that a $100M settlement fund from NISP¹² has compelled Save the Poudre to not only stop opposing NISP but to urge Fort Collins to join NISP.¹³ One thing is certain about this settlement: if NISP is not built, Save the Poudre does not get $100M. Several things are uncertain about this settlement; most notably, unlike with Halligan where positive environmental outcomes are built into the plan, the NISP Settlement Agreement contains no guarantee of positive outcomes, only a “representative list” of projects that are highly speculative and in the best of circumstances will be difficult to complete.
The City, rate payers, the environment, and the river have waited more than 20 years for the Halligan Project. We have spent $50M on the project to date with good results: the project is in its last stages of planning and permitting, with construction expected to begin soon. It would be a waste of money, and a disservice to rate payers and the environment to let this slip through our hands.
My preference is that you simply vote “no” on this ordinance. If you do not want to vote “no,” I urge you to postpone the vote on this ordinance and create a process for citizen input to this decision.
¹ Fort Collins council signals support for steep 2027-28 utility rate increases. The NoCo Herald. October 2, 2026.
² Halligan Water Supply Project. City of Fort Collins.
³ $2B northern Colorado dam complex likely losing its largest customer as Fort Collins-Loveland drops out. Water Education Colorado. August 13, 2025.
⁴ UPDATE: FCLWD Officially Withdraws from the Northern Integrated Supply Project. Fort Collins-Loveland Water District. April 21, 2026.
⁵ Major customer pulling out of $2 billion Northern Colorado dams. The Colorado Sun. August 8, 2025.
⁶ 3rd Colorado city drops out of $2.7 billion NISP dams. The Colorado Sun. October 17, 2025.
⁷ Northern Colorado water projects’ cost soars to $2.7 billion, scaring a key customer as builders scramble to cut plan. The Colorado Sun. August 27, 2025.
⁸ Northern Water wins some, loses some on its $2.7 billion dams project. The Colorado Sun. June 10, 2026.
⁹ Halligan Water Supply Project FINAL Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, with memo describing
¹⁰ One Water Action Framework, City of Fort Collins
¹¹ NISP (Northern Integrated Supply Project) – Save The Poudre
¹² NISP-Settlement-Final-not-signed.pdf
¹³ Save The Poudre – Conserve, Protect, Restore the Poudre River
The Northern Integrated Supply Project, currently estimated at $2 billion, would create two new reservoirs and a system of pipelines to capture more drinking water for 15 community water suppliers. From Northern Water project pages
Aurora’s proposed Wild Horse Reservoir project, southwest of Denver in Park County, is drawing close scrutiny this fall as it undergoes review under a new state law designed to protect critical wetlands and streams no longer shielded by the federal Clean Water Act.
According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Wild Horse represents the first major project to be reviewed under Colorado’s new hard-fought wetland regulations approved in December. They are meant to replace federal rules wiped out by a U.S. Supreme Court case in 2023, Sackett v. EPA, and subsequent actions by the EPA. The CDPHE is responsible for enforcing the new regulation.
Colorado is one of the only states that has succeeded in crafting new rules. That work comes as the federal government continues to narrow protection of wetlands once provided by the Clean Water Act.
“As the federal government continues to roll back [protections], Colorado is going to need to step up. This is an incredibly important milestone for Colorado. All eyes are on this application,” said Sabrina King, water campaign manager for Conservation Colorado, one of the environmental groups that helped craft the bipartisan measure ultimately approved by Colorado lawmakers last year.
The $600 million-plus Wild Horse Reservoir project would store 93,000 acre-feet of water and will be nearly twice the size of the city’s existing Park County storage pond, Spinney Mountain Reservoir, which holds 53,651 acre-feet of water. An acre-foot equals nearly 326,000 gallons of water, enough to serve at least two to four urban households for one year.
Aurora water supply and collection system. Credit: Aurora Water
The proposed reservoir is among the latest moves by the city to secure future water supplies to meet growth-driven demand as streams and rivers shrink because of climate change.
Aurora Water officials say the reservoir is critical to providing a storage pool closer to the city and that it won’t involve taking additional water supplies from its water in the Eagle River and Homestake Creek. Instead, they say the reservoir will store water they now hold in nearby Spinney Mountain Reservoir, freeing up space to store water it currently owns and uses, but which it doesn’t always have the room to store.
Some of that newly accessible water will be used to help expand Aurora’s large-scale recycled water program, according to spokesman Zachary Henry, helping fulfill its promises to reduce water use even as it expands its collection system.
Still, powerful Western Slope water agencies, including the Colorado River District and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, and environmental advocacy group Save The Colorado, have expressed concerns about the proposed reservoir and its impact on the state’s drought-stressed water supplies.
“There is a question if this project involves additional new diversions or are they just moving water that they were already storing and moving in the Homestake Valley,” said Gary Wockner, president of Save The Colorado. “Aurora appears to be claiming that this doesn’t involve new diversion of water, but it is not clear. … The public needs to know.”
Due to these concerns and those of other interested parties, the CDPHE agreed to extend the public comment period to Nov. 19 to give more time for the application to be examined, according to CDPHE spokesperson Kaitlyn Beekman.
Under the new rules, regulators have roughly two years to complete the review process. Aurora officials said they expect construction to take five to six years and that the reservoir is likely to take five to 10 years to fill as climate change continues to shrink streamflows.
The Northern Integrated Supply Project, currently estimated at $2 billion, would create two new reservoirs and a system of pipelines to capture more drinking water for 15 community water suppliers. An environmental group is now suing the Army Corps of Engineers over a key permit for Northern Water’s proposal. (Save the Poudre lawsuit, from Northern Water project pages)
From email from the City of Fort Collins:
October 15, 2026
For decades, the City of Fort Collins has been working on the Halligan Project to provide water storage to meet Fort Collins Utilities’ customer demands into the future and provide drought security and resilience. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not yet issued the final permit, and it has become increasingly doubtful the agency will issue an approval. Meanwhile, rising construction and permitting costs have made it increasingly difficult financially. Given these circumstances, the City had a responsibility to investigate other options.
On Oct. 20, City staff will present factors driving a recommendation to City Council to pivot to a different water storage project. Discussion points will include Halligan Project permitting challenges, water storage needs, financial impact analyses, environmental considerations, and overall recommendations to City Council. The City Council materials and agenda will be posted by end-of-business on Oct. 15 at this link.
The City plans to host an informational meeting so community members have a chance to learn what’s next and ask questions. When the date is finalized, we will send another email with the details.
Denver Water’s current and forecasted reservoir storage levels though March 2027 under Stage 1 drought restrictions, shown as percentage of full on Oct. 12, 2026, compared to average. The red, green and blue forecasts, reflecting the potential for dry, normal and wet weather patterns, are updated once a month. Image credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water’s collection and service areas continue to face severe drought conditions, with historically low snowpack. Denver Water depends on mountain snowpack for its water supply, which serves 1.5 million people in Denver and surrounding suburbs.
As a result, on March 25, 2026, the Denver Board of Water Commissioners declared a Stage 1 drought, seeking a 20% reduction in water use to preserve water levels and avoid even stricter mandatory restrictions later this summer. On April 8, 2026, the board approved the implementation of temporary drought pricing, starting with May water use and reflected in June bills, to signal the premium value of water during droughts and help incentivize customers to save water.
On Aug. 26, 2026, the board amended its Stage 1 drought resolution to prohibit lawn watering as of Oct. 1. The ban on lawn watering and all spray irrigation remains in effect until the board determines how and when lawn watering can resume. That means sprinklers need to remain off in spring of 2027, pending an official resolution from the Board of Water Commissioners.
In Denver Water’s collection system, the 2025-26 snowpack peaked more than a month earlier than normal and at the lowest levels observed in the past 40 years:
Colorado River Basin: Snowpack peaked March 18, 2026, at 58% of normal, the second-earliest date and second-lowest peak on record. (Typical peak date is April 24.)
South Platte River Basin: Snowpack peaked March 17, 2026, at 42% of normal, the second-earliest date and the lowest peak on record. (Typical peak date is April 26.)
Snowpack and melting conditions were unprecedented, with accelerated spring melting that started in mid-March. Customers need to save water to stretch supplies.
Streamflow forecasts called for runoff levels to be 10-40% of normal in 2026.
Reservoir storage conditions are below average. As of Oct. 12, 2026, reservoirs were 67% full, versus an average of 90% full for this time.
Water use and conservation update
Quote from Greg Fisher, Denver Water’s manager of demand planning:
“Our customers did a great job shutting off their sprinkler systems in response to our Oct. 1 cutoff for lawn watering. Water use Oct. 1 through Oct. 11 was 34% below the five-year average,” said Greg Fisher, Denver Water’s manager of demand planning.
“This is a good start to preserving our critically important water supplies, because Denver Water’s reservoir storage levels are currently at 67% full, well below the average of 90% for this time of year.
“We’re all hoping for a good winter, but it’s extremely unlikely that we’ll see enough snow — and more importantly, a robust spring runoff — to fully fill our reservoirs next year. Every customer’s conservation efforts remain especially important as we work together to stretch our storage supplies heading into the winter.”
Trees, shrubs and perennials may be watered any day with a hand-held hose with a shut-off nozzle or low-volume, non-spray irrigation (such as a drip system). They may not be watered with spray irrigation.
Denver Water will not be issuing watering exemptions for new turf installations.
For its part, Denver Water has proactively reduced its spending, taking steps that include enacting a hiring freeze and reviewing maintenance and other projects to see which ones could be deferred. We are also looking into other ways to increase supply by activating agreements that allow us to capture additional water that is typically unavailable during normal conditions.
This year marks the fifth time since 2000 that Denver Water has issued a Stage 1 drought, and the first since 2013. Prior to 2013, the board declared a Stage 1 drought in 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Denver Water has many resources for homeowners looking for inspiration and information about landscapes that fit naturally into our dry climate. Click here for conservation and efficiency tips for outdoor irrigation and to get more details on ways to ColoradoScape your property, including through rebates for turf removal and a DIY guide for landscape changes, among many other potential water-saving steps.
Updates about Denver Water’s reservoir levels, customer water use and snowpack can be found in the Water Watch Report, which is updated weekly in the spring and summer.
Below is the Snow Water Equivalent in South Platte graph from the NRCS for October 5, 2026. Snowpack is 112% of the median and 1% of the median peak. There are 196 days until the median peak. I’ve added the lines for 2026, 2018, 2012, and 2002 since the statewide drought is still very pronounced.
Below is the Precipitation Accumulation in South Platte graph from the NRCS for October 12, 2026. This morning precipitation, at the SNOTEL stations, is at 5% of the median (no change one week), and 0% of the water year median (no change one week). There are 254 days left in the water year. I’ve added the lines for 2026, 2018, 2012, and 2002 since the statewide drought is still very pronounced.
Rain/snow is likely Tuesday and Wednesday, with a slight chance for snow showers Thursday, in the central mountains. There is a slight chance for showers today, rain/snow is likely Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, in the northern mountains. Showers are likely Tuesday and Wednesday, with a chance for showers Thursday, down here about 337 miles from the Indigenous Gardens at Fort Lewis College on Indigenous Peoples Day. From Fort Lewis College:
The sun was shining bright last Friday [October 4, 2026] as more than 200 FLC faculty, staff, students, and community members gathered outside FLC’s Indigenous Garden for its official ribbon-cutting ceremony.
“It’s really beautiful today. And I think this garden’s going to have many days like that,” said Lilliona Benally, one of the FLC students who spent the summer interning at the garden. “It’s also going to have hard days, like all of us. I really want to think about that support, that as much as we’re supporting this garden, we’re going to support each other in the years to come.”
Joslynn Lee, associate professor of chemistry, is an FLC alumna who was key in launching the reconciliation efforts at FLC. She called on those present to consider how Indigenous people connect with plants.
“They’re important because plants are central not only for nutrition, medicinal purposes, ceremonial, and utility, just to name a few, but it’s really the connection that people feel with land, place, and space,’ she said.
The Indigenous Garden Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony held on Oct. 2, 2026 at Fort Lewis College Indigenous Garden in Durango, Colo. (Jesse Wolfe/FLC)
Indigenous Peoples’ Day is a holiday celebrated on the second Monday of October in many parts of the U.S. This date is significant because it coincides with the federal observance of Columbus Day and is seen by many as a counter-celebration to Columbus Day or an anti-Columbus Day holiday. Credit: National Indian Council on Aging, Inc
Here’s a look at the Colorado 7-Day precipitation map through October 11, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center. Precipitation in the South Platte Basin along the Continental Divide of the Americas ranged from 0.00” to 0.40″.
Here’s the Colorado 7-Day percent of normal precipitation map through October 11, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center. Precipitation in the South Platte River Basin along the Continental Divide of the Americas was 0% to 50% of normal.
Here’s the most recent 7-Day Departure from Normal Temperature (F) for Colorado through October 11, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center.
Below is the 7-day Quantitative Precipitation Forecast for the week of October 12, 2026. Precipitation is anticipated for the mountains of the South Platte River Basin and may total up to 1.50″.
Below are the 8-14 day outlooks from the Climate Prediction Center, issued October 11, 2026, for temperature and precipitation, for the week starting October 19, 2026. The CPC expects above normal temperatures and above normal precipitation for the mountains of the South Platte River Basin.
Below is the Colorado Drought Monitor map from October 6, 2026. There were one class improvements in Weld, Elbert, Arapahoe, and Adams counties. There were two class improvements in Adams and Arapahoe counties. There were one class degradations in Morgan, Logan, Weld, Larimer, Boulder, Douglas, Sedgwick, Arapahoe, and Adams counties. Drought and abnormal dryness covers 84.38% of Colorado. The South Platte Basin is experiencing Abnormally Dry, Moderate, Severe, Extreme, and Exceptional drought conditions.
Below is the Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending October 6, 2026.
Here’s the US Drought Monitor Map from last week along with the one week U.S. change map.
Andrews Glacier September 12, 2026. Photo credit: Harlan Ulmer/Colorado State UniversityAndrews Glacier viewed from the outlet of Andrews Tarn January 11, 2008. By Jmpenzone at English Wikipedia – Own work (Original text: self-made), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10549123
Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website (Ryan Spencer). Here’s an excerpt:
October 10, 2026
Colorado State University Associate Professor of Geoscience Dan McGrath is a glaciologist who has studied glaciers all over the world, including in Greenland, Antarctica, Alaska, Asia and here in Colorado. Colorado’s mountains were carved by glaciers, which form cirques, or bowl-shaped valleys through erosion and are especially common across the Front Range and in places like Rocky Mountain National Park, McGrath said. But it is somewhat of an open question whether Colorado has any true glaciers left.
“I generally throw out that Andrews and Arapaho are the two most glacier-like features that we have left in the state,” McGrath said. “You would need to have evidence that they’re flowing to indicate that they’re still glaciers — and there have not been any kind of comprehensive surveys of their flow velocities or ice thickness that allows us to say definitively these are glaciers.”
The U.S. Geological Survey lists 16 glaciers in Colorado, but that includes places with perennial snowfields like St. Mary’s that “clearly have not been glaciers for a very long time and may no longer even have snow and ice in them,” McGrath said. These glaciers have been melting since what is known as the “Little Ice Age” from about 1750 to 1850, but until recent decades the melting had occurred slowly as winter snow accumulation and summer melt tended to balance out, he said. If any of Colorado’s snowfields are still glaciers, McGrath said they’re moving very, very slowly — especially as they melt at increasing rates, as the climate has steadily warmed due to human activities. Global temperatures have risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit on average worldwide since 1850, with the warming trend increasing in recent decades, according to the National Atmospheric Administration. Statewide, the Climate Change in Colorado report found that annual average temperatures warmed by 2.3 degrees between 1980 and 2022 and are expected to warm another 1-4 degrees by 2025. After Colorado faced its worst snowpack and hottest summer on record, the state’s perennial snowfields have experienced rapid ice loss, and in cases like St. Mary’s — total disappearance.
The upper slopes of the Isabelle Glacier, just beneath the Great Divide July 2021. Photo credit: DismalWilderness.comSouth Arapaho Peak (left) and North Arapaho Peak (right) with Arapaho Glacier July 19, 2014. By Greg Willis, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=58532938
Rivers and creeks in Grand County are part of Denver Water’s North Collection System. Water flows through the Moffat Tunnel, under the Continental Divide, to Gross and Ralston reservoirs. Image credit: Denver Water.
Grand County residents will see considerably less water flowing down the Fraser River starting Oct. 13th. Denver Water typically diverts water from the Fraser River through the Moffat Tunnel to serve customers during the winter, according to Trout Unlimited. But because of extreme drought conditions caused by a lack of snowpack and record-high temperatures, the Fraser River has considerably less water to give…
Since 1969, Fraser River flows have been required to maintain a minimum of 4 cubic feet per second, or cfs, when Denver Water diverts water, a requirement tied in part to U.S. Forest Service requirements. Now, Denver Water is reducing Fraser River flows to 2 cubic feet per second starting Oct. 13 to accommodate extreme drought conditions, according to a Denver Water email forwarded to Sky-Hi News. Reductions remain in place until May 15, unless drought conditions improve or if Denver Water encounters “unforeseen operational issues” that require them to increase reductions, according to Denver Water Communications Manager Travis Thompson, in an email to Sky-Hi News. Along with reducing Fraser River flows, Denver Water will reduce flows in its tributaries; Vasquez Creek and St. Louis Creek will be reduced to 2 cfs, and Ranch Creek to 1.5 cfs, according to the Denver Water email and Kirk Klancke, president of the Colorado River Headwaters Grand County Chapter.
It’s the start of a new water year! I’m full of hope that Russ Schumacher is correct in pointing out that water year 2026 was an outlier and that a more normal water year can’t be ruled out for 2027.
Below is the Snow Water Equivalent in South Platte graph from the NRCS for October 5, 2026. This morning’s snowpack numbers are N/A at the SNOTEL stations. There are 203 days until the median peak. I’ve added the lines for 2026, 2018, 2012, and 2002 since the statewide drought is still very pronounced.
Below is the Precipitation Accumulation in South Platte graph from the NRCS for October 5, 2026. This morning precipitation, at the SNOTEL stations, is at 5% of the median, and 0% of the water year median. There are 361 days left in the water year. I’ve added the lines for 2026, 2018, 2012, and 2002 since the statewide drought is still very pronounced.
There is a chance for showers Tuesday, with a slight chance for showers Wednesday, Thursday, and Sunday in the central mountains. There is a slight chance for showers Tuesday, a slight chance for thunderstorms Wednesday, and a chance for showers Sunday, in the northern mountains. It looks dry and sunny for the next week, down here, about 0.7 miles from Baker’s Crossing on Clear Creek, named for mountain man Jim Baker. From Wikipedia:
On July 3, 1859, Baker took up a homestead west of Denver along Vasquez Creek (now Clear Creek). The area became known as Baker’s Crossing, where he established several businesses, at what is now 53rd and Tennyson in [southwest Adams County]. He built an adobe house and raised cattle. He operated a stone coal (anthracite) mine, a toll bridge on the Denver Boulder Wagon Road, and a store operated by his two wives. His customers were European American settlers and Native Americans…known as “Honest Jim Baker”, [he] was a frontiersman, trapper, hunter, army scout, interpreter, and rancher. He was first a trapper and hunter. The decline of the fur trade in the early 1840s drove many trappers to quit, but Baker remained in the business until 1855. During that time he was a friend of Jim Bridger, Kit Carson and John C. Frémont…He had at least three Native American wives and fourteen children.
Along the Clear Creek Trail, east of Tennyson Street near Baker’s Crossing, June 2021.
Here’s a look at the Colorado 7-Day precipitation map through October 4, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center. Precipitation in the South Platte Basin along the Continental Divide of the Americas ranged from 0.00” to 1.00″.
Here’s the Colorado 7-Day percent of normal precipitation map through October 4, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center. Precipitation in the South Platte River Basin along the Continental Divide of the Americas was 0% to 400% of normal.
Here’s the most recent 7-Day Departure from Normal Temperature (F) for Colorado through October 4, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center.
Below is the 7-day Quantitative Precipitation Forecast for the week of October 5, 2026. Precipitation is anticipated for the mountains of the South Platte River Basin and may total up to 0.25″.
Below are the 8-14 day outlooks from the Climate Prediction Center, issued October 4, 2026, for temperature and precipitation, for the week starting October 12, 2026. The CPC expects above normal temperatures and below normal precipitation for the mountains of the South Platte River Basin.
Below is the Colorado Drought Monitor map from September 29, 2026. There were one class improvements in Weld, Logan, Elbert, Arapahoe, Adams, Denver, and Sedgwick counties. There were one class degradations in Morgan, Logan, and Adams counties. Drought and abnormal dryness covers 91.06% of Colorado. The South Platte Basin is experiencing Abnormally Dry, Moderate, Severe, Extreme, and Exceptional drought conditions.
Below is the Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending September 29, 2026.
Here’s the US Drought Monitor Map from last week along with the one week U.S. change map.
Finally, the Colorado Water Conservation Board hosts a briefing most months of the year, the Water Conditions Monitoring Committee. Regular participants are the Colorado Climate Center, with climate data and insight, and the NRCS, with snowpack and precipitation data from their SNOTEL network, and streamflow forecasts. Click here to view the recording of the September 22, 2026 webinar. Below are some screenshots from the meeting.
The effects of this year’s historic drought are easy to see when standing on the barren, sandy shoreline exposed by low water levels at Denver Water’s Cheesman Reservoir.
The reservoir was completed in 1905 and is Denver Water’s oldest mountain reservoir. It straddles Douglas and Jefferson counties along the South Platte River in the foothills southwest of Denver.
Cheesman’s history dates back to Denver’s early days, when city leaders knew that a stable, reliable water supply was critical to the future of the growing city.
Cheesman Reservoir was down 35 feet as of Sept. 15, 2026. The reservoir is expected to continue falling until the 2027 spring runoff due to customer demand. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Today, Cheesman Reservoir is a critical part of Denver Water’s system that collects, stores, cleans and delivers water to 1.5 million people across the Denver metro area.
As of mid-September, the reservoir was at 65% of capacity, when normal for this time of year is 88% full. The water is down due to last winter’s record-low snowpack and the need to meet customer demands for water during the ongoing hot and dry conditions this summer.
Watch a video showing reservoir conditions in September 2026:
Water levels in Cheesman will continue dropping this fall and through the winter. The reservoir is forecast to be at about 60% of capacity or lower by April 1, 2027, before the start of next year’s spring runoff.
During the drought of 2002-2003, Cheesman dwindled to merely 29% full, less than one-third of its capacity.
Cheesman Reservoir dropped to 29% of capacity during the drought of 2002-2003. Photo credit: Denver Water.
While the water is low at Cheesman, it shows the vision of Denver’s pioneers in the late 1800s who had the foresight to prepare the infrastructure needed to get through times of drought that continue more than a century later.
Cheesman Dam carries the name of Walter S. Cheesman, an early Denver businessman, railroad developer and real estate magnate. He was president of the Denver Union Water Company, which built the dam and was a precursor to Denver Water.
Early Denver businessmen (from left) David Moffat (his name is on the Moffat Tunnel that carries water under the Continental Divide), William Robinson and Walter Cheesman pose for a photo in 1905. The three were instrumental in building critical water infrastructure in the late 1800s and early 1900s to serve the growing city. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Cheesman and other water and city leaders knew that Denver lacked the annual precipitation needed to support the young, bustling community. In order to grow, the city would need a reliable source of water. That’s because the South Platte, Denver’s primary water supply at the time, would nearly dry up in the months after the spring runoff.
In the 1890s, scouting parties began looking for locations to build a dam and reservoir on the South Platte River west of the city.
On what’s described as a surveying and fishing trip in 1893, a group that included C.P. Allen, chief engineer of two early water companies, identified a deep, narrow canyon on the South Platte River, about 48 miles southwest of Denver, the perfect location for what would become the site of Cheesman Dam.
Engineers walk on the frozen South Platte River in the winter of 1896 at the site of the future Cheesman Dam. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Construction of Cheesman Dam in the early 1900s. The dam was built using nearby granite stones carved by Italian craftsmen. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Cheesman Reservoir, then and now, captures melting snow from the spring runoff. The water it stores is used to stretch the annual spring rush of water down mountain streams and rivers and make it last year-round.
Learn about the history of Cheesman Reservoir in this video:
The reservoir’s water levels fluctuate every year depending on snowpack, weather conditions and customer demand. When full, Cheesman can hold 79,064 acre-feet of water. In wet years, excess water flows over the dam’s spillway in spectacular fashion.
Water flows over Cheesman Dam’s spillway during the spring of 2014. Water flows over the spillway when the reservoir reaches capacity in years with high snowpack. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Part of Cheesman’s value stems from the age of its water rights.
Water rights associated with Cheesman Reservoir date to June 27, 1889, which means Denver Water has relatively senior rights to capture and store water from the river — even in times of drought when river flows are low.
The reservoir is also in a favorable location for water storage.
“Cheesman Reservoir was built in a deep, narrow canyon, which means it has a relatively small surface area, which limits evaporation,” said Nathan Elder, water supply manager at Denver Water. “Reducing water loss is important all the time, but critical during droughts.”
The reservoir’s attributes came into play this summer when Denver Water moved water from the shallow Antero Reservoir upstream on the South Platte into Cheesman to reduce evaporation.
“Denver Water is fortunate to have had the visionaries of the past who prepared us for the water challenges we face today,” Elder said. “The reservoir they built serves as the workhorse of Denver Water’s South Platte collection system.”
Cheesman Dam and Reservoir on Sept. 3, 2026. The reservoir has water rights dating back to 1889, which are critical because they make it easier to fill the reservoir each year. Photo credit: Denver Water.
As for when Cheesman will fill again, Elder says that’s hard to predict, although the reservoir will likely need more than one winter with above-normal snowpack to fully recover.
“We’re not sure what the coming winter will deliver in terms of snowpack. That’s why it’s important for our customers to do their part and look at ways to conserve water at home.”
Elder reminds customers that Denver Water has banned lawn watering and spray irrigation as of Oct. 1. The move is expected to save an estimated 5,000 acre-feet of water this fall, which will help stretch our water supplies in Cheesman and other Denver Water reservoirs.
Denver Water can finish its Gross Dam expansion and fill the controversial reservoir in western Boulder County, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday, lifting an injunction by a lower court judge and confirming the dam’s permits as sound.
The appeals court said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had acted responsibly in issuing construction permits for the $600 million expansion, which is largely complete and will be filled using water rights Denver holds in the Colorado River basin on the western side of the Continental Divide.
“We do not think the Corps’s choice of cost methodology was arbitrary or capricious,” the appeals court ruling said. The plaintiffs, including nonprofit Save the Colorado, argued the Corps rejected clear evidence of climate change, but the appeals court ruled the Corps gave the research fair consideration.
“The Corps considered — and rejected — the reliability of that and similar studies, one of which showed that in the Colorado River Basin, ‘no consistent trends in annual precipitation have been detected over the last 100 years,’” the appeals court said.
“In the end, the environmental groups ask us to substitute our judgment for the Corps’s. They point out scientific studies that, in their view, rebut the Corps’s reading of the scientific literature and ask us to opine on what the scientific research establishes,” the appellate ruling said. “But our job is not to second-guess the Corps’s assessment as long as it rests on a reasoned basis.”
“We’re pleased to see the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals confirm that the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project was lawfully permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and that Denver Water can proceed with the final stages of this critical project to ensure a safe, secure water supply for the 1.5 million people we serve,” according to a statement from spokesperson Todd Hartman. “With this decision, Denver Water can move forward with completion of construction, site preparation and eventual filling of the expanded reservoir. An expanded Gross Reservoir is vital to the future of the Denver region.”
It’s nonsensical to be putting more straws in, and further draining, the Colorado River at this point in history,” Wockner said. “That the law allows it to happen doesn’t make it right, it just makes it legal. I saw something wrong, I stood up, spoke out and took action. It was the right thing to do and I would do it all over again.”
Wockner said Tuesday the plaintiffs would not be appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gross Reservoir Dam backs up South Boulder Creek, while also taking in water through the Moffat Tunnel under the divide, from the Fraser and Williams Fork rivers in the Colorado River basin. Denver Water has said the expansion is needed to balance its water storage system currently heavily concentrated on the southern end of the metro area.
Editor’s note: Allie Mazurek, engagement climatologist and researcher at the Colorado Climate Center, wrote this piece following a July 31 symposium in Estes Park convened by the Colorado Climate Center to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Big Thompson Flood. The event brought together experts, including several from CSU, to share flood-related research and practices with water managers, government officials, academics, flood survivors and others. Participants reflected on the progress made since the Big Thompson Flood while emphasizing the work that remains to strengthen preparedness and resilience for future flooding.
Flash floods are one of several extreme weather-related phenomena that Colorado faces. And at the end of July, we reflected on the 50th anniversary of one of the deadliest, most devastating floods in our state’s history: the Big Thompson Flood of July 31, 1976.
Damage to Highway 34 from the Big Thompson Flood.
July 31, 1976: It was a Saturday, the eve of Colorado’s 100th anniversary of statehood. Hundreds of people, including many from out of state, were spending the holiday weekend recreating in the Big Thompson Canyon: a winding topographic feature that provides a scenic thoroughfare between Loveland and Estes Park.
The weather was reported to have been partly cloudy that afternoon, but conditions began to shift in the early evening. Around 5:30 p.m. local time, a large group of nearly stationary thunderstorms began forming just east of Estes Park. The storms grew quickly and ultimately produced roughly a foot of rainfall in the span of the next several hours: about five times the amount of precipitation that the area typically receives in an entire July.
Most of the precipitation fell during an even shorter time frame, a little over an hour. That sudden surge of water triggered a fast-moving flash flood along the Big Thompson River and steep adjoining canyon. The river rose upward of 20 feet in some locations and peak flow rate of more than 31,000 cubic feet per second was over four times as fast as the river’s previous maximum.
The devastation was tremendous: Hundreds of homes and businesses were destroyed, sections of Highway 34 were washed away and, tragically, 144 people lost their lives. There has not been a deadlier flash flood in the U.S. since that event, and it remains one of the deadliest weather disasters in Colorado’s history.
The ingredients
One way that atmospheric scientists examine flash flood potential is using an “ingredients-based” approach, which involves examining the characteristics of several atmospheric variables. For flash flood-producing rainfall, the key factors we consider are: rain rate, precipitation duration and surface conditions.
The Big Thompson Flood had numerous ingredients come together to support thunderstorms with very heavy rain rates. First, a cold front pushed westward across Colorado’s eastern plains, which brought moisture-rich air into the Front Range Foothills. The cold front also provided a “cap” atmosphere: bottling up very unstable air in the atmosphere above.
As the front continued to move west, air was forced upwards as the elevation of the terrain continued to increase. This upward motion helped the atmosphere to destabilize, eroding the cap and unleashing plenty of instability for thunderstorms to grow. This localized lift combined with larger-scale upward motion forced the moist, unstable air to cool and condense into thunderstorms.
The ingredients of the Big Thompson Flood (Courtesy of USGS, adapted from UCAR).
As the ingredients were in place for very high rainfall rates, the atmosphere also had very weak “steering currents,” or the layer of winds in the atmosphere that move storm systems. Those weak winds meant that the thunderstorms forming at the mouth of the canyon were nearly stationary, allowing the very high precipitation rates to persist over the same area.
This extreme-rain-producing, slow moving thunderstorm set up near the mouth of the Big Thompson Canyon, a high-risk area for flooding due to its pervasive steep, rocky terrain and susceptibility to rapid runoff. These environmental ingredients coupled with social vulnerability factors all combined to create a disaster that evening.
Damage during the September 2013 flood on U.S. 34 leading up to Estes Park. (Courtesy of the town of Estes Park)
The future
The 2013 Front Range Flood was a reminder that the Big Thompson Canyon continues to be a flash flood-prone area. And throughout Colorado, flash floods have always been and will always be a part of our climate, though climate change could potentially make them worse.
Research suggests that in a future, warmer climate, flash flood-producing rainfall will likely become more extreme. The reason behind this expected trend is that as temperatures warm, water is more eager to exist as vapor rather than liquid — allowing storms to tap into more moisture. Wildfire burn scars, which enhance flash flood risk by making soils repellent to water and cause debris flows, are expected to have an even more profound effect on flash flooding. Climate change is expected to increase wildfire risk in Colorado, leading to more widespread burn scar areas (and thus greater flash flood potential).
CSU research has helped contribute to the knowledge on the Big Thompson event and continues to advance research on heavy precipitation and flooding. The Colorado Climate Center, located in the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU, serves as a conduit for conducting and disseminating such research to stakeholders and the public.
We’re now nearly a couple weeks past the 50th Anniversary of the Big Thompson Flood, one of the deadliest weather-related disasters in our state’s history. There were several commemorative events on July 31st that stretched from Loveland to Estes Park, including our symposium that we hosted. We heard great feedback from several of the ~100 folks who attended, and we hope to do more public events like these in the future. If you were able to make it, thank you for joining us!
We thought we’d use our blog as a medium to highlight some of the content that was covered during our event. If you’re interested in learning even more, we published an article in CSU Source, summarizing the key atmospheric ingredients that triggered the flood that day. And lastly, we’d like to highlight that the Loveland Museum has an exhibit for the flood that will be showing through the end of November. (Several folks from our team are planning to check it out)!
And while we’re on the subject of flooding, we’ll go ahead and remind you that this time of year is peak flash flood season in Colorado. As precipitation looms in the forecast, check the weather before you recreate, never drive through flooded roadways, and have ways to receive flash flood warnings.
The Colorado Climate Center’s Dr. Russ Schumacher presented first, summarizing the meteorological factors that contributed to the Big Thompson Flood. He also shared his output from a high-resolution model simulation of the event, showing that it successfully captured the extreme rainfall rates but displaced the location of the storm. Credit: Colorado Climate Center
Patricia Rettig, archivist for the CSU Water Resources Archive, transported the audience back to the year 1976. She shared a series of harrowing photos of the aftermath of the Big Thompson Flood, detailing how the flood altered communications and reshaped lives. Photo courtesy of Theresa Barosh.
Mike Nelson, former chief meteorologist at Denver7 News, shared local news clips from the day after the Big Thompson Flood.
Dr. Lori Hodges, Director of the Larimer County Office of Emergency Management, has done extensive research on the Big Thompson Flood. She detailed the complexities of the recovery efforts that took place after the flood and described how communications have improved since. She also engaged with participants on the topic of the lack of cellular service in the canyon, explaining that that infrastructure would need to be put in place by service providers. Photo courtesy of Keil Neff.
The National Weather Service Boulder’s Jennifer Stark and Greg Heavener further detailed how the flash flood-producing storm evolved. They also explained that warning systems and collaboration between meteorologists and emergency responders have improved immensely in the last several decades. Photos courtesy of Ken Langford.
Dr. Robert Jarrett, formerly with the USGS, helped conduct post-flood surveys in the Big Thompson. The goal of these surveys was to determine where the flood waters went and how they reshaped the canyon. He also discussed USGS research on determining flash flood potential in Colorado’s canyons, including his own work on “paleoflood hydrology”–the assesment of historic environmental flood markers used to inform future flood risk. Photo courtesy of Keil Neff.
Dr. John England, Lead Civil Engineer at the US Army Corps of Engineers Risk Management Center, discussed flash flood research that has been used to inform risks surrounding dam safety, including the Olympus Dam in the Big Thompson.
Dr. Kelly Mahoney (NOAA Physical Sciences Lab) details NOAA’s initiatives to better understand and predict extreme precipitation, including their work on probable maximum precipitation–or determining the maximum amount of precipitation that is possible over a given area. Photo courtesy of Ken Langford.
CSU Department of Atmospheric Science PhD Candidate Lexi Sherman presented some of her dissertation research. Lexi’s work examines how heavy rainfall and flash flooding in Colorado is expected to change in a future warmer climate. Photo courtesy of Keil Neff.
Our final presenter was Dr. Kristen Rasmussen, an Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. She provided information on ingredients-based flood forecasting, illustrating how that approach can apply to both floods in the US and abroad. Credit: Colorado Climate Center
Drs. John England and Robert Jarrett convene the flood tour at Viestenz-Smith Mountain Park. The field trip covered several topics including paleoflood evidence, differences between the 1976 and 2013 Big Thompson floods, and how peak discharges were determined. Photo courtesy of Keil Neff.
Robert Jarrett stands near the remnants of Loveland’s former hydroelectric power plant, which was destroyed during the flood. Credit: Colorado Climate Center
Thank you again to all who attended! Credit: Colorado Climate Center
On its surface, Sloan’s Lake is a beautiful oasis that offers a refuge from city life. Part of one of the largest parks in Denver, it features glistening water, mountain views and plenty of paved paths to walk a dog, catch up with a friend or train for a race. But just beneath its gentle waves is a murky, sometimes smelly truth. The [North] Denver lake is slowly filling in with stormwater sludge. The surprisingly shallow water is often quite warm, making it a difficult environment for fish to survive and an easy place for dangerous algae blooms to thrive. If the accumulating muck isn’t addressed soon, the lake is at risk of becoming fully stagnant and bereft of life. On Wednesday, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston stood alongside members of the City Council and advocates for the lake’s future to announce a plan to invest tens of millions of dollars to prevent that from happening.
“A lake that used to be 12 feet deep is in some places only 4 feet deep. It affects the lake’s health. It affects algae blooms. It affects our most beloved events,” Johnston said from the lake’s shore. “We think there’s nothing more important for the long-term health of this neighborhood than to support the long-term health of this lake.”
Dragon boat practice at Sloan’s Lake August 29, 2026.
To raise more money for the cleanup effort, Johnston’s administration will ask the Denver Urban Renewal Authority to add the lake to a nearby urban renewal district south of the park. That would allow it to benefit from money raised through an already-approved tax incentive in the area…The 177-acre lake, which plays host to the annual Colorado Dragon Boat Festival, is only 3 feet deep on average…Swaths of neighborhoods in Denver, Edgewater, Lakewood and Wheat Ridge drain into the lake, bringing sand, sediment and street crud. Over time, that has built up and begun filling in the bottom of the lake. The cleanup project will include dredging sediment out of the bottom of the lake and disposing of it. Crews will also work on ways to prevent more sediment from building up in the lake. Kurt Weaver, the executive director of the Sloan’s Lake Park Foundation, asked the community to keep advocating for the project throughout the entire construction process to ensure it’s completed.
“To be able to have an opportunity to write a new future for the lake is massive for us, the community around it and everyone who spends time here at the lake,” he said.
Cormorants on old pier pilings at Sloans Lake April 12, 2026.
The Berthoud Pass Ditch is now owned by the City of Northglenn. Photo credit: Clear Creek County
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
August 28, 2026
The Colorado Attorney General’s Office and the 14th District Attorney’s Office this week charged Fabrizio Lorenzin, 65, with four felonies in connection with repeated sabotage of the Berthoud Pass Watershed Ditch and its security cameras over several years. The remote ditch system begins at 11,200 feet high on its namesake pass in the mountains and helps funnel water to Northglenn and Golden. The ditch’s water is stored…in Standley Lake in Adams County. Lorenzin allegedly forced open headgates on the system’s ditches, damaging the infrastructure and diverting millions of dollars’ worth of drinking water from its intended destination downstream. Prosecutors allege that he also stole cameras meant to watch the district’s property…
Law enforcement first began investigating the possible tampering with the headgates in August 2019, according to an arrest affidavit documenting the investigation. That’s when four of the gates that control the direction of the flow of water were vandalized, diverting water worth approximately $1.3 million, the affidavit says…Headgates were damaged again in 2022, diverting $4.3 million in water, the affidavit says. Trail cameras again photographed the same man with the same backpack. Another headgate was damaged in 2023 when it was forced open and propped up with rocks. This time, the trail cameras were also stolen. In 2024, the affidavit says, federal investigators with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency installed three cameras with Apple AirTags attached. More images from the area showed the same man with the same backpack. In August 2024, the AirTags on the stolen cameras pinged from inside Lorenzin’s home, the affidavit says, and investigators searched it on two occasions, finding the disassembled EPA cameras and a laptop that contained images from other stolen cameras. A review of the search history on the laptop found multiple searches for information related to sabotage on the Berthoud Pass system as well as information about trail cameras and headgates, the documents says.
Denver Water’s collection and service areas continue to face severe drought conditions, with historically high temperatures, low streamflows and reservoir storage far below normal. As a result, at its meeting today, the Denver Board of Water Commissioners amended its Stage 1 drought resolution to prohibit lawn watering as of Oct. 1.
Until that time, Denver Water customers are still required to follow mandatory watering restrictions of two assigned days per week through Sept. 30, per the current Stage 1 drought restrictions that remain in place.
A group of visitors walks down the boat ramp at Williams Fork Reservoir on July 20. The ramp was closed this summer due to low water levels caused by drought. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“The drought afflicting the Denver region and its water supply system has only worsened over the course of the summer, making it clear that we need to take additional steps in response,” said Tyrone Gant, president of the Denver Board of Water Commissioners. “Formally ending lawn watering Oct. 1 will help stretch our supplies, as we will be entering next spring with storage levels far below normal.”
While the board’s Stage 1 drought declaration set a target for system-wide reduction of 20% below the five-year average in water consumption, prolonged hot and dry conditions have led to many customers using more water during their permitted irrigation days to keep trees, shrubs and landscapes alive, making the conservation target difficult to achieve. With drought conditions ongoing, Denver Water staff project storage supplies could drop to 60% before the 2027 runoff season.
“Despite the blistering conditions, customers overall have reduced their water use this summer. But with a lack of precipitation and the hottest first seven months in the Denver region we’ve recorded, we must take this additional step,” said Denver Water CEO/Manager Alan Salazar. “It’s critical that our customers turn sprinklers off Oct. 1, so that we can extend our water supply.”
Lawn watering and all spray irrigation must stop after Sept. 30, 2026, as part of an amendment to the Stage 1 drought declaration originally approved March 25. Trees, plants and gardens may be watered any day by hand if needed. Photo credit: Denver Water.
The resolution includes additional details outlining the kind of watering still permitted after the shutdown date.
High-traffic, active-use grass areas, such as parks and school fields, may only be watered after Sept. 30, under a Denver Water-approved water budget or variance. Additionally, recycled water users can continue to irrigate any day of the week, following the standard watering rules, as they are relying on reused water supply.
Trees, shrubs and perennials may be watered any day with a hand-held hose with a shutoff nozzle or low-volume, non-spray irrigation (such as a drip system). They may not be watered by spray irrigation.
Annuals and vegetables may be watered any day with a hand-held hose with a shutoff nozzle or low-volume, non-spray irrigation, until the first frost. They may not be watered by spray irrigation.
Grass establishment is not allowed after Sept. 30, except under special circumstances outlined under an approved variance.
An irrigation system may be operated for installation, repair or reasonable maintenance, so long as the system is attended throughout the period of operation and water waste does not occur.
Placing a soaker hose around the tree along the drip line is an effective way to water trees without wasting water. Reminder: Don’t water established trees too close to the trunk. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Conditions in Denver Water’s service and collection areas continue to worsen. The amended resolution outlines specific factors driving the additional board action.
Denver Water’s water collection system watersheds remain in various levels of drought as defined by the U.S. Drought Monitor.
Natural streamflow in the areas that flow into Denver Water’s storage reservoirs for the period of April to July was 95,000 acre-feet, which is 22% of normal and marks the lowest level observed since recordkeeping began 110 years ago.
The Denver metro area is experiencing the hottest year on record (through July) with average daily high temperatures five degrees above normal and four inches below normal precipitation.
As of Aug. 24, 2026, storage in Denver Water’s supply reservoirs is at 72% full, which is significantly lower than the historic median of 94% full for this time of year.
“If you are the only one on your block with a lush green lawn, you might want to revisit your watering practices, as your overuse is compounding the impacts of this historic drought on our water storage supplies,” said Greg Fisher, Denver Water’s manager of demand planning.
“We’re asking everyone to care more and water less, so we don’t have to take more drastic steps in the future, which could create more damaging impacts to our landscapes.”
With reservoir levels continuing to drop, Denver Water is asking customers to Use Only What You Need. Every drop saved, both indoors and outdoors, makes a difference. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Watering season typically runs from May 1 to Oct.1, during which Denver Water’s annual watering rules are in place. In a non-drought year, the start and end dates are general guidance for customers to turn on and off their irrigation systems. With this amendment to its March 25 drought resolution, the board has made the Oct. 1 date mandatory this year, prohibiting lawn watering as of that date.
In addition, the lawn watering ban remains in effect until the board determines how and when lawn watering can resume. That means sprinklers need to remain off in spring of 2027, pending an official resolution from the Board of Water Commissioners. [ed. emphasis mine]
Climate change will almost certainly feature prominently in any multi-state litigation over the Colorado River. A court case over an almost-finished dam expansion may decide how.
Is climate change enough justification to stop the expansion of a reservoir that will take more water from the dwindling Colorado River?
That’s the central question in a lawsuit pitting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Colorado’s largest water utility against a consortium of environmental nonprofits. The environmentalists say the Colorado River has no more water to give, while Denver Water, the utility whose Gross Reservoir would nearly triple in capacity, argues it is ensuring its customers can withstand droughts. The Corps contends it is not required to consider climate change or the downstream effects of its expansion of a dam to grow the reservoir.
The case in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has the potential to ripple through Western water management as states, tribes, cities and the federal government struggle to find a compromise on how to steeply cut water use. Some see history repeating itself, with the Gross Dam expansion emblematic of the kind of thinking that helped put the West into the very water crisis the project is meant to buffer the region against.
“Does it make sense for major water projects like this to continue to move forward?” asked Sarah Matsumoto, an associate professor of clinical law at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and director of the Getches-Green Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law Clinic. “I just don’t think it does anymore, without at minimum considering impacts of climate and impacts of overappropriation on the river.”
The Corps and Denver Water appealed that decision, arguing that construction of the dam expansion is nearly complete, and topping off the reservoir behind it is in the public’s best interest. There are no other alternatives to consider, the utility asserts. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires evaluating the impacts of projects that need federal approval, does not require the assessment of climate change, they contend.
“We believe that considering potential climate impacts to a project goes beyond the scope of any guidelines, practicability, or NEPA reasonableness analysis,” said U.S. Department of Justice attorney Kyle Glynn, representing the Army Corps, during oral arguments for the case before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The expansion of Denver Water’s Gross Reservoir would hold an additional 77,000 acre feet of water diverted from the declining Colorado River, enough water for roughly 150,000 homes. Denver Water would get that water incrementally from an unused 1945 water right of 18,000 annual acre feet to ensure it can supply the growing metropolis of Denver and protect its water supplies during droughts.
The utility plans to only use its water right during wet years when it can stockpile water from excess supply. Of the 77,000 acre feet in diversions, 5,000 would be sequestered in an “environmental pool” that would enhance streamflows on South Boulder Creek and serve as additional storage for the cities of Boulder and Lafayette.
But environmentalists are not convinced there will be enough surplus water in the future for the utility to fill the reservoir. If the state is required to cut back its water use to address system-wide shortages on the Colorado River, reductions the seven states that depend on the river are currently negotiating, what happens to the over $800 million project, they wonder.
Those are the concerns driving the environmental groups, which sued over what they called an inadequate NEPA process and a failure to properly examine alternatives to the project. Natural resource professors watching the case share their concerns. The court’s decision, both say, could have far-reaching consequences for Southwestern states and nearly 40 million people who rely on the Colorado River, and could determine how climate change is considered in any future litigation.
Denver Water’s position is in direct contradiction with what Colorado is arguing in the current negotiations about how much water from the river states must give up, said Gary Wockner, founder of Save the Colorado, the environmental group that’s led the push against the Gross Reservoir expansion.
Colorado has maintained that it and other states close to the river’s headwaters should not have to make mandatory cuts because climate change is already limiting their supply by reducing river and stream flows. Should the negotiations over cuts to allocations from the river devolve so completely that states in the upper and lower halves of the Colorado River Basin sue one another, some water law experts believe climate change would figure prominently in the litigation.
“If the court supports Denver Water and says that Denver Water did not have to account for climate change to prove that they could operate the project, it sets a very difficult and perhaps powerful precedent, potentially undermining the state of Colorado’s position in the entire Colorado River negotiations,” Wockner said.
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
Can a Dam’s Progress Block Climate Considerations?
On the last day of July, attorneys for the environmental groups, Denver Water and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gathered before three justices on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a courtroom in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Their oral arguments came nearly two years after senior federal judge Christine Arguello ruled in favor of the environmentalists, saying that “the cracked foundation of the Colorado River’s management system all but demands skepticism over any proposal that will affect the hydrology of the Colorado River basin.”
Arguello’s decision didn’t stop construction to expand the dam, but forced the parties to meet and agree on remedies. Those discussions failed, however, leading Arguello to issue an injunction to stop construction in April 2025. That was lifted due to safety concerns about the dam being left incomplete, but an injunction remained preventing the clearing of the forest below to make room for the additional water, or filling the added space behind the dam.
The Gross Reservoir expansion solves a problem Denver Water has been trying to address for 23 years, said Jessica Brody, general counsel for the utility, in the 10th Circuit last month.
Denver Water has a water storage imbalance between its two collection systems with 90% of its reservoir storage located in the utility’s South System compared to 10% in its North System. This storage imbalance creates vulnerability if there is a drought, mechanical issue or emergency that affects the South System. The storage imbalance is one of the reasons Denver Water is expanding Gross Reservoir. Image credit: Denver Water.
Denver Water’s storage and delivery network is divided into north and south systems, which are unconnected and imbalanced. The south system provides 80 percent of the utility’s water supply, and if it were to go down, the north system, which includes Gross Reservoir, could run out of water in just one year. That leaves the utility’s system vulnerable in times of severe drought, wildfires or other emergencies.
Despite construction being nearly done, Brody said, Denver Water has a dam it cannot fill because of the lower court’s opinion.
That decision was an “abuse” of the court’s power, she said, as the water rights at stake are under the jurisdiction of the state, not federal agencies. Plaintiffs never sought a preliminary injunction to stop construction, although they did when later mediation failed. Jurisdiction over the cutting of trees to make room for the expanded reservoir lies with the U.S. Forest Service and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, not the Corps, she said.
The arguments from Denver Water and the Corps seemed to resonate with the three justices presiding over the case, largely due to the fact the dam is nearly complete.
“Poor pun: It’s water over the dam, because it’s built,” said Judge Timothy Tymkovich. “So costs, and I think climate change, are off the table now.”
William Eubanks, the attorney representing the environmental groups, disagreed. The dam expansion is part of Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System project, which requires work in addition to the Gross Reservoir project, such as felling the trees.
And there is still the question of where the water will come from.
A central point for the lawsuit, he said, is that under the Clean Water Act, water infrastructure developers have to show a project can be built and fulfill the expected need—in this case, a reservoir with more water. That wasn’t done here, Eubanks said.
“With the Moffat Collection System project, Denver Water and the Army Corps have recklessly gambled with over $800 million of ratepayer money,” Eubanks said before the court. Neither the Corps nor the utility forecasted whether there would be enough surplus water in the Colorado River for Denver Water to fill its reservoir, he argued. “In effect, they’re building a giant bathtub, even though there’s likely no water to ever fill it.”
CU Boulder professor Matsumoto is one of 11 natural resource law experts who submitted an amicus brief to the court asking it to affirm the lower court’s decision.
This case, they wrote, is a “classic example of why we need NEPA”—illustrating the consequences of an agency permitting and approving a project without a full evaluation of other alternatives and whether the project was even feasible. The foundational U.S. environmental law was designed to push agencies to “fully appreciate the consequences of their actions before they move forward with those actions,” they wrote.
The Corps violated NEPA by limiting the number of alternatives it considered for the project and only examining impacts up to 50 miles downstream, not along the full course of the river, the brief noted.
“It just doesn’t make any sense for the amount of water that they’re getting,” said Mark Squillace, a natural resources law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and another one of the professors part of the amicus brief. “It’s insane.”
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
A Complicating Compact
Since 1922, the Colorado River has been governed by its eponymous compact, which is now widely acknowledged to have overallocated the river by millions of acre feet of water. Under the compact, both the Upper Colorado River Basin, made up of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada, are entitled to 7.5 million acre feet of water, with another 1.5 million acre feet going to Mexico. But the river has averaged closer to 11 million acre feet since 2020—more than 6 million acre feet less than the total that has been allocated, according to the most recent federal data.
Though both basins get an equal share of the river, Article III(d) of the compact specifies that the Upper Basin “will not cause the flow of the river” to be depleted below an average of 7.5 million acre feet per year over any 10-year period downstream.
Failing to meet that requirement could trigger the Lower Basin to demand more water from the Upper Basin in what is known as a “compact call.” That unprecedented action could force severe water usage curtailments in the Upper Basin, and how that would affect users like Denver Water is unclear. The system is dangerously close to the hydrological conditions that could trigger a compact call.
It’s a known risk for this project, the professors say, but one that was ignored during permitting.
Gross Reservoir is far from the only new diversion proposed in the Upper Basin, which has never used its full allocation from the river, but sees that water as key to the region’s continued economic growth and prosperity. Over 1 million acre feet of diversions have been proposed across 30 projects in the Upper Basin. Many of those may not be developed, but they have become a sticking point in negotiations over the river’s future.
“Repeating the Same Mistakes”
As the lawyers argued in Santa Fe, news of a short-term federal proposalfor managing the Colorado River rippled across the basin. In the absence of a new consensus among the states over how to allocate the water, the federal government stepped in to manage the crisis.
Its track record on the Colorado River is deeply checkered.
The compact has served as the bedrock for a web of dams, reservoirs, canals and ditches built largely with federal funding and engineering prowess to distribute water across arid Western lands. The magnitude of this diffuse system and its overreliance on diverting and impounding water, experts say, is at least partially responsible for the severity of the West’s water crisis.
Building the Gross Reservoir Dam in the 1950s. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Some believed not everyone has learned the lesson. “We’re just repeating the same mistakes,” Squillace said. “A lot of it just results from a lack of imagination about a better way to do things.”
As water supplies shift, water utilities across the West are squeezing every last drop out of their systems through a range of modifications and adjustments to their infrastructure.
After the first of the West’s deep 21st-century droughts in 2002, Denver Water, which serves 1.5 million people across Colorado’s Front Range, decided it needed to act. The utility convinced the Army Corps of Engineers, which completed the original Gross Reservoir in the 1950s, that raising the dam to triple the amount of water it could impound would be the best course of action to combat drought.
Since then, Denver Water has also invested in water efficiency, which allowed it to better endure droughts from 2002 to 2026. Despite a growing population, water use is below the benchmarks from the 1970s, said Jeff Martin, Denver Water’s program manager for the reservoir expansion.
“We’ve really capitalized on most of our customer savings at this point,” he said. “Now, we need to shore up the rest of our need with the expanded reservoir.”
But a drier future is precisely what should preclude Denver Water and the Corps from seeing this project through, said Wockner with Save the Colorado.
“It’s nonsensical to be diverting more water out of rivers anywhere in the Southwest United States,” he said. “Because in many ways the climate change bullseye in the United States is on the Southwest and Colorado River Basin.”
The Colorado River, Wockner said, has no more water to give. But Martin sees room for more improvement in how the river is managed.
“I would be the first to say something needs to change there on how we use the river for all stakeholders, including some type of cuts throughout the system,” said Martin. “I’m not that decision maker though.”
Graphic credit: RogerWendell.com
The state, he said, controls Denver Water’s rights to the river. The utility has the right to use the water that may one day fill Gross Reservoir, he said, and has been planning to do so for decades.
Despite arguments that the water isn’t available, Martin has no doubt Denver Water will be able to one day fill the reservoir—if the courts allow it.
What Comes Next
The justices have given no indication of when a ruling on the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project will land.
If Denver Water loses its current appeal, the utility claims it will be unable to ensure a reliable water supply during times of drought, and the decision may deter developers from pursuing other ambitious projects to solve the West’s water problems, from new dams to expensive desalination plants.
In the Santa Fe courtroom, Teagen Blakey sat on a wooden bench watching the lawyers argue over a project that has loomed over more years of her life than it hasn’t.
President of The Environmental Group, a nonprofit from Colorado’s Front Range and one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, Blakey grew up in the area around Gross Reservoir. She remembers sitting in community meetings as a teenager when the project was being permitted.
Despite the project’s impacts on Boulder County, the water won’t serve residents there, she pointed out. But the dam and reservoir expansions’ impacts will fall on the local population. At the site where Denver Water will clear the forest is a hike featuring a waterfall that would be submerged.
“It’s something you can’t quantify as a value,” she said.
With such a high cost to something so special, Blakey said, there must be certainty about the benefit it will provide.
South Platte River Basin via Wikipedia
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Denver Water’s 1.5 million customers are using less water than usual, but it’s still not enough to meet the utility’s goal of reducing water consumption by 20% amid this year’s drought.
“We’d need to be at 10,300 acre-feet of savings. Instead, we are at 1,300 acre-feet of savings, so behind where we want to be,” said utility spokesperson Todd Hartman.
That means the utility, which serves residents in Denver and many surrounding communities, has achieved barely a tenth of its target.
In Aurora, water officials said locals have made progress toward that utility’s 20% goal, but did not provide exact statistics.
While the utilities aren’t hitting their goals, they’re not ringing alarms yet. Both utilities have implemented Stage I water restrictions, and neither plans to move to the more severe restrictions of Stage II.
But that could change depending on how water levels look for the rest of the year — and Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman said it could be soon. In a Facebook post, Coffman wrote that the city is “now teetering on having to move to Stage II drought restrictions that, if enacted, will reduce all outdoor irrigation from two waterings a week down to one, killing off most lawns completely. According to [Kirby] Shedlowski, however, Stage II restrictions are not yet on the table. She said Aurora Water staff would have to recommend that shift to the Aurora City Council, which hasn’t happened yet.
From Tishana ‘Tish’ Cano at the Greeley Water & Sewer Department:
“Here is a land where life is written in water.” Thomas Hornsby Ferril, named Colorado’s poet laureate in 1979, could not have composed a better description of the agricultural community founded at the confluence of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers. In April 1870, a group of far-seeking settlers after a long four-day train ride from New York City and other points back East. Their goal was to create a new way of life on the dry and desolate plains of northern Colorado. Water was the key – and in 1874, a conflict with upstream irrigators of the agricultural community of Fort Collins created a flashpoint in Colorado water law and the American West. Both sides met “half-way” near present-day Windsor and launched an iconic, heated debate over western water rights. With guns used in the Civil War at the ready, the parley led to the birth of western water law – the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation.
Authors Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. and Michael Welsh describe the triumphs and challenges of Greeley’s water history, from its 1884 artesian well in City Park to its 1907 mountain water system. The book chronicles the Colorado-Big Thompson Project of the 1930s and the Milton Seaman Dam and Reservoir construction in the 1940s. Hobbs and Welsh describe the foresight and tenacity of creative men – David Boyd, Henry C. Watson, Delph Carpenter, W.D. Farr, Harold Evans, and others – who shouldered the work and pointed the way to identify, acquire, and deliver affordable water to Greeley for more than a century. “Plan for others as they have planned for you” guides and unites the actions of our story of Greeley Water.
From the Rocky Mountain American Water Works Association:
Public works agencies rarely have time to reflect on their accomplishments and lessons learned, as they pursue on a daily basis their operations, maintenance, and plans for future growth. Yet that retrospective is what the City of Greeley Water Utilities Department, with its century and one-half of service to the community, decided to engage with the research and publication of Confluence: The Story of Greeley Water (2020).
Harold Evans, chairman of the Greeley Water and Sewer Board for the past two decades, believed that those whom the utility served would benefit from a comprehensive analysis of the origins and development of an organization that began before Colorado statehood, and one that has grown over time by addressing the cycles of abundance and scarcity of water that define the Headwaters State.
Joining the team of researchers and writers in 2015 were Gregory J. Hobbs, Junior, a retired associate justice of the Colorado State Supreme Court, often considered the most knowledgeable member of the high court in matters of water law and policy, and Michael Welsh, a professor of history at the University of Northern Colorado, whose decades of teaching and scholarship included studies of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Southwest and on the West Coast.
This team explored the range of issues and tasks of a municipal water system that began in the summer of 1870 with a single irrigation ditch on the Cache la Poudre River that conveyed water to the fledgling Union Colony (later to become the town of Greeley). As the population increased and the economy evolved, the Greeley water utility added a community artesian well (1884); a mountain water treatment facility above Fort Collins at Bellvue (1907); and a storage facility on the North Fork of the
Poudre River known as Milton Seaman Reservoir (1945); the latter two remaining operational over a century later. Residents of the Colony, and their policies and regulations, also played an important role in the development of statewide and interstate water law. One example would be the enshrining in Colorado’s 1876 constitution of the “prior-appropriation doctrine.” In addition, a Greeley native, Delph Carpenter, who had been employed as a youth inspecting the community’s ditch system to guard against violation of its rules, became an authority on the collaborative features of western water law. Carpenter would be tasked by the U.S. Commerce Secretary, Herbert Clark Hoover, with a key role in the drafting of the Colorado River Compact.
That agreement would permit a group of Greeley and Colorado water professionals a decade later to approach the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to confront the severity of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl by means of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project; a multipurpose facility that secured the future for farmers and ranchers of the South Platte River basin, and later the urban growth of the Front Range.
The Greeley Water & Sewer Board, originating in 1958 from the idea that local decisions in water belong with the people, and guided by those who understood and appreciated what water meant to Greeley, established the nonpartisan principles that inform the acquisition and development of water facilities. From the leadership of water pioneer W.D. Farr to today, with Harold Evans, who has a background in Civil Engineering, the Board has possessed expertise and foresight that contributes to Greeley’s good fortune with its most precious resource.
What began with that first ditch has now become a network of multiple reservoirs in four river basins, and prize-winning water pollution-control facilities. The City of Greeley also has taken the lead in water efficiency & quality, working with state and federal partners to replace aging lead pipes, and to institute an advanced metering system and residential and commercial “water budgets” that keep utility customers informed of their use patterns and the value of conservation in times of drought. Once the first volume on the story of Greeley water appeared, the water utility continued to provide domestic water and wastewater treatment to its network of communities. The City also pursued regional cooperation with the municipalities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor, and Evans. Greeley maintained its partnership with the Northern Water district, in particular its Chimney Hollow Reservoir, which will store additional supplies for a dozen water organizations that own water rights in the CBT system that are not reliably accessible in times of need.
From that recognition in 2020 that the story of Greeley water had not ended came a new edition in the summer of 2026, written to incorporate the purchase of water rights to the vast underground aquifer in far northern Colorado known as the Terry Ranch Project. Other dimensions of the utility’s operations addressed in the second edition of Confluence are the expansion of the “non-potable” water system for use in public and private spaces; the application of sophisticated information technology; and the advanced-planning functions of the “Integrated Water Resources Program,” which identifies scenarios and options for a wide variety of challenges and opportunities in water-resource management decades into the future.
It is our hope that this new look at an old story helps residents and businesses of Greeley and surrounding communities realize how important their water supplies are to their security and prosperity. In 1941, in the midst of a world at war, and as the decade of the Dust Bowl neared an end, Greeley’s leaders embraced a simple but compelling idea: “To plan for others as others have planned for you.” Wise words for their time, and wise words for ours now.
Aurora Water doesn’t much care which two days in a week you water your lawn, amid this historic drought.
But if your irrigation system starts up on a third day in the same week, the water world equivalent of a Flock camera is watching. The “smart” meters on every Aurora property automatically sense a spike in water use, and alert Aurora Water to confirm the violation and send out a warning or fine.
With updates at 15-minute intervals, the meters also detect irrigation watering during hot daytime hours when that’s against the rules.
The water surveillance, which Aurora Water officials acknowledge many of their customers might not realize exists, is one key to Colorado’s third-largest city so far achieving its water-saving goals in a year with record-low snowpack and abysmal streamflows into mountain reservoirs. Aurora says its 400,000 residents are using 27% less lawn water than in 2025, and managed a 9% cut from combined indoor and outdoor use.
Maintaining or even improving those savings is crucial as Aurora Water’s reservoir system sits at 49% full at a time when it should be above 80%.
Denver Water, meanwhile, has seen only about a 5% cut of water use compared with its previous five-year average among 1.5 million city and suburban customers. When Denver Water enacted twice-a-week watering restrictions in the spring, it set a target of a 20% cut from five-year average use.
Denver’s customers are doing better when using Aurora’s comparison with 2025 only, Denver officials said.
“Versus 2025, total water use is currently down about 7% and outdoor use is down about 16%,” said Travis Thompson, Denver Water communications manager.
The state’s largest water agency says it is encouraged by other statistics showing customers are using 21% less lawn water than they would have expected in the run of 95- to 100-degree days the Front Range experienced in July. In a summer that sits in the top 1% hottest and driest on record, the agency says, that’s a laudable savings mark.
One difference: Aurora Water spent millions of dollars in capital getting smart meters on every customer tap, while Denver Water chose to spend more of its capital speeding up replacement of aging, dangerous lead water delivery lines. Denver’s enforcement of drought restrictions to date has relied on thousands of neighbor complaints about properties watering more than twice a week, during restricted daytime hours or other violations.
“We have a far bigger tool than they have for being able to detect when people are using water irrigation water when they’re not supposed to,” said Shonnie Cline, Aurora Water’s deputy director of water internal and external relations.
Watchdog groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union in the past have raised questions about privacy invasions from smart home devices, including electric and water meters monitored by utilities. Especially by combining information from multiple meters, hackers or other bad actors could watch patterns and learn when people are home or away, are cooking, taking showers or other personal habits.
Cline said a better analogy than a controversial Flock camera is to see a smart water meter as a personal fitness tracker. “It gives you data and you are able to identify patterns that can improve your overall health if you make changes,” Cline said.
Aurora points out the smart meters for every customer work both ways, as a protection from leaks and potential property damage. Customers are able to log on and track their own use at the same time the city sees it, and could recognize a home leak while away on vacation, for example. During droughts, the meters will be one key to helping maintain reservoir storage for the benefit of the whole community, Cline said.
“There is a definite footprint that goes along with the data that indicates irrigation is taking place,” Cline said. “We have that pretty locked in where we can see when somebody’s irrigating, and so that’s why it’s interesting, because even when we send a warning, people are like, ‘But I didn’t!’ And then we’ll show them the data, and they’re like, ‘OK, I can’t argue with you, right?’ “
Denver Water, while enjoying higher water storage rates at its mountain reservoirs that have seen better snowpack, is not satisfied with customer savings rates and is now shifting somewhat from “education” to “enforcement” mode.
Denver had sent out nearly 3,600 warning letters but only five fines by the beginning of August. Fines will ramp up now that customers know what the rules are and Denver Water knows more about where the problem customers are, officials said.
Aurora Water, by contrast, has issued 234 fines after sending out more than 2,500 warning letters, including 10 of the highest $2,000 fines to businesses and large irrigation consumers. Only three customers were issued a second fine at the $250 residential level, Aurora Water said, and none had been issued a third fine. Aurora’s fines total more than $70,000.
Now that Denver Water has weeks of data on actual water use during drought restrictions, the agency can focus its communications on suburban areas with bigger lawns that haven’t cut back, said Greg Fisher, the utility’s manager of demand planning. Some of those suburban customers have no idea it’s Denver Water that collects their mountain runoff and delivers it to their local water utilities.
With only 5,000 advanced meters installed for 250,000 taps, Fisher said, word of mouth enforcement confirmed by onsite visits from Denver Water employees will continue to be the standard for warnings and fines.
“We continue to rely on, and I think it’s a pretty inventive idea, of letting our customers report water waste violations,” he said. “Even with the water people out on the street, we can’t be everywhere. So giving our customers the ability to report has been pretty powerful and I think effective for us.”
Denver Water officials do not anticipate asking their board this season to approve the next drought stage that would take lawn watering down to one day a week and add other restrictions. Denver Water would have to change its rate structure again to charge more for lawn watering that does occur to make up for loss of revenue from restrictions.
Plus, the utility thinks it’s a longer-term challenge to convince customers to change habits and stay “on board” with drought restrictions in the middle of what could be a multiyear crisis, Fisher said.
“We have a long game,” Fisher said. “This thing’s going to last a minimum of 12 more months, in my opinion, save for some sort of record-breaking snowfall this winter. So we’re in it for the long haul. I think we need to continue to up the message as we see conditions change. But at the same time, we really need to support our customers and have them stick with us for that extended period.”
People are capable of change, Denver Water officials said. The last drought this severe for Front Range customers was 2002.
“Our customers are using 100 million gallons less per day this year than they did in 2002, which is just stunning,” Fisher said. “And that translates to being actually 14% higher in our reservoir storage now than we were in 2002, because of our customers’ efficiency efforts over the last quarter century. We’re feeling really good about that. And that’s with significantly more population … 200 to 250,000 more people.”
Big Thompson Flood, Colorado. Cabin lodged on a private bridge just below Drake, looking upstream. Photo by W. R. Hansen, August 13, 1976. Photo via the USGS.
Re-upping this post for July 31, 2026. The flood remains Colorado’s deadliest. Here’s a link to Coyote Gulch coverage mentioning the Big Thompson Flood.
July 31, 1976, Steamboat Springs: I had been wandering around the Flat Tops Wilderness for a week or so with Mrs. Gulch. Drizzle in between downpours during the monsoon. We were holed-up in a hotel to dry out and I phoned my mother to check in.
She asked, “Johnny are you anywhere near the Big Thompson Canyon? There’s been a terrible flood.”
And it was a terrible flood. After the September 2013 floods Allen Best wrote about being part of the disaster response in The Denver Post. It’s a good read on this 40th anniversary. Here’s one passage:
I was at the Big Thompson disaster. I was living in Fort Collins then and was among scores of young men (sorry, women, those were different times) with strong backs who could be summoned in case of forest fires. My only fire was at an old sawmill site in the foothills. The joke was that one of us had set the fire because we were so desperate for minimum-wage work.
Then came July 31. It was hot that night in Fort Collins. It hadn’t rained a drop.
I was living above Gene’s Tavern, just two blocks from the Larimer County Courthouse. When the call came, I was at the sheriff’s office almost immediately. It was 9 p.m.
Being among the first at the command center at the Dam Store west of Loveland, near the mouth of Big Thompson Canyon, I was assigned to a pickup dispatched to look for people in the water near the turnoff to Masonville. Already, the river was out of its banks. From the darkness emerged a figure, dripping and confused. “I went fishing at Horsetooth (Reservoir) and was driving home and then there was all this water,” he sputtered. He was befuddled. So were we.
Our leader decided we’d best get out of there. From what I saw the next morning, that was an excellent decision. Water later covered the road there, too. I spent the night at the Dam Store as the water rose. Helicopters were dispatched, but there was little that could be done. Our lights revealed picnic baskets, beach balls and propane bottles bobbing in the dark, roiling water that raced past us, but never any hands summoning help.
In the morning, we found those hands. The bodies were stripped of clothing and covered with mud. The first I saw was of a woman who we guessed was 18, not much younger than I was then. This thin margin between life and death was startling in my young eyes.
Eventually, 144 people were declared victims of the flooding that night (although one turned up alive in 2008 in Oklahoma).
Estes Park got some rain, but not all that much. The larger story was partway down the canyon, in the Glen Haven and Glen Comfort areas, where the thunderstorm hovered. In just a few hours, it dropped 10 to 14 inches of water.
Downstream in the canyon, just above the Narrows, some people were unaware that anything was amiss until they went outside their houses and saw the water rising in their yards. It hadn’t even rained there. One cabin I saw a few days later was stripped of doors and windows but stood on its foundations, a mound of mud 5 or 6 feet high in the interior. I seem to recall a dog barking as we approached, protecting that small part of the familiar in a world gone mad.
At the old hydroelectric plant where my family had once enjoyed Sunday picnics, the brick building had vanished. Only the turbines and concrete foundation remained. In a nearby tree, amid the branches maybe 10 or 15 feet off the ground, hung a lifeless body.
The river that night carried 32,000 cubic feet per second of water at the mouth of the canyon, near where I was stationed. It happened almost instantaneously — and then it was gone. It was a flash flood.
Here’s an excerpt from a look back forty years from Michelle Vendegna writing for the Longmont Times-Call.
Night on the ledge
“We, Terry Belair-Hassig and Connie Granath-Hays, graduated from Berthoud Jr. Sr. High School the month before, and were anxious to begin the summer. We spent the beautiful, sunny day of July 31, 1976, at a Hewlett-Packard company picnic at Hermit Park not far from Estes Park. After the picnic, we drove up to Estes Park and had dinner at Bob and Tony’s Pizza.
The clouds started moving in about 6 p.m., so we began the drive down to Loveland via U.S. 34. Within minutes, Connie had to pull her car over because the driving rain was causing zero visibility. We needed to get home, so she started out again, but we didn’t get too much farther before we were blocked by trees, boulders and debris washing down the canyon sides. We had just passed the Loveland Heights area — barely three miles since entering the canyon. The closest town, Drake, was miles away.
Connie pulled over to the side of the mountain as far as she could. There were a few other cars in this section doing the same, but we all sat in our cars — planning to wait out the storm. However, once the river began to rise and the water was hitting the tires, we decided to leave the car and start climbing. Connie’s dad had taught her to always ‘be prepared,’ so she had a tarp and a few extra jackets stored in her trunk. We grabbed them before climbing. It was a dark, treacherous climb.
A small group of people scrambled up the mountain near us. Connie gave one of the men her extra jacket. She also had a flashlight which came in handy later in the evening when the lightning wasn’t lighting up the canyon. The other people were lucky enough to find an overhang of rocks to sit under. We tentatively settled on a ledge out in the open, and wrapped ourselves in the tarp. Of course, the tarp was just an old tarp, not waterproof like the ones are today. It protected us for a while, but with the downpour of rain and runoff from the hillside, it too became drenched.
After only a little while, we watched her car, during the lightning flashes, being lifted up and carried down the river. We decided at this point we should climb higher, so we found a ledge where we spent the long, cold night. We had spent many winters skiing and had never been as cold as we were that night.
We sat on that little ledge (3 foot by 1 foot) with our knees drawn up to keep us from sliding off. We sang, shivered, cussed and did anything we could to keep our minds off of how cold and achy we were. We heard and saw cars, houses and propane tanks floating down the river during flashes of lightning. We thought by now it must be about morning time, but looking at our watch, it was about 10 p.m. We had a long night ahead of us.
The next morning was another blue bird day and we were freezing and soaked to the bone. We decided it would be warmer to take our jackets off and left them on the ledge. The road below us had been washed away, but the river had receded enough that we could get off the ledge and move around a little on the steep mountainside. We heard the helicopters for a long time before we saw one. Finally, we were rescued off the side of the mountain by a four-seat helicopter,and dropped off up river on a section of the highway that had survived. There were several other people there. I remember we were all surveying the canyon in a daze. There wasn’t much conversation. I leaned over and picked up a small piece of asphalt and put it in my pocket.
Click here to read the Fort Collins Coloradoan special about the flood.
On July 31, 1976, during the celebration of Colorado’s centennial, the Big Thompson Canyon was the site of a devastating flash flood that swept down the steep and narrow canyon, claiming the lives of 143 people, 5 of whom were never found. This flood was triggered by a nearly stationary thunderstorm near the upper section of the canyon that dumped 300 millimeters (12 inches) of rain in less than 4 hours (more than 3/4 of the average annual rainfall for the area). Little rain fell over the lower section of the canyon, where many of the victims were.
Around 9 p.m., a wall of water more than 6 meters (20 ft) high raced down the canyon at about 6 m/s (14 mph), destroying 400 cars, 418 houses and 52 businesses and washing out most of U.S. Route 34. This flood was more than 4 times as strong as any in the 112-year record available in 1976, with a discharge of 1,000 cubic meters per second (35,000 ft³/s).
Officials on Friday detailed how a Big Thompson River that was flowing at 30 cubic feet per second increased to 30,000 by the time it got to the narrows near Sylvan Ranch and the Dam Store.
The 2013 flood, by contrast was flowing at 16,000 cubic feet per second at the same point. But Bob Kimbrough, from the U.S. Geological Survey, said that number can be misleading. Just because it was flowing at less than half the rate, doesn’t mean the water was half as high as it was in 1976. It could have been a foot or two lower, Kimbrough said.
Further, the 2013 flood lasted longer. Where the 1976 flood dissipated nearly as quickly as it rose, the 2013 flood flowed over saturated ground for days, causing foundation failures and greater erosion than the 1976 flood.
Click here to read the extensive coverage from The Estes Park Trail-Gazette.
Denver Water’s Gross Reservoir Expansion Project reached a milestone in June as workers completed major construction on raising the dam.
On June 3, 2026, workers placed the final load of roller-compacted concrete on the top of the dam, bringing Gross Dam to a height of 470 feet. Roller-compacted concrete is the type of concrete put in place to raise, thicken and lengthen the dam over the past three years.
The project is designed to nearly triple the capacity of Gross Reservoir, increase Denver Water’s reservoir storage capacity by 11%, and provide balance, resiliency and flexibility to the utility’s water collection system.
Additional work to complete the dam will take place over the next year, including adding one more foot of conventional, protective concrete to the top of the dam, which will bring it to its final height of 471 feet above the valley floor below.
At this point, dam is taller and also has a new shape.
“We have fundamentally changed how this dam works. The old Gross Dam was a gravity dam that held back the water by its sheer weight. We’ve now transformed this into an arch dam which holds the water back by its weight and also transfers the loads laterally like a Roman arch. This is the first time that we know that this dam transformation has ever been done in the world.”
Gross Dam on June 2, 2026, on the final day of roller-compacted concrete placement work. Photo credit: Denver Water.
In the video above, you can see new images of the dam and hear from Jeff Martin, Denver Water’s program manager for the project.
“We’re excited and proud of this accomplishment,” Martin said.
“Hundreds of people helped us reach this milestone, which will provide a secure water future to Denver and the surrounding communities.”
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
Below is the Precipitation Accumulation in South Platte graph from the NRCS for July 27, 2026. This morning precipitation is at 76% of the median (up 4% one week), and 65% of the water year median (up 5% one week). There are 65 days left in the water year.
Thunderstorrms are likely today through Wednesday, there is a chance for thunderstorms Thursday, a slight chance for thunderstorms Friday, with a chance for showers/thunderstorms Saturday and Sunday, in the central mountains. Light rain is currently falling and thunderstorms are likely today, there is a slight chance for showers then thunderstorms are likely Tuesday and Wednesday, with a chance for thunderstorms Thursday and Friday, and a slight chance for showers/thunderstorms Friday and Saturday in the northern mountains. There is a chance for thunderstorms today, thunderstorms are likely Tuesday and Wednesday, with a slight chance for thunderstorms Thursday and Friday, and a slight chance for showers/thunderstorms Sunday, down here, about 12 miles from Golden, where the Colorado Central Railroad was chartered February 9, 1865. From Wikipedia:
The railroad was chartered as the Colorado and Clear Creek Railroad Company on February 9, 1865, by Loveland and other entrepreneurs in the town of Golden, then the capital of the Colorado Territory. Loveland and his partners desired to build a 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge railroad up Clear Creek Canyon to Central City and other mining centers, and to connect to nearby Denver and Boulder. During the three years before construction on the line began the company underwent several reorganizations. On January 20, 1866, the name of the railroad was changed to the Colorado Central & Pacific Railroad. The following year, in June 1867, the company was reorganized; Union Pacific investors were in control, but provided no funds for construction. That year, the seat of territorial government for Colorado was relocated from Golden to Denver…In May 1871 local interests regained control of the railroad from Union Pacific investors. By the following September, 150 men were at work in the mountains west of Golden to extend the line to the mining communities. In the spring of 1872 the company acquired critical right-of-way along Clear Creek to extend its line. West of Golden, the line built as 3 ft (914 mm) narrow gauge. In late August, the company took delivery of its first two locomotives (both 0-4-0T), the General Sherman, No. 2, followed a week later by General Sheridan, No. 1. On September 1, the track was completed 13.3 miles to Forks Creek. By mid-December, the line had been extended 7.7 miles further to Black Hawk. By February 24, 1873, a second line from Forks Creek had been extended 3.3 miles to Floyd Hill. In September, the company’s shop in Golden produced the first passenger car in Colorado. On May 11, 1874, the company took delivery of an 18-ton Mogul locomotive from Dawson & Baily. The new locomotive replaced the “Sheridan” as the #1 locomotive.
Here’s a look at the 7-Day Colorado precipitation map through July 26, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center. Precipitation in the South Platte Basin along the Continental Divide of the Americas ranged from 0.10” to 1.90”.
Here’s the 7-Day percent of normal precipitation map through July 26, 2026 from the High Plains Regional Climate Center. Precipitation in the South Platte River Basin along the Continental Divide of the Americas ranged from 50% to 400% of normal.
Below is the 7-day Quantitative Precipitation Forecast for the week of July 27, 2026. Precipitation is anticipated for the mountains of the South Platte River Basin and may total up to 1.50″.
Below are the 8-14 day outlooks from the Climate Prediction Center, issued July 26, 2026, for temperature and precipitation, for the week starting July 27, 2026. The CPC expects above normal temperatures and near normal to below normal precipitation for the mountains of the South Platte River Basin.
Below is the Colorado Drought Monitor map from June 21, 2026. There were one class degradations in Douglas, Elbert, Arapahoe, Adams, Denver, Jefferson, Clear Creek, Gilpin, Boulder, Weld, Morgan, and Larimer counties, in the South Platte River Basin. Drought and abnormal dryness covers 97.14% of Colorado. The South Platte Basin is experiencing Abnormally Dry, Moderate, Severe, Extreme, and Exceptional drought conditions.
Below is the Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending July 21, 2026.
Here’s the US Drought Monitor Map from last week along with the one week U.S. change map.
In the spring of 2026, anomalously low snow conditions in the western United States threatened winter recreation and water supplies. Here, we investigate: to what extent was this snow drought attributable to the climate change that has occurred since the pre-industrial period? We find that a snow drought this severe across the western United States was approximately 4.4 [95% CI: 2.6, 9.4] times more likely in the current climate than in the preindustrial period. In the Upper Colorado River Basin, the snow drought was approximately 14 times more likely [0.09, 4,300]. Given a projected increase in the frequency of snow droughts at least this severe in a moderately high emissions warming scenario, the lived experience of this event may help scientists, resource managers, and the public consider what western US snow might look like if greenhouse gas emissions are not aggressively reduced.
As we enter the thick of watering season in mid-July, it’s a good time to assess how Denver Water customers are doing in cutting water use amid a drought.
The early verdict: Good but needs to be even better.
Denver’s Board of Water Commissioners, in its drought declaration of March 25, called for a 20% reduction in water use over the coming year.
By one important measure, the 1.5 million people Denver Water serves are meeting that goal. Customers are using about 20% less than projected — when the record-setting hot and dry weather we’ve experienced in 2026 is factored in.
By another measure, against the five-year average, customers are conserving water — but have a ways to go to hit the goal. Using the five-year average sets a tough bar, however, as those years were not generally as hot and dry as what the Denver region has seen so far this year.
Get tips for helping your lawn survive the summer on mandatory drought restrictions that allow residential water only on two assigned days per week. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Overall, when you consider the conditions, the high temperatures and lack of precipitation, we think customers are doing well,” said Greg Fisher, manager of demand planning for Denver Water. “They are showing restraint even as the spring and early summer continued the record-breaking drought numbers we saw last fall and winter, combined with extremely high temperatures.”
In fact, tracking at Denver Water’s three weather stations, spaced out west to east across the metro area, shows January through June of 2026 experienced the highest daily average temperature ever, at 67 degrees, compared to an average of 62 degrees.
9News meteorologist Chris Bianchi’s July 9 post on Twitter noted that Colorado has just experienced the hottest opening half of the year on record, “and it wasn’t even close.” Image credit: Chris Bianchi via Twitter.
Colorado as a whole is seeing the same trend, with 9News meteorologist Chris Bianchi reporting that it was the hottest opening half of the year on record, “and it wasn’t even close,” he noted on Twitter July 9.
The average temperature of 46.2 degrees beat the previous mark by a full degree. “The impact of a warming climate is clear,” Bianchi noted.
The weather has taken a toll, putting water supplies and landscapes in a major water deficit, Fisher said. Even so, customers have heard the call for conservation.
Overall, they adhered to Denver Water’s call to hold off on activating sprinkler systems until mid-to-late May or even June.
But as spring rains retreated and temperatures rose, watering season hit its stride and the hot weather predictably drove up use to levels similar to the five-year average recorded from 2021-2025.
Now, as we enter the heat of July and August, Denver Water should get a better sense of how well customers continue to keep water use in check and hold to mandatory two-day-a-week watering schedules.
Suggested watering times that comply with Denver Water’s mandatory drought restrictions that limit outdoor watering to two days per week. Image credit: Denver Water.
Mother Nature may help, with some climate models suggesting the potential for a rainier summer that could reduce the need to turn on sprinklers, cut demand and keep water in Denver Water reservoirs.
“It’s so important for customers to pay attention to the weather, and keep irrigation systems off around rain events,” Fisher said. “A good rainstorm should allow you to take your watering day off and, in some cases a rainy week means you can skip watering on both designated days.”
Preserving water supplies in Denver Water’s reservoirs is key.
Overall reservoir levels, as of July 13, are currently around 78% percent full (compared to percentage levels usually in the high-90s at this time of year), but levels are dropping as summer watering hits full stride.
The more Denver Water customers can stretch those supplies, the quicker the storage levels can begin to recover after a year — or more likely years — of better winter snowpack.
Too much drawing down of precious water supplies stored in reservoirs could be consequential for water users.
Antero Reservoir in 2026, after its water was moved to Cheesman Reservoir to reduce the amount of water lost to evaporation. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Should supplies drop too low this summer, water planners would potentially consider reducing outdoor watering to one day a week to further ease pressure on supplies and avoid an even larger storage deficit next spring. So now is the time to pay close attention to water use outdoors — and indoors.
Every bit you save, whether it’s while you shave, shower or water the lawn improves the chances we can avoid even tougher restrictions and look with hope for a stronger winter to come and begin recovering storage supplies.
“We need people to be thinking bigger than this week or this year when they think about water,” Fisher said.
“Even with watering restrictions in place now, we’ll enter next year with a water deficit due to the record snow-drought last winter. Recovering from that requires not only some good snow years, but thoughtful conservation from our customers.”
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
July 15, 2026
Even in the driest of years — like this one — powerful Western Slope water rights on the mainstem of the Colorado River draw water downstream, making boating on the state’s major water artery possible.
“For mainstem floating, we should still have pretty darn good flows for the rest of the season for as long as people want to be boating,” said Sam Calahan, a water resources specialist for the Colorado River District. The taxpayer-funded agency is based in Glenwood Springs and works to protect Western Slope water…
On Wednesday, Browns Canyon — a popular section of the Arkansas River near Buena Vista — was flowing at the lowest level in 55 years of data and at 16% of its median flow for that date. Clear Creek near Idaho Springs was flowing at 61 cubic feet per second on Wednesday, also a record low for the date in 72 years of data. The median flow for the date is 347 cfs, or more than five times as much water…But flows on much of the Colorado River were high enough for rafts and kayaks this week. Flows on a popular section near Kremmling were near normal, as were water levels farther downstream in Glenwood Canyon. Two major factors keep water flowing down the Colorado River during drought: large senior water rights owned by farmers in Mesa County’s Grand Valley and the water rights connected to the Shoshone Power Plant, a hydroelectric facility in Glenwood Canyon owned by Xcel Energy. Irrigators and power plant operators can call water to their facilities from upstream reservoirs, like Green Mountain Reservoir, which is on the Blue River — a tributary of the Colorado River — north of Silverthorne. This year, the irrigators began calling down water on July 1, boosting flows in the Colorado River.
The Northern Water Board of Directors has unanimously approved a change to Colorado-Big Thompson Project accounting procedures concerning C-BT water tracking.
During a rule-making hearing at the June 11 Board meeting, Directors heard about the changes to the rules surrounding the tracking of water from the Project. The new accounting procedures will require accounting of tracking data to be provided in a manner to allow for the administration of C-BT Project water return flows, which will help Northern Water protect them as described in the District’s Repayment Contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Water Conservancy Act and contracts with allottees.
The modifications affect only domestic and municipal users, and Northern Water staff met or contacted 26 municipalities, water districts and treatment plants in the months before the rule change was approved.
Map of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project via Northern Water
The Roaring Fork River in Aspen on July 8. Pitkin County Commissioners gave initial approval to buying more shares of Twin Lakes water to boost low flows on the Fork. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Against the recommendation of an advisory board, Pitkin County commissioners on Wednesday gave preliminary approval to buy more water to boost flows in the often-depleted Roaring Fork River.
Commissioners approved on first reading a resolution and ordinance to spend $442,500 to buy 4.68 shares from the Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co., which is about 3.5 acre-feet of water, according to a staff memo. The deal is in addition to the $6.5 million Pitkin County already agreed to spend earlier this year for about 71 acre-feet from Twin Lakes and another ditch company.
Twin Lakes collection system
The water is currently taken across the Continental Divide to the Arkansas River basin to be used by entities on the Front Range. The deal would allow the water to be released out of Grizzly Reservoir to Lincoln Creek and could help boost the Roaring Fork through Aspen and upstream, which suffers from low flows in dry years.
“I think it’s really critical that we purchase water rights when we can, and this is an opportunity that we can, and we should,” District 1 Commissioner Patti Clapper said.
Pitkin County has long had a goal of increasing the amount of water in the Roaring Fork, a river that has about 40% of its headwaters diverted to the eastern side of the state through the Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion System to be used by Colorado Springs, Pueblo and Aurora. These diversions can often contribute to the depletion of the Roaring Fork through Aspen, and purchasing Twin Lakes water represents a rare opportunity to return water to the Western Slope.
Commissioner Greg Poschman said he supports acquiring the water shares.
“I think it’s great that we are doing this,” he said. “I know it’s expensive; there are some raised eyebrows about that, but I think this is something we have to do.”
Poschman added that he was concerned that the Healthy Rivers board members recommended against buying more water and said he would like to fully understand their reasons. County staff said they were trying to schedule a joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners and the Healthy Rivers board in August.
Members of the county’s Healthy Rivers board, which advises the BOCC, are concerned that the water will have a small impact on river health but a big impact on the program’s budget. The board held a special meeting June 25 to consider acquiring the shares and approved a motion saying the water yield would potentially be only 1 additional cubic feet per second for two days.
“Additionally, the deleterious effects of the purchase price on the long-term fund balance of the Healthy Rivers Fund will reduce the Healthy Rivers Program’s ability to support programs to address other ballot measure mandates, including water quality, ecological health, recreation opportunities, wildlife and riparian habitat, and promoting water conservation,” the motion reads.
The motion goes on to say that in the future, the county should implement a framework for evaluating the true value of water shares to the Roaring Fork.
At Wednesday’s meeting, County Budget Director Connie Baker told the BOCC that the Healthy Rivers board will have to trim or reallocate about $500,000 from next year’s budget to account for the combined impact of this year’s two water purchases.
Healthy Rivers board member Ned Andrews said he is against the purchase, citing the impact that it will have on the program’s budget.
“None of the analysis or details that would justify such a purchase or a strategy going forward has been done,” Andrews told Aspen Journalism. “I think before you commit essentially a quarter of your budget for the next 15 years, you’d want to have an analysis that shows you what could be accomplished. My gut feeling is that it wouldn’t really accomplish much.”
Andrews also opposed the earlier, larger water share purchase, although the rest of the Healthy Rivers board was supportive.
At their regular June meeting, Healthy Rivers board members went through the budget line by line and considered where they could trim, although those cuts have not yet been finalized.
Spending big bucks in an effort to rescue rivers is not new for Pitkin County, which has spent at least $3.5 million on the Roaring Fork River Park in Basalt, including a water court battle to secure the water right for recreation, several redesigns of problematic waves, and improvements to the riverbank and boat launch.
Grizzly Reservoir, a forebay that collects water to send through the Twin Lakes Tunnel to the Front Range, sits in the middle of the Lincoln Creek watershed and connects water users on both sides of the Continental Divide. Pitkin County commissioners gave initial approval to a deal that would allow more water to be released from Grizzly for the benefit of the Roaring Fork. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Bond for original purchase approved
The BOCC at Wednesday’s meeting also approved issuing a bond for the original purchase of Twin Lakes shares. That deal cost the county $6.5 million, although only 45 of those acre-feet represent Western Slope water that is currently diverted to the Front Range. The county plans to sell or trade the other 26 acre-feet, which is owned by the Fountain Mutual Ditch Co. in El Paso County and decreed for use on the east side of the divide.
The 45 acre-feet of water can be released down the Roaring Fork during the irrigation season when flows are low, and it must be used by a downstream water user on the Colorado River before the town of DeBeque. Instream flow for the benefit of the environment is not a decreed use of the water.
This year, according to Colorado Water Resources Division 5 Engineer Tyler Benton, at least some of Pitkin County’s Twin Lakes water was released as part of the Colorado River Water Conservation District’s emergency substitute water supply plan, which the district enacted in response to this year’s historic drought. Benton said he expects the River District to provide a full accounting of how much Pitkin County water has been released Friday.
Grizzly Reservoir is currently drained for dam maintenance, which may have affected how much water could be released under the River District’s plan.
At a time when drought impacts are being acutely felt across the state and climate change continues to rob rivers of their flows, for some, the unique opportunity to put water back into a depleted stream is worth the cost.
“This is expensive water, but it’s the only water you can get up at the headwaters of the Roaring Fork,” said Pitkin County Deputy Attorney Anne Marie McPhee. “So that scarcity makes it more valuable.”
The issue is scheduled for a public hearing and second reading July 22.
The full impact of this past winter’s record-low snowpack is rearing its ugly head in the form of:
Record-low spring stream flows.
Low reservoir storage levels.
An empty reservoir.
And one incredibly rare statistic.
On June 17, Denver Water’s reservoir system hit its peak storage level following a diminished spring runoff.
Water levels in the utility’s reservoirs collectively hit 81% of the system’s storage capacity — the second-lowest peak storage level on records dating back to 1983, considered the beginning of the modern Denver Water collection system.
“Peak storage” is the moment, or day, when the utility’s collection system holds the most water it will hold for the next year. It’s akin to topping off a swimming pool once a year in June to carry the pool through the next year of use.
Typically, the “peak storage” moment happens in mid-June, after the spring runoff.
But in 2026, due to the record-low winter snowpack and low spring runoff, Denver Water’s collection system held more water on Jan. 1 — 83% of capacity — than on June 17, as the runoff dwindled and storage levels inched to 81% of capacity.
There’s only one other year since 1983, when the Strontia Springs Dam was completed, that Denver Water’s storage was higher in the dead of winter than the dawn of summer — the drought year of 2002.
“Having our highest amount of water happen in January is incredibly rare. It speaks to how little snow we saw this winter and the impact of the record-setting warm weather,” said Nathan Elder, Denver Water’s manager of water supply.
“We’ve seen many records fall this year, and unfortunately, they were not good ones.”
Dillon Reservoir reached 80% capacity on June 17, the highest elevation it is expected to see in 2026. Dillon is the largest reservoir in Denver Water’s collection system, storing roughly 38% of the utility’s water supply. Photo credit: Denver Water.
During the spring peak, the amount of water stored in Denver Water’s reservoirs typically hits an average of 97.5% of capacity.
And since 1983, the utility’s peak storage levels have hit at least 95% of capacity (considered sufficient for normal operating conditions) in all but six years.
“Ideally, we like to top off our mountain reservoirs during the spring runoff, but this year our storage levels came up well short,” Elder said.
Record low ‘paycheck’
Why do water managers focus on peak storage numbers?
The peak reservoir storage figure is critical to determining how much water is available until next year’s spring runoff. It’s comparable to a family determining how much money they have to pay the bills until the next paycheck comes through.
“The spring runoff is our annual paycheck from Mother Nature,” Elder said. “The water filling our reservoirs is the cash that fills our bank account. But in our case, that paycheck only comes once a year — and this year we didn’t get anywhere close to the normal amount.”
Tenmile Creek in Frisco, as it enters Dillon Reservoir on June 12. Denver Water saw record low flows into the reservoir in 2026. Photo credit: Denver Water.
This year’s meager paycheck was reflected in the record-low peak flows on the rivers and streams that feed Denver Water’s reservoirs.
Mountain snowmelt accounts for 90% of Denver Water’s supply, which provides water to 1.5 million people in metro Denver.
In Summit County, Denver Water recorded this year’s peak stream runoff into Dillon Reservoir at just 404 cubic feet per second, or cfs, on May 29. That’s a record-low “peak inflow” and less than a quarter of the normal peak inflow into the reservoir of 1,750 cfs, which typically happens on June 7.
In Park County, the South Fork of the South Platte River experienced a double-whammy, with record-low flows that occurred abnormally early in the season.
Flows on the South Fork peaked on March 25 at a record-low flow of just 18 cfs. That’s 15% of the normal peak flow of 120 cfs, which usually happens on June 10.
The South Fork of the South Platte River south of Fairplay on May 22. The river peaked at a record low flow of just 18 cfs in 2026. Photo credit: Denver Water.
“In a typical year, the rivers and streams start rising in late-April as the snow starts to melt, then they peak in early June, and then they start to ease back to normal flows throughout the summer,” Elder said.
“This year the runoff started about six weeks early in March, and the normal spring surge of water we usually see was basically nonexistent.”
Reservoir impact
The results of the record-low spring flows are having a significant impact on three of Denver Water’s most popular reservoirs.
Dillon Reservoir in Summit County topped off on June 17 at 80% of capacity, with water levels about 18 feet below normal for this time of year. Water levels are expected to drop over the next year until the 2027 spring runoff — hopefully more boisterous than this year’s meager flow — begins.
Dillon Reservoir in Summit County reached 80% capacity on June 17. This picture shows the low levels at the Snake Inlet on the southeast corner of the reservoir on June 12. Photo credit: Denver Water.
In Grand County, Williams Fork Reservoir topped off June 21 at merely 53% of capacity, about 35 feet below normal for this time of year and forcing the closure of the reservoir’s boat ramp.
At the Williams Fork Reservoir in Grand County, the boat ramp will be closed all summer due to low snowpack and record-low runoff. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Because of the low snowpack, Denver Water also dipped into its emergency water supply at Antero Reservoir in Park County.
Using water from Antero Reservoir is only done in extremely dry years. It’s comparable to someone having to dip into their 401(k) savings to pay bills until their next paycheck.
Denver Water moved water out of Antero this spring and sent it downstream to Cheesman Reservoir to avoid losing water in shallow Antero due to evaporation.
Denver Water moved water from Antero to Cheesman reservoir in 2026 to reduce losses from evaporation. The water in Antero Reservoir, pictured above, is only used in extreme dry years. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Early forecasts for the abysmal spring runoff and low peak storage were two factors that led Denver Water to issue a Stage 1 drought declaration in March.
The declaration, which calls on customers to reduce water use by 20% and includes mandatory watering restrictions of two assigned days per week, seeks to stretch existing water supplies until next spring’s paycheck is deposited in the reservoirs.
“While the reservoirs are low this year, they are doing what they were built for, which is to help us get us through a dry year,” Elder said.
“We hope customers notice the low reservoir levels and take steps to conserve water at home so we can stretch our water supplies over the coming months.”
Governor Clarence J. Morley signing Colorado River compact and South Platte River compact bills, Delph Carpenter standing center. Unidentified photographer. Date 1925. From the CSU Water Archives
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
June 29, 2026
The U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on a legal battle over one of Colorado’s critical water sources as a neighboring state seeks to use more water from the South Platte River. The nation’s highest court on Monday announced it would hear the case, in which Nebraska officials claim Colorado water administrators are violating a century-old water compact by failing to send enough of the river’s water across the border. They also say Colorado officials are interfering in the neighboring state’s efforts to build a canal that would allow it to take more of the river’s water. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Monday denied Nebraska officials’ allegations that the Centennial State was violating the 1923 South Platte River Compact.
“Colorado is complying with the South Platte River Compact and not interfering with Nebraska’s efforts to build the Perkins County Canal,” Weiser said in a statement. “Today’s court decision merely opens the door for Nebraska to bring its claims against Colorado. Nebraska’s burden to prove those claims is incredibly high and we will vigorously defend Colorado’s full entitlements under the compact.”
Perkins County Canal Project Area. Credit: Nebraska Department of Natural Resources
Nebraska officials last year surprised Colorado leaders by taking their allegations to the Supreme Court. The two states had been meeting for months to discuss the proposed canal project. The Supreme Court asked the Office of the Solicitor General to weigh in on whether it should take the case. In May, the federal office — tasked with representing federal interests at the Supreme Court — argued that the court should decide Nebraska’s claim that Colorado is not sending enough water over the state border, but deny consideration of Nebraska’s other issues…Controversy over compact-obligated water deliveries between two states is a “quintessential” Supreme Court question, the brief states. The solicitor general’s office suggested appointing a special master — a subject-matter expert outside of the nine justices — to handle the issue. The solicitor general’s brief argues that the Supreme Court should not hear Nebraska’s arguments that Colorado is obstructing its efforts to build the Perkins County Canal because, the office said, Nebraska has not identified any actions by Colorado officials that have substantially interfered in the project. Other potential canal-related problems identified by Nebraska are hypothetical, the solicitor general said, as the state has just begun the permitting process and, therefore, is not ready for Supreme Court consideration. It’s unclear which issues the Supreme Court will consider as it hears the case. The order Monday allows Nebraska to file its complaint against Colorado.
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
The new conveyor system moved concrete across the gap where the spillway channel will be to the far side of the dam. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:
June 14, 2026
…it remains unclear whether Denver Water will ever be able to fill the reservoir to its new full capacity as a yearslong court battle lumbers on between the utility and environmentalists. Months of mediation between the parties have failed. Denver Water is now asking a federal appeals court to reverse a lower court judge’s 2025 order barring the utility from filling the expanded reservoir and ordering the yearslong federal permitting process to be redone. A panel of three judges for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on July 31 in Santa Fe…
U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello in 2024 found that federal regulators violated environmental protection laws when they failed to properly analyze the environmental impact of the project or consider reasonable alternatives to the dam expansion that would be less harmful. She later issued the order against filling the reservoir. Environmental groups argued in court, and in their filings, that regulators failed to evaluate how siphoning more water from the drought-stricken Colorado River would impact the basin as a whole. And the groups charged that they failed to weigh other project options that wouldn’t require the clear-cutting of a half-million trees or risk damage to wetlands. The case has drawn the attention of other Front Range water providers, lawyers from across the county and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — all of which have filed briefs in the appeals case…
While the dam structure itself is complete, at least a year of work remains to fully finish the project, Martin said. Construction crews must finish the spillway and place the final topper foot of concrete on the completed dam structure. Divers will place a gate between the reservoir’s water and the dam’s intake tubes. But the crews on site will diminish in the coming months, from up to 500 workers a day to closer to 100. On the morning of June 3, crane operators already worked to remove from the dam crest the heavy machinery that was necessary to build the main structure.
Roller-compacted concrete will be placed on top of the existing dam to raise it to a new height of 471 feet. A total of 118 new steps will make up the new dam. Image credit: Denver Water.
A reservoir built to serve nearly a million Northern Coloradans started filling this spring. But Chimney Hollow’s future is still murky weeks after the initial fill. Chimney Hollow will eventually pull water from the Colorado River near its headwaters in Grand County to serve a dozen fast growing cities on the Front Range from Broomfield to Greeley…Chimney Hollow is holding just 2% of its total volume today because there’s a problem. Northern Water discovered that some of the rocks it used to build the massive dam at the reservoir contained radioactive uranium. It was naturally occurring, but it set the project back at least a year. Northern Water is still coming up with a mitigation plan.
“Really, the best way to kind of move that uranium out is to draw down the water and force that out,” spokesperson Rachel Stevens said. “But before we make any of those decisions, we really want to see what the levels of uranium are.”
So every week, crews are taking water samples from the small pool and sending it to a lab to see how much radioactive material is really in the water. The results are expected soon. Northern Water has only been able to test how uranium leaches out of the rocks in a laboratory setting. Filling the reservoir just slightly will help reveal the extent of the problem.
Map from Northern Water via the Fort Collins Coloradan.
Each stage of a big construction project has its own challenges and puzzles to solve along the way. Raising Gross Dam is no different.
Denver Water is raising the height of the dam by 131 feet, with the final 22 feet going up this spring in two sections that are separated by a giant gap. The Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, which began construction in 2022, is designed to nearly triple the reservoir’s storage capacity. Major construction work resumed in April following a winter break.
And this year’s construction puzzles included:
How to move concrete across a 160-foot gap between where the concrete is made and where it’s placed?
And, how do you move construction vehicles across that same gap when work on the first section is finished?
“We are building the top of the dam in two sections because we need to leave a 160-foot gap in the middle of the dam for the spillway channel,” said Casey Dick, Denver Water’s deputy program manager for the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.
Denver Water is building the last 22 feet of Gross Dam in two sections. The photo shows the left side at its new height. The right side’s last 22 feet will be finished in June. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Spillway channels are safety features on dams that allow water to safely flow out of a reservoir if needed due to flooding rains or exceptionally high and rapid snowmelt.
Raising the dam’s last two major sections, while leaving a 160-foot gap between them, meant coming up with a new way to move concrete across the construction site.
On the lower portion of the dam, crews worked on one continuous structure, which allowed trucks and equipment to easily move from one side of the dam to the other, and to move concrete from the batch plant down a large chute to where it was put into place.
However, with the final 22 feet going up in two sections, construction crews had to find a way to deliver concrete from the batch plant and across the 160-foot spillway gap as the first section went up.
The solution to this puzzle? A series of conveyors positioned in the middle of the dam that tilted higher as the first section rose higher.
“Building the new conveyor system is just another example of all the ingenuity we go through out here to build the dam,” Dick said. “With each new phase, there are new challenges that our team has to figure out.”
The new conveyor system moved concrete across the gap where the spillway channel will be to the far side of the dam. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Construction crews finished placing roller-compacted concrete on the dam’s left side on May 12.
But once that was done, crews faced the second challenge: How do you move the equipment off the finished, 22-foot higher section of the dam, across the spillway gap, down to where they are needed to complete the second section?
Short answer: If you can’t go over, go around.
Cranes lifted equipment off the higher section of the dam to the road, where the machines convoyed about 4.5 miles around to the other side using the dam’s access road.
A crane lifts a piece of equipment off the dam. Because of the new spillway gap, equipment was driven across the dam’s access road to get into position on the other side of the dam. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Construction on the final 22 feet of the second side of the dam began at the end of May and is expected to be completed in June.
Once the second section is done this summer, a year’s worth of remaining work includes: finishing the top of the dam, building safety walls; constructing the actual spillway; building a bridge over the spillway and completing the stilling basin at the bottom of the dam.
This view from the bottom of the dam shows the new baffle blocks on the bottom of the stilling basin. The baffle blocks reduce the energy of the water that flows down the spillway. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Full construction on the dam raising project is expected to wrap up in mid-2027.
“There are hundreds of logistical challenges throughout this project, but our team has been able to meet every one of them along the way,” Dick said. “We’re making good progress so far in 2026 and are looking forward to getting a lot of work done in the coming months.”
The Gross Reservoir Expansion Project involves raising the height of the existing dam by 131 feet. The dam will be built out and will have “steps” made of roller-compacted concrete to reach the new height. Image credit: Denver Water
This USGS map shows the number of PFAS detected in tap water samples from select sites across the nation. The findings are based on a USGS study of samples taken between 2016 and 2021 from private and public supplies at 716 locations. The map does not represent the only locations in the U.S. with PFAS. Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Visit Media to see details.
EPA aims to end federal regulation of four PFAS in drinking water and give utilities more time to comply with existing rules.
FEMA reopens applications for a climate-resilient infrastructure grant program that the agency had cancelled.
Bureau of Reclamation announces $52 million for three new Hoover Dam turbines that will generate hydropower at lower Lake Mead levels.
A House FY27 budget bill will cut the federal government’s primary water infrastructure funds by 24 percent.
NOAA forecasts fewer Atlantic hurricanes this season.
EPA water office leader commits to investigate groundwater pollution in Georgia from Meta data center construction.
The Trump administration recommends that the U.S. Supreme Court take up Nebraska’s claim that Colorado has violated a river-sharing compact.
And lastly, the Bureau of Reclamation’s acting commissioner informs a House subcommittee about the status of Colorado River negotiations.
“Several weeks ago, I met with the 14 senators from the Colorado River basin and on a bipartisan basis, several of them said, ‘Look, we have a real crisis on the Colorado and we need to get things done and if there are any environmental statutes that are slowing things down, tell us what they are and maybe we can legislate to clear out some of the unhelpful bureaucratic paperwork.’” – Scott Cameron, acting Bureau of Reclamation commissioner, speaking at a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing. Cameron said his office has not yet followed up on the offer but “looked forward” to conferring with the senators about “waiving or streamlining certain environmental statutes on the Colorado.”
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
As for the status of Colorado River negotiations, Cameron said, “Frankly, the seven states are not in a position where they could agree today, right now, to a four-year deal, let alone a 20-year deal, because of the uncertainties we’re dealing with.”
By the Numbers
$1 Billion: Funding now available from FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, a grant opportunity to reduce risk from climate and weather hazards. A federal judge ordered the agency to reinstate the program, which the Trump administration had cancelled. Applications are due July 23.
$52 Million: Funding announced by the Bureau of Reclamation for three new low-head turbines at Hoover Dam. Only five of the dam’s 17 turbines are designed to operate when Lake Mead drops below elevation 1,035 feet, a threshold that the shrinking reservoir is fast approaching and could breach in the next 12 months, if not sooner.
Not So PFAS The EPA is proposing to repeal federal regulation of four PFAS in drinking water, partially undoing a Biden-era rule that set first-ever limits on six of the “forever chemicals.”
Three of the chemicals – PFHxS, PFNA, and Gen X – were regulated individually. Together with PFBS, they were also regulated as a mixture.
The EPA will retain standards for PFOA and PFOS, the two most-studied of the chemicals. However, in a separate rule-making, the agency is proposing to give water utilities more time to comply, extending the deadline by two years, until 2031. The agency says the move will “ease the implementation burden” financially and administratively for water systems and might allow for cheaper treatment technologies to come to market.
Water utilities must apply for an extension. One of the considerations is whether an extension would pose an “unreasonable risk to health.” The EPA is proposing that PFOA and PFOS levels below 12 parts per trillion would not be unreasonable. (The federal standard for both is 4 ppt.)
The EPA wants public comment on whether interim utility actions during a compliance extension – point-of-use treatment, filtration pitchers, education, alternative water sources – can mitigate health risks above 12 ppt.
Water Infrastructure Funding Cuts A House spending bill cuts the two main federal sources of water infrastructure funding by about 24 percent in fiscal year 2027. The bill passed out of subcommittee last week.
The bill provides $1.2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (27 percent cut) and $911 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (19 percent cut).
Following a recent trend, about half of the appropriation comes in the form of earmarks. This money will go directly to specific projects and will not enter the revolving fund. Water industry advocates argue that continuing to take earmarks out of the revolving fund appropriation threatens the viability of the program.
Studies and Reports
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Great Plains Water Fight The federal government’s top lawyer recommended that the U.S. Supreme Court take up one of Nebraska’s claims that Colorado is violating the South Platte River Compact, which divides the river’s water between the two states.
Nebraska argues that Colorado is breaking three articles of the compact. The U.S. solicitor general says that the high court, through a special master, should pursue only one of them: that Colorado is allowing irrigators to take too much water.
“A claim that one State has deprived another of water to which it is entitled under an interstate compact is a quintessential case for this Court’s original jurisdiction,” the brief states.
Atlantic Hurricanes NOAA is forecasting a less active Atlantic hurricane season. The agency estimates that one to three major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher) will form.
The category ratings can be misleading. They measure wind speed, not precipitation. Tropical storms and minor hurricanes can still inflict serious flood damage.
Air Conditioning Estimates The U.S. Census Bureau published data estimating how many homes use air conditioning.
States with the lowest air conditioning use are in New England and the West.
On the Radar
EPA on Data Centers and Household Wells Under oath at a House subcommittee oversight hearing, Jessica Kramer, head of the EPA Office of Water, committed to investigate impacts to drinking water quality from data center construction.
“Whatever type of construction it is, it’s a priority to ensure that water quality standards established by EPA are being met. So we’ll be looking into that certainly,” Kramer said.
Kramer’s commitment at the House Energy and Commerce hearing was prompted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who asked about water pollution from data center construction.
Ocasio-Cortez visited Morgan County, Georgia, a few weeks ago. She returned with jars of brown water from household wells near the construction site of a Meta data center. She displayed those at the hearing.
“This is what the drinking water now looks like, next to that data center,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“As soon as I get back to the office, I will be looking into exactly what you just talked about,” Kramer replied.
Army Corps Deauthorized Projects The Army Corps published a list of water projects that it intends to deauthorize.
These are projects that were authorized years ago but either haven’t ever received funding or haven’t recently received funding.
Public comment on the proposal runs through August 19. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov using docket number COE-2026-0034.
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.
Here’s the release from the St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District (Sean Cronin):
April 20, 2026
Agreement affirms no new on-river dam while preserving valuable water rights for communitybenefit
The St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District has reached an agreement with Save the World’s Rivers that reaffirms a new path forward for its Coffintop Reservoir water rights—one that does not include construction of a large on-river dam.
The District was created in 1971, in part, to build Coffintop Reservoir on South St. Vrain Creek west of Longmont and upstream of Lyons, through a planned partnership with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. While the reservoir itself was never built, two water storage rights associated with the Coffintop Reservoir project remain legally valid today.
As a governmental entity, the District holds the Coffintop Reservoir water rights not for its own benefit but for the community’s. In 2024, as required under Colorado water law, the District filed a routine six-year diligence application in water court to maintain those rights. The filing prompted an environmental group, Save the World’s Rivers, to submit a statement of opposition, opening discussions between the two organizations about the future use of the Coffintop water rights.
“The Water Court process is complex, and at the onset we were uncertain what Save the World’s Rivers hoped to achieve through it,” said Sean Cronin, the District’s Executive Director.
“We are always watching proponents of dams,” said Gary Wockner, Executive Director of Save the World’s Rivers. “At the appropriate time, we seek to identify ways proponents can achieve their mission while not creating a new dam. We were generally aware of the good work being done by the District, but concerned about their plan to build Coffintop Reservoir and dam.”
Through dialogue, the District and Save the World’s Rivers found common ground. Cronin noted, “I met with Gary several times, and I gained respect for his organization’s objectives, and I appreciated his willingness to come to the table and talk through complicated issues.” Save the World’s Rivers learned that the District had been working for more than 10 years with the City of Longmont, Town of Lyons, Boulder County Parks and Open Space, local environmental organizations, and food producers to develop a strategy to best utilize the Coffintop Reservoir water rights – without building the actual reservoir.
The District and Save the World’s Rivers reached an agreement through the court process, under which the District agreed to forgo using the Coffintop Reservoir water rights for any new on-river reservoir, including Coffintop Reservoir, and for the expansion of any existing on-river reservoir. Instead, the District will return to water court with plans to use the water rights at alternative locations and in ways that align with community needs, and environmental and water management goals.
“It became clear through discussions that the District shared values around avoiding a new on-river dam while still meeting its mission,” said Wockner. “That made an agreement possible,” Wockner said.
District leaders emphasized that the water rights are held for public benefit and that the original Coffintop Reservoir concept no longer reflects the highest and best use of the resource.
“This is something we and our communities have contemplated for decades,” said Christopher Smith, President of the District’s Board of Directors. “The Coffintop project, as envisioned more than 50 years ago, no longer fits today’s needs or values.”
For more than a decade, the District has worked with community partners to explore alternatives that could use the Coffintop water rights, while also supporting increased stream flows during low-flow periods. The District’s development and implementation of these alternatives is moving forward with engagement from important partners, including the Town of Lyons and City of Longmont.
Town of Lyons Mayor Hollie Rogan welcomed the agreement. “St. Vrain Creek is the lifeblood of our town, and a large dam upstream was never embraced by our community,” she said. “We’re pleased the District will not pursue Coffintop Reservoir and look forward to continued collaboration.”
Longmont Director of Water and Waste Service Chris Huffer noted the long history between the City and the District. “The challenges around water have only grown more complex over the last 50 years,” he said. “The District has a solid water plan, and the City is an eager partner in realizing the greatest potential of these water rights.”
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
The initial fill of Chimney Hollow Reservoir has concluded, and the reservoir currently has about 1,500 acre-feet of water—less than 2 percent of the reservoir's full capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Read more about the initial fill at https://t.co/WaxdbfiFWz. pic.twitter.com/ndlN3Y6zoV
— Chimney Hollow Reservoir (@ChimneyHollow) May 5, 2026
“By taking voluntary measures now to reduce water use, Utilities customers can actively help lower the chance of mandatory water restrictions if conditions worsen,” the news release stated.
Fort Collins Utilities and East Larimer County Water District, or ELCO, which are two of the city’s three major water providers, are asking customers to:
Limit lawn watering to no more than two days per week.
Avoid watering between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
The West Fort Collins Water District is required to follow city-issued water rationing and restrictions, according to its website. Sunset Water District is managed by ELCO.
When Donald Trump was elected president for the second time, we all knew what was coming to the nation’s public lands: The administration would favor extractive uses by eviscerating environmental protections, rolling back regulations, and leasing out as much land as possible while handing out drilling permits like Shriners throwing candy at a parade.
Yet there was one realm where I figured the administration couldn’t bestow any more deregulatory gifts, namely public lands grazing. It’s not that I thought Trump would clamp down on the destructive practice, it’s just that I figured the status quo was about as permissive as it could get. Past administrations, be they Democratic or Republican, have generally shied away from updating or reforming public lands grazing policies out of fear of inflaming the West’s cowboy culture — even if it is based largely on myth.
But Trump, his Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins are intrepidly going where previous administrations did not dare: grazing reform. Well, sort of, though maybe not in the way public lands lovers might have hoped. In fact, they are doing their best to make grazing policy even more lax with a goal of getting more cattle out there to trample public lands, cryptobiotic soils, and cultural sites.
Last month, Burgum and Rollins announced an MOU between the two agencies designed to “boost the supply of American born, raised, and harvested beef” by cutting “bureaucratic red tape” and giving the livestock industry more control. The MOU has a goal of “maintaining grazing capacity wherever possible, including no net loss of Animal Unit Months within allotments,” even if those allotments are degraded or in poor health. In Burgum’s words, one goal is to “preserve America’s ranching heritage for generations to come.” Forgive me for getting anxious whenever I see “heritage” used in conjunction with public lands.
“Today’s signing sends a clear message: the Trump administration is putting America’s farmers and ranchers first,” said Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. Which brings up the question of what message the administration was sending in February when Trump signed an executive order to quadruple beef imports from Argentina in an effort to keep Big Macs affordable.
🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭
To help it carry out its mission, the Bureau of Land Management has released an interactive map aimed at putting more cattle and sheep back on public lands. The “federal grazing lands potentially available” map shows allotments that have been vacated, often as a result of deals brokered by environmentalists, with the intent of peddling the tracts to livestock operators. While there’s no guarantee that the BLM would lease out all of the vacant tracts, the presence on the map of the ones vacated for environmental purposes is enough to set off alarm bells.
Grazing allotments listed as “potentially available” for leasing on the BLM’s new map. The five parcels closest to Silverton were retired in 2023 to protect bighorn sheep. Source: BLM
For example, the map includes 10 allotments in the high country around Silverton, Colorado, totaling about 70,000 acres. In 2023, the National Wildlife Federation paid the Etchart Sheep Ranch to vacate five of these allotments in an effort to give Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep more breathing room and protect them from diseases transmitted by domestic sheep. The deal was made with the hope that the leases would be retired permanently. Yet the inclusion on the map indicates they could see domestic sheep once again, emphasizing the need for legislation that would make such retirements perpetual.
Also on the map are the Flodine Park and Yellowjacket allotments in Canyon of the Ancients National Monument near the Colorado-Utah border. In 2005, a rancher gave up the allotments, north and south of McElmo Canyon, respectively, and sold 4,500 acres of adjacent private land to the BLM to add to the national monument. Both allotments and the private land contain a number of intermittent streams, shallow canyons, and numerous cultural sites. They had been grazed relentlessly for decades prior, and showed the wear and tear—much of the cryptobiotic soil had long before been trampled and destroyed and invasive cheat grass had infiltrated the grazed areas. An archaeological assessment conducted later found grazing had damaged dozens of sensitive and cultural sites in the areas.
The Yellowjacket and Flodine Park allotments in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. They have been vacant since 2005, and a previous effort to lease them out again was halted. Now it looks like they may be back on the block. Source: BLM
In 2010, the BLM, which manages the monument, issued a new resource management plan, which allowed for continued grazing, but also opened the door to permanently retiring vacant grazing allotments if they fail to meet BLM rangeland health standards or when grazing is negatively impacting cultural sites. Five of the 28 allotments in the most heavily visited areas—including Sand Canyon—were cancelled, but not the Flodine Park and Yellow Jacket allotments, which were still in retirement at the time.
Instead, the local county commissioners and a group of ranchers pressured the BLM to reauthorize grazing on both allotments—to bring them out of retirement, if you will. The BLM acquiesced, but environmentalists and tribes with roots in the area fought back, forcing the agency to do a more thorough environmental analysis of the proposal. The opposition was enough to prompt the agency at least to delay issuing any leases, and the allotments remain in limbo.
Meanwhile, a team of scientists assessed the healing process on the Flodine Park and Yellow Jacket allotments, which by then had been cow-free for 11 years (though feral horses had grazed there). They compared biocrusts on those allotments to a fenced enclosure that hadn’t seen grazing for 53 years and a plot that was being actively grazed. What they found was both predictable and remarkable: The longer a plot went without cows, the healthier it was, as summed up by these graphs.
Source: Grazing, Rest, and Biological Soil Crust in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Marc Coles-Ritchie, Lior Gross and Mary O’Brien, Grand Canyon Trust.
While the natural landscape can eventually heal itself, livestock’s damage to the cultural landscape is irreversible. BLM surveys identified 266 cultural sites on the two allotments, including 35 with “standing architecture.” At least 43% of those had been damaged by livestock.
Now what’s left may be in danger, too, at least if those allotments’ presence on the new map is any indication. And guess what? Packing these allotments isn’t going to make that steak any cheaper. Only about 1% of American beef is grazed on public lands.
Mt. Blue Sky at 14,130 feet in elevation on April 22, 2026. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
⛈️ Wacky Weather Watch ⚡️
If you were to get all of your information about the West’s climate from daily weather reports and road condition websites, you might think that April snow showers and deep freezes had ended the snow drought and would lead to big May streamflows. After all, it snowed enough in Colorado to turn roads to slip-and-slides and causing a 75-car pileup on I-70 near the Eisenhower Tunnel. The temperatures dropped low enough to wipe out most of the fruit blossoms the March heat wave tricked into blooming early. Only the farmers who used extraordinary measures — starting fires or smudge pots in the orchards, running wind machines, etc. — could save some of their summer harvest.
Sunset over the San Juans. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
Sure, the snow that did fall in April helped, but only enough to elevate snowpack levels to, well, the lowest on record (only by a slightly smaller margin than before). And the freeze was deep, which helped extend the spring runoff in the few areas where there was any snow left. But even there, I suspect that peak runoff has already come and gone (though I’m not calling the Predict the Peak contest yet!).
I flew over Colorado’s mountains the other day and was rather shocked at the dearth of snow, even on the highest peaks. Mt. Blue Sky, formerly Mt. Evans, had only a few patches of white left — at 14,130 feet in elevation. Everything below 10,000 feet appeared to be snowless. While the San Juan Mountains appeared to be in slightly better shape, it was still looking pretty dry. The Animas River watershed’s snowpack remains lower than it was on 2002 on this date.
Water starts to fill Chimney Hollow Reservoir in Larimer County on Tuesday, April 21. Scott Franz/KUNC
Click the link to read the article on the KUNC website (Scott Franz):
April 22, 2026
At 8 a.m. Tuesday, there was only silence and the occasional crunch of rocks as a dozen people in orange vests waited in a moonlike landscape beneath a 350-foot-tall dam near Loveland.
“Ninetey seconds,” a worker called out.
Moments later, it sounded like a waterfall suddenly roared to life as Northern Water started filling Colorado’s newest reservoir, Chimney Hollow.
“It’s pretty cool, I mean it’s something we’ve been working on for a long time, so just to see it for real, it’s pretty cool,” Chris Manley, a water quality specialist with Northern Water, said as he watched water gush from a 40-foot-tall concrete tower at the bottom of the reservoir.
By the end of the week, the initial release of 1,500-acre feet of water will rise about 30 feet above the spot Manley and a gaggle of journalists were standing on Tuesday morning.
Engineers will make sure the pipes that will funnel Colorado River water to the reservoir are functioning correctly. It will also give Northern Water a chance to study an issue with the water supply.
The reservoir’s future became murky last year after officials announced that naturally occurring uranium was found in the rock used to build the dam for the reservoir.
Manley said the uranium discovery has set the project back roughly a year. But he said it is an issue Northern Water can manage long term.
Water from Chimney Hollow Reservoir is projected to serve almost a million people on the Front Range. Scott Franz/KUNC
“But we’ve got to really understand the situation a lot better before we can move forward,” he said.
This week’s initial fill will provide Northern Water with a real-world test of the water quality that was only previously done in laboratories.
None of the water coming into the reservoir will be released to taps at this point. The reservoir is only being filled to about 2% of its total capacity in the coming days.
“We’ll be measuring it actually pretty frequently, to see just what is (the water) picking up as it goes up and touches the dam and starts to move some of the sediments around here,” Northern Water spokesperson Jeff Stahla said.
Northern Water officials could not provide a timeline for when water will begin reaching the dozen water suppliers who have signed up to receive it.
Map from Northern Water
The reservoir project cost an estimated $500 million and has been in the planning stages for more than two decades.
Conservation groups have raised concerns about the reservoir.
“You can have a bunch of buckets, and you can build more buckets to put water on the front range,” Pelz said. “But the reality is, if the projected climate change impacts come to fruition — which all indications are, they’re coming to fruition quicker than we even thought — there’s going to be no water to fill those buckets.”
The reservoir is seeing its initial fill during historic drought conditions in the Colorado River basin.
“It’s definitely very ironic that we’re filling the reservoir in these historic drought conditions, but we’re fortunate that we had a little bit of supply left from last year,” Northern Water Operations Director Jerry Gibbens said. “It really showcases why storage is so important for our region.
Northern Water officials say the reservoir is a way to boost water security on the Front Range.
“As we’ve seen this year, water storage is such a key element of our overall water supply in northern Colorado, and this just adds another increment of that supply to a region where our water demands continue to grow,” Stahla said.
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Denver Water’s collection and service areas continue to face severe drought conditions, with historically low snowpack. Denver Water depends on mountain snowpack for its water supply, which serves 1.5 million people in Denver and surrounding suburbs.
As a result, on March 25, 2026, the Denver Board of Water Commissioners declared a Stage 1 drought, seeking a 20% reduction in water use to preserve water levels and avoid even stricter mandatory restrictions later this summer. On April 8, 2026, the board approved the implementation of temporary drought pricing, starting with May water use and reflected in June bills, to signal the premium value of water during droughts and help incentivize customers to save water.
Customers are urged not to turn on automatic sprinkler systems until at least mid- to late-May, or later if possible. It is not necessary to water grass two days per week in April and the beginning of May; keeping automatic systems off will help save water. Occasional hand-watering may be necessary for trees and shrubs during this time. Keep an eye on the weather and let Mother Nature do the watering when she delivers spring rains.
Comment from Nathan Elder, Denver Water’s manager of water supply:
“The snow we saw last week brought marginal improvement to snowpack, but it’s still the worst on record, which is doubly concerning as this week is typically our spring peak when the snow levels are the highest. We need our customers to reduce their water use by 20% and help stretch the water we have stored in our reservoirs. Hopefully, working together, we can save water across our service area and avoid increasing restrictions later this summer.”
In Denver Water’s collection system, snowpack as of April 20, 2026, remained at the lowest levels observed in the past 40 years:
Colorado River Basin: 36% of normal, worst on record.
South Platte River Basin: 7% of normal, worst on record.
Snowpack and melting conditions are unprecedented, with accelerated melting seen since mid-March. Customers need to save water to protect the supply we have right now.
Streamflow forecasts are calling for runoff levels to be 10-40% of normal in 2026.
Reservoir storage conditions are below average; while in reasonably good shape for the time being, far less snowpack is available to help refill them. As of April 20, 2026, reservoirs were 80% full, versus an average of 85% full for this time.
Customers are urged not to turn on automatic sprinkler systems until at least mid- to late-May, or later if possible. When watering season begins, Denver Water will require customers in single-family residential properties to limit watering to no more than two days per week on a set schedule based on their address.
Addresses ending in even numbers: Sunday and Thursday.
Addresses ending in odd numbers: Wednesday and Saturday.
All other customers, including multifamily properties, commercial properties, homeowners associations and government properties, may water only on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Water only during cooler times of the day, between 6 p.m. and 10 a.m.
Do not allow water to pool in gutters, streets and alleys.
Do not waste water by letting it spray on concrete and asphalt.
Repair leaking sprinkler systems within 10 days.
Do not irrigate while it is raining or during high winds.
Use a hose nozzle with a shut-off valve when washing your car.
For its part, Denver Water has proactively reduced its spending, taking steps that include enacting a hiring freeze and reviewing maintenance and other projects to see which ones could be deferred. We are also looking into other ways to increase supply by activating agreements that allow us to capture additional water that is typically unavailable during normal conditions.
This year marks the fifth time since 2000 that Denver Water has issued a Stage 1 drought, and the first since 2013. Prior to 2013, the board declared a Stage 1 drought in 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Denver Water has many resources for homeowners looking for inspiration and information about landscapes that fit naturally into our dry climate. Click here for conservation and efficiency tips for outdoor irrigation and to get more details on ways to ColoradoScape your property, including through rebates for turf removal and a DIY guide for landscape changes, among many other potential water-saving steps.
Updates about Denver Water’s reservoir levels, customer water use and snowpack can be found in the Water Watch Report, which is updated weekly in the spring and summer.
This chart shows the cumulative snowpack on April 20, 2026, in the area of the Colorado River Basin where Denver Water captures its water supply. The snowpack is 36% of normal, which ranks as the lowest on record for April 20. Image credit: Denver Water.
This chart shows the cumulative snowpack on April 20, 2026, in the area of the South Platte River Basin where Denver Water captures its water supply. The snowpack is 7% of normal, which ranks as the lowest on record for April 20. Image credit: Denver Water.
Water from Antero Reservoir (pictured) will be moved to Cheesman Reservoir in 2026 to help with drought response. This measure was last taken in 2002. Photo credit: Denver Water.
In the coming weeks, Denver Water will begin moving water from Antero Reservoirto Cheesman Reservoir,as part of the utility’s drought response.
Antero Reservoir has the highest ratio of evaporation to storage of any of Denver Water’s reservoirs, and moving the water to Cheesman Reservoir will prevent about 5,000 acre-feet of water (about 25% of the reservoir’s storage capacity) from evaporating. One acre-foot of water equals the annual water use of about three to four single-family households a year.
“A lot of forethought and planning went into our collection system and reservoirs,” said Nathan Elder, manager of water supply for Denver Water. “Antero is a drought reservoir, designed to provide water to our customers during a severe drought. Consolidating this water into Cheesman will help us make the most of the water we have.”
Denver Water is working closely with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to minimize the loss of fish during this process and to allow the public to use the reservoir for a brief period before it eventually closes. Following the fish relocation process, there will be no recreation, including camping, allowed at Antero Reservoir in 2026. More details about this plan will be announced when it is finalized.
The decision also allows Denver Water to use more water from its South Platte River Basin supplies, reducing the need to pull as much water from sources west of the Continental Divide, which are also below normal levels following an abysmal snowpack and runoff season.
In a standard year, the water lost to evaporation is recovered by the next runoff season. Because of the historically low snowpack levels in 2026, the water lost this year would not have been recovered.
Drought conditions will determine when the reservoir can be refilled. The reservoir was also drained to assist with water management during the 2002 drought. There were plans to drain the reservoir as a drought response in 2013, though a series of late-season snowstorms allowed Denver Water to continue storing water in the reservoir. The last time Antero Reservoir was emptied was in 2015 for a dam rehabilitation project.
The South Platte River Basin is shaded in yellow. Source: Tom Cech, One World One Water Center, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Denver Water’s collection and service areas continue to face severe drought conditions, with historically low snowpack and concerns about the diminished spring runoff that will be available to meet customer’s water needs in the future.
As a result, at its meeting today, the Denver Board of Water Commissioners adopted a resolution approving the implementation of temporary drought pricing on outdoor water use. The drought pricing will apply starting with May water use (reflected in June bills) and will be in effect through April 30, 2027, or until further action by the board.
Under the temporary drought pricing, residential customers will see a drought charge on Tier 2 water use of $1.10 per 1,000 gallons. Tier 3 will have a drought charge of $2.20 per 1,000 gallons. The temporary drought charges will be added on top of the customer’s existing 2026 water rates.
Tier 1, which covers essential indoor water use, is exempt from drought pricing.
“Implementing temporary drought pricing is not a step we take lightly. It is one of many tools Denver Water has available — when needed — to respond to drought conditions, encourage customers to conserve our water supply, and ensure our ongoing ability to operate and maintain the system that delivers clean, safe water to 1.5 million people,” said Alan Salazar, Denver Water’s CEO/Manager.
“Drought charges signal to our customers the premium value of water in a drought, while exempting essential indoor water use. We haven’t needed to use this tool in more than 20 years — since the historic drought of 2002-04 — and conditions surrounding this year’s snowpack and potential runoff are shaping up to rival, and possibly be worse than, those years,” Salazar said.
Please keep sprinklers OFF until mid-to-late May, or later if it rains, to help stretch the water supplies we have. Hand water trees and shrubs if needed. It’s a drought. Use Only What You Need. Photo credit: Denver Water.
Under the temporary drought pricing approved by the board, for Denver Water residential customers in Denver and the suburbs:
e first tier will be exempt from the temporary drought charge. This tier is charged at the lowest rate and covers essential indoor water use for bathing, cooking and flushing toilets. Each customer has their individual first tier determined by the average of their monthly water use as listed on bills that arrive in January, February and March — when there is very little or no outdoor watering.
The second tier will have a temporary drought charge of $1.10 per 1,000 gallons added on top of their 2026 water rates. This tier is for water consumption, typically used for outdoor watering, that is above the customer’s first tier and up to 15,000 gallons of water per month. Water use in this tier is considered to be an efficient use of water outdoors.
The third tier will have a temporary drought charge of $2.20 per 1,000 gallons of water added on top of their 2026 water rates. Tier 3 is for water use above the second tier each month. It is priced at the highest level to signal potentially excessive water use and encourage conservation efforts by larger-lot customers.
The board’s decision to impose temporary drought charges on outdoor water use follows its March 25 declaration of Stage 1 drought. The declaration seeks a 20% reduction in water use effective immediately, with the goal of preserving water supplies and to help avoid the need for Denver Water to take further actions later this summer if conditions don’t improve. Read the March 25, 2026, drought declaration.
The snowpack, which supplies the water Denver Water captures, stores, treats and delivers to customers, is at historically low levels despite recent storms that brought some much-needed precipitation to the mountains and city last week.
It’s a drought. Image credit: Denver Water.
“We welcome the storms that do come, while knowing that this year’s snowpack is at historically low levels and hopes for a Miracle May snowstorm are dimming. And Denver Water has made a number of tools available to help customers reduce their water use — whether it’s a normal year or a drought year. We encourage our customers to take steps to conserve water for this drought and be better prepared to manage through future dry times,” Greg Fisher, Denver Water’s manager of demand planning and efficiency.
Denver Water’s temporary drought pricing charges a premium for outdoor water use and covers several classes of customers, including residential, large irrigation, wholesale and raw water customers. (See the chart at the bottom of this story for additional information on nonresidential customers.)
An individual residential customer’s monthly water bill will vary depending on where they live in Denver Water’s service area (in Denver or in one of the utility’s suburban distributor districts) and how much water they use. Drought charges are expected to incentivize customers to reduce outdoor water use.
The following two charts illustrate the potential impact of the temporary drought charges on an annual water bill for residential customers living inside the city of Denver and, below that, in a Total Service suburban distributor district.
Examples of the impact of temporary drought charges on an annual water bill for Denver Water customers living inside Denver. In this example, “super conservers” will see their bills increase by roughly $7 annually. High users who do not conserve will see their bills increase by roughly $76 in one year. Individual bills will vary. Image credit: Denver Water.
In these charts, the categories are:
“Super conserver”: A customer who has very little outdoor water use, maybe only watering trees and shrubs throughout the year.
“Good conserver”: An average customer who reduces their annual water use by 20%, from 104,000 gallons (the average use by residential customers in an average year) to 82,000 gallons.
“Non-conserver”: An average Denver Water residential customer who uses 104,000 gallons of water over the course of the year (the average use by residential customers in an average year) and doesn’t respond to Denver Water’s call to reduce water use by 20%.
“High user”: A customer in the top 25% of residential water users.
The following chart illustrates temporary drought charges impacts for residential customers who live in one of Denver Water’s Total Service distributor districts in the suburbs. (Learn more about Denver Water’s suburban customers.)
Examples of the impact of the temporary drought charges on an annual water bill for Denver Water customers living in one of Denver Water’s Total Service suburban distributor districts. “Super conservers” will see their bills increase by roughly $8 annually. High users who do not conserve will see their bills increase by roughly $76 in one year. Individual bills will vary. Image credit: Denver Water.
“This is not Denver Water’s first drought. We know our customers strive to be efficient in their water use, and we know we are asking them to use less to stretch the water supplies we have in this drought. We also know that success in reducing water use will result in reduced revenue for our organization. We have tools to address reduced revenue and ensure the organization maintains its financial foundation for when this drought is over,” said Angela Bricmont, Denver Water’s chief financial officer.
If customers comply with Denver Water’s request to reduce water use by 20%, the utility estimates 2026 revenue to fall by a commensurate amount. While drought pricing can offset a portion of that reduction, the utility will rely on cash reserves and budget reductions to cover the majority of the gap.
Denver Water has proactively reduced its spending, taking steps that include enacting a hiring freeze and reviewing maintenance and other projects to see which ones could be deferred.
Now is the time to replace non-native plants with with drought-tolerant plants. Photo credit: Denver Water
To help customers Use Only What They Need indoors and outdoors, Denver Water offers a range of tools, including:
Watering restrictions take effect on April 15. Courtesy of City of Arvada
Click the link to read the article on the Arvada Press website (Rylee Dunn). Here’s an excerpt:
April 7, 2026
After one of the driest winters on record in Colorado, the City of Arvada has declared a Stage 1 drought and will begin implementing mandatory watering restrictions on April 15. Starting April 15, all Arvada water customers — including residents, businesses and city-managed properties — will have to start following a mandatory two-day per week watering schedule. Outdoor watering is prohibited from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Amy Willhite, Arvada’s Water Resources Administrator, said the watering restrictions will help Arvada preserve its water supply amid rising temperatures and historically low snowpack levels.
“Maintaining a reliable water supply is a public health and safety priority for the City of Arvada,” Willhite said. “Restricting outdoor watering ensures we can continue to have the supply needed for drinking, cooking, cleaning, and other essential needs this year and in the future.
“These conservation measures protect our water supply through the current drought, and unknown future conditions,” Willhite continued. “In a significant drought, it becomes the responsibility of our entire community to conserve water.”
The city’s goal with the restrictions is to reduce water use across the city by 20%. Once the restrictions take effect, single-family residential homes with even-numbered addresses will be permitted to water on Sundays and Thursdays. Homes with odd-numbered addresses will be allowed to water on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Apartment buildings and commercial buildings will be permitted to water on Tuesdays and Fridays unless otherwise instructed. Trees, shrubs, vegetable gardens, and flowers can be watered using a handheld hose or drip irrigation outside of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
The record-breaking hot and dry winter and early spring has continued through March in Colorado’s mountains and plains. Snow gauges and weather stations throughout Northern Water’s collection and distribution areas have collected data showing the lack of precipitation in the region this year.
On April 9, the Northern Water Board of Directors will use the data collected this year and more to determine the annual quota for allottees of Colorado-Big Thompson Project water. Unlike many irrigation systems, the C-BT Project is designed to provide water to supplement the native supplies available in a given year, using water collected in previous seasons. If there is a bright spot this season, it’s that C-BT Project reserves are above their average levels over the life of the project for this time of year.
If you would like to provide comment on the quota send an email to quota@northernwater.org or offer a comment at the April 9 Board meeting.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project map. Courtesy of Northern Water.
Today, Governor Polis and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) announced the first round of wildlife and habitat projects funded through Senate Bill 24-230, which created new production fees on oil and gas development to mitigate the adverse impacts of oil and gas operations on wildlife and habitats.
CPW’s initial allocation of SB24-230 revenue will fund seven wildlife and habitat initiatives designed to address the impacts of habitat fragmentation, climate change and ecosystem degradation.
“Colorado is known for our iconic outdoor spaces, recreation, and wildlife viewing. Greenhouse gas emissions have a direct impact on our environment and all who call Colorado home. By investing in protecting habitats for Colorado’s wildlife, we are decreasing our carbon footprint, protecting native species, and keeping Colorado beautiful for generations to come,” said Governor Polis.
“SB24-230 provides an important new tool to invest directly in the health of Colorado’s wildlife and habitat,” said CPW Director Laura Clellan. “These initial projects demonstrate how funding generated from oil and gas operations can help restore habitat, improve ecosystem resilience and support wildlife across the state.”
Senate Bill 24-230 established two fees on oil and gas production in Colorado. One fee is administered by the Clean Transit Enterprise, and the other by Colorado Parks and Wildlife to support wildlife and land remediation.
The legislation recognizes that oil and gas development is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and habitat degradation, and it directs new investments toward mitigating those impacts and strengthening wildlife and ecosystem resilience.
Under the law, the CPW Director is authorized to set production fees within statutory ranges based on quarterly oil and gas spot prices published by the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission.
The initial CPW production fee was established in October 2025 and generated $5,477,765 in revenue from oil and gas production between July 1 and Sept. 30, 2025.
To put the new revenue to work immediately in order to mitigate the impacts of oil and gas operations, CPW’s Executive Management Team identified seven projects and programs for early investment during fiscal year 2026.
The first round of funding will support:
Barr Lake State Park Habitat Enhancements ($1,500,000)
Beaver Restoration Program Implementation – Initial Phase ($1,174,111)
Operating Increase for Park Pollinator Gardens ($300,000)
Operating Increase for Wildlife Movement Coordination ($100,000)
Wildlife TRACKER Hosting and Maintenance ($125,000)
Together, these projects provide remediation services, including habitat restoration, wildlife monitoring, species conservation and strategic land and water protection efforts across Colorado.
CPW will continue to work closely with industry partners, conservation organizations and local communities to ensure that funds generated through SB24-230 are invested in projects that deliver measurable remediation services that mitigate the impacts of oil and gas operations.
“As Coloradans, we all value the outdoors and the wildlife that makes our state so special. When responsible oil and natural gas production can help support these kinds of projects, protecting the wildlife and habitat we all care about, that’s a huge win for all of Colorado,” said Dan Haley, Executive Director, Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development.
“The science is clear that climate change is negatively impacting Colorado’s wildlife and the ecosystems on which they rely,” said Tarn Udall, senior attorney at Western Resource Advocates. “That’s why the state created the oil and gas production fee in 2024, requiring the industry to partially cover the cost of its emissions and impacts through habitat protection and restoration. It’s rewarding to see Colorado Parks and Wildlife put the first tranche of those dollars to good use, and the agency is just getting started.”
Additional projects funded through the program will be evaluated and announced as future revenue is collected.
American beaver, he was happily sitting back and munching on something. and munching, and munching. By Steve from washington, dc, usa – American Beaver, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3963858
Colorado is in a severe drought, and simple indoor water conservation measures can lead to big savings when everyone pitches in.
Free and easy
Turn the water off while brushing your teeth or washing your face.
Limit showers to 5 minutes (or try to shorten them by 1-2 minutes).
Only run your dishwasher and washing machine with a full load.
Turn off the kitchen faucet when handwashing dishes.
“A drought is a great time to teach kids, or anyone, about the importance of conserving water,” said Greg Fisher, Denver Water’s manager of demand planning. “Simple lifestyle changes can become lifelong habits.”
Fixing leaks
Across the U.S., Americans waste about 1 trillion gallons of water every year through water leaks and spend about 10% of their water bill on wasted water, according to the EPA.
The biggest water waster in the home is the toilet. The EPA reports that an average leaking toilet can waste about 200 gallons of water every day.
This toilet has a small, almost undetectable leak through its pink, circular flapper on the bottom of the tank. Some leaks can be detected by listening to hear if water is coming into the tank after it’s done filling. Faulty flappers are a leading cause of toilet leaks. Photo credit: Denver Water. Photo credit: Denver Water.
In addition to checking for toilet leaks, inspect all water sources in your home, including faucets, showers, water supply lines for dishwashers, washing machines, swamp coolers and ice machines.
Small leaks can add up over days and weeks. A small leak of 10 drops per minute can waste 300 gallons of water per year. Not only can these leaks add to your water bill, but they can also damage your home.
Denver Water offers rebates to help customers replace old toilets with newer, more efficient models that can save thousands of gallons of water every year. Image credit: Denver Water.
When buying new appliances and fixtures, purchase products that carry an Energy Star or WaterSense label, an indication that the product uses less energy or water compared to products that don’t carry those labels.
Replacing faucet aerators is an easy way to save water. New aerators slightly reduce the flow of water without impacting the performance of the faucet. Photo credit: Denver Water.
