Mediation ordered for Denver Water, environmental group over turbulent Gross Dam project — Michael Booth (Fresh Water News)

The middle section of the dam is arched to give the dam strength as water pushes up against the structure. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Michael Booth):

October 23, 2025

Denver Water and Save the Colorado must enter mediation at the end of the month to see if a deal is possible on the mid-project challenge to the water utility’s $531 million dam raising underway at Gross Reservoir in Boulder County, according to an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals.

A federal trial judge initially halted construction on the nearly finished dam, saying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits for Denver Water violated U.S. environmental laws and that the water level at Gross could not be raised. Judge Christine Arguello later lifted the injunction on construction, for safety reasons, while Denver Water appealed the permit issues to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 10th Circuit will take briefs from both sides of the dam dispute in November, and is now ordering a mediation session for Oct. 30. The conference is to “explore any possibilities for settlement” and lawyers for both sides are “expected to have consulted with their clients prior to the conference and have as much authority as feasible” on settlement questions, the court order says.

Construction has continued since the injunction was lifted, with Denver Water pouring thousands of tons of concrete to raise the existing dam structure on South Boulder Creek. Denver Water has argued it needs additional storage on the north end of its sprawling water delivery system for 1 million metro customers, to balance extensive southern storage employing water from the South Platte River basin.

Denver Water’s collection system via the USACE EIS

Save the Colorado and coplaintiffs the Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians and others argue too much water has already been taken from the Colorado River basin on the west side of the Continental Divide, and that the forest-clearing and construction at Gross is further destructive to the environment. Gross Reservoir stores Fraser River rights that Denver Water owns and brings through a tunnel under the divide into South Boulder Creek.

“We look forward to having a constructive conversation with Denver Water to find a mutually agreeable path forward that addresses the significant environmental impacts of the project,” Save the Colorado founder Gary Wockner said.

When securing required project permits from Boulder County, Denver Water had previously agreed to environmental mitigation and enhancements for damages from Gross construction. But Save the Colorado and co-plaintiffs sued to stop the project at the federal level, and Arguello agreed that the Army Corps had failed to account for climate change, drought and other factors in writing the U.S. permits.

Denver Water declined comment Tuesday on the mediation order.

The halt and restart of the Gross Dam raising came in what has turned out to be a tumultuous year for major Colorado water diversion and storage projects.

While the Gross Dam decisions were underway, Wockner was finishing negotiations with Northern Water over $100 million in environmental mitigation funding to allow the $2.7 billion, two-dam Northern Integrated Supply Project to move forward. Once the 15 communities and water agencies subscribed to NISP water shares saw the increasing price tag, some began pulling out.

Northern Water reviewed the scale of NISP with engineers, then said it planned to move forward at the previously announced scale. The consortium’s board has asked all 15 initial members to indicate by Dec. 31 where they stand with the project and its price tag.

More by Michael Booth

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.

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

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

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

October 22, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

2026 budget hearing set

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

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

Water rates to edge up slightly in 2026 — Cathy Proctor and Kim Unger (DenverWater.org)

October 22, 2025

A core element of Denver Water’s mission is ensuring the large, complex system that collects, cleans and delivers drinking water for 1.5 million people is prepared to meet future challenges. 

And with more than 100 years of operations under its belt, Colorado’s largest water provider, which serves about 25% of Colorado’s population, is in the biggest period of capital investment in its history. Denver Water expects to invest about $1.7 billion into the system during the next 10 years. 

“The work we do provides the critical water supply that the community we serve needs to thrive and grow,” said Denver Water CEO/Manager Alan Salazar.

“Continuing to maintain and invest in the system that supports our water supply will ensure that we — Denver Water as well as our customers — are ready for what lies ahead, from a warming climate to the potential for new regulations, while keeping rates as low as good service will allow,” Salazar said. 

Since 2022, Denver Water has replaced an average of 97,000 feet of water mains per year. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Responsibility to maintain and protect the state’s largest water system, along with a desire to encourage water conservation, keep essential indoor water use affordable and ensure the utility is financially stable, were incorporated into the Oct. 22 decision by Denver’s Board of Water Commissioners to approve new water rates for 2026. 

Denver Water is protecting and preparing the complex system and its customers for the future in many ways, including: 

  • The Lead Reduction Program, which started in 2020, is protecting customers from the risk of lead in their drinking water and to date has replaced more than 35,000 old, customer-owned lead service lines at no direct cost to customers.
  • The new Northwater Treatment Plant, which began operations in 2024, can clean up to 75 million gallons of water per day and can be expanded when needed to 150 million gallons per day.
  • The Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, which began construction in 2022, is designed to nearly triple the reservoir’s storage capacity.
  • The Landscape Transformation Program, which helps customers remodel landscapes dominated by water-intensive Kentucky bluegrass into water-wise, climate-resilient ColoradoScapes.
  • And ongoing work to replace aging water mains, upgrade infrastructure on the utility’s southern collection and treatment system, and reach a net-zero carbon emissions goal by 2030.

Overall, Denver Water expects to invest $1.7 billion over the next 10 years in projects that will maintain, repair, protect and upgrade the system, and make it more resilient and flexible in the future. 

In addition to rates paid by customers, funding for Denver Water’s infrastructure projects, day-to-day operations and emergency expenses like water main breaks comes from bond sales, cash reserves, hydropower sales, grants, federal funding and fees paid when new homes and buildings are connected to the system.

The utility does not receive tax dollars or make a profit. It reinvests money from customer water bills and fees to maintain and upgrade the water system. 

And the utility is committed to delivering a safe, clean and affordable water supply to its customers while managing the impacts of the larger economy, from inflation to supply chain issues. 

How the 2026 water rates will affect individual customer bills will vary depending on where the customer lives (either in Denver or in one of the utility’s suburban distributor districts) and how much water they use. 

And major credit rating agencies recently confirmed Denver Water’s triple-A credit rating, the highest possible, citing the utility’s track record of strong financial management. 

Also, it’s important to note that Denver Water has made clear in discussions with the Denver Broncos that any costs associated with relocating some of the utility’s operations facilities, if needed, to accommodate a new stadium cannot be financed or subsidized by its ratepayers. (See Denver Water’s statement on the Broncos’ Sept. 9 announcement of Burnham Yard as their preferred site.) 

New rates for 2026

Monthly bills for single-family residential customers are comprised of two factors: a fixed charge, which helps ensure Denver Water has a more stable revenue stream to continue the necessary water system upgrades to ensure reliable water service, and a volume rate for the amount of water used.

Combining both of those factors, a typical single-family residential customer who uses 104,000 gallons of water annually will see their monthly bill increase by an average of $2.45 to $3.30 over the course of the year, depending on where the customer lives (in Denver or in one of the utility’s suburban distributor districts) and the type of service the customer’s suburban distributor district receives from Denver Water. 

(See the infographic below for information about Denver Water’s suburban distributor districts, types of service and rates.) 

The monthly bill example above includes an increase to the fixed monthly charge, which is tied to the size of the meter. For most single-family residential customers with a 3/4-inch meter, the fixed charge will increase by $1.85 in 2026, to $20.91 per month.

The more you use, the more you pay

After the fixed monthly charge, Denver Water’s rate structure for residential single-family customers has three tiers based on the amount of water used. The tiers are designed to keep essential indoor water use affordable while encouraging water conservation outdoors. (See additional details about the 2026 rates for the three tiers in the infographic below.)

  • The first 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 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 is for water use of more than 15,000 gallons per month. It is priced at the highest level to signal potentially excessive water use and encourage conservation efforts by larger-lot customers.

Bills in the summer months can be higher if customers use water to irrigate their outdoor landscapes. 

Need help? 

Denver Water offers one-time payment assistance to customers who may qualify. The utility’s Customer Care representatives also can help customers navigate payment options and unique circumstances. Customers can reach them via denverwater.org/ContactForm or by calling 303-893-2444.

What customers can do to save water, money

Denver Water encourages all customers to conserve water where they can indoors and out.

Finding and plugging leaks inside the home can be done year-round, and the utility offers rebates for qualified water-saving toilets and sprinkler equipment.

To help customers remodel their lawns to create a more vibrant, diverse ColoradoScape, Denver Water in 2026 will again offer a limited number of customer discounts on Resource Central’s popular turf removal service and its water-wise Garden In A Box plant-by-number kits. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Outside, Denver Water encourages customers to conserve water by remodeling unused areas of water-intensive Kentucky bluegrass into more diverse, water-wise ColoradoScapes that fit naturally into our dry climate and are interesting to look at through all seasons. These drought-resistant and climate-resilient ColoradoScapes include tree canopies and plants that help maintain vibrant urban landscapes and benefit our communities, wildlife and the environment.

Using less water also means more water can be kept in the mountain reservoirs, rivers and streams that fish live in and Coloradans enjoy. It also can lower monthly water bills, saving money.

Note 1: An individual 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), the types of service the suburban distributor district receives from Denver Water, and how much water the customer uses.

Note 2: The difference in volume rates (in the infographic above) for Denver Water customers who live inside Denver compared to those who live in the suburbs is due to the Denver City Charter (see Operating Rules), which allows permanent leases of water to suburban water districts based on two conditions: 1) there always would be an adequate supply for the citizens of Denver, and 2) suburban customers pay the full cost of service, plus an additional amount.

Massive #GreenRiver water diversion project proposal denied in #Utah Supreme Court decision — ABC4.com

A detail of a map produced by Water Horse Resources, and published by the state of Utah, showing two pipelines from the Green River, one above Flaming Gorge Reservoir and one below, plus a connecting pipeline between the two. The map is on a Utah state website with a note saying it was “left at hearing” on Nov. 11, 2018.

Click the link to read the article on the ABC4.com website (MJ Jewkes). Here’s an excerpt:

October 21, 2025

 The Utah Supreme Court ruled on a controversial pipeline project in Eastern Utah last Friday. In January 2018, Water Horse Resources, LLC proposed a pipeline project that would send 55,000 acre-feet of water every year from the Green River to the state of Colorado. However, on Nov. 7, 2020, the Utah State Engineer rejected the application…The proposal sought to pipe water to be used for “beneficial use in Colorado.” However, a district court found Water Horse failed to establish evidence that the water can be put to beneficial use in Colorado. The pipeline would extend through Wyoming before dropping into an undecided location in Colorado.

Proposed pipeline by Water Horse would bring water from Utah to Colorado. (Courtesy//Utah Supreme Court)

Colorado officials declined to sign onto the project citing the lack of clear authority to administer the diversion of water into the state. Water Horse appealed the district court’s decision, leading to a years-long legal battle. On Friday, Oct. 17, 2025, the Utah Supreme Court reaffirmed the initial decision of the state engineer to reject the project…The Supreme Court ruling is not the end for the project. According to the court’s opinion, a renewed application could be submitted and potentially approved by the state engineer.

Green River Basin

A reversal of water fortunes: October brought full canals and bolstered reservoirs, and ‘a little extra head start’ into winter — AlamosaCitizen.com #RioGrande #SanLuisValley

Greg Higel’s Alamosa County cattle ranch and hay operation opened ditches to take water in. Credit: The Citizen

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

October 17, 2025

The reversal of fortunes this water year for San Luis Valley irrigators – going from one of the deadest rivers on record to a bountiful water year that sees full canals and increased reservoir storage – has been breathtaking.

The “water year” for Valley farmers technically ends Nov. 1, which means no more water in the fields. Now with the mid-October rains from the southwest and resulting historic fall river flows, the state is talking to farmers about extending the water season a bit into November, which would allow for another week of irrigating and another cut of hay.

“I’m working hard, but I’m not complaining,” said Greg Higel, whose Alamosa County cattle ranch and hay operation takes in surface water through the Centennial Ditch. It was private ditch operators like Higel who opened their head gates to begin diverting water off the Rio Grande. 

“All of us who live along the river on the flat have water out in the meadows today,” said Higel. 

That was not the case before Sunday, Oct. 12, when it became evident the Upper Rio Grande would be impacted by La Niña’s first seasonal storm.

Back in April at the start of the irrigation season, State Engineer Jason Ullmann warned Valley irrigators that the 2025 water year looked troubling given the lack of snow in the San Juan Mountains and expectation for another light spring runoff. 

By August, the Rio Grande through Alamosa was disappearing before our eyes. Literally. The flow of the Rio Grande was 180 cfs at Del Norte, the Conejos at Mogote was running at 75 cfs, and downstream into New Mexico the Rio Grande had become a dry bed in Albuquerque.

The state is talking to farmers about extending the water season a bit into November, which would allow for another week of irrigating and another cut of hay. Credit: The Citizen

Then came the ocean storms over the Pacific and heavy rains through the southwest, and the rivers that are essential to the Valley and downstream into New Mexico sprang to life. The Upper Rio Grande at Del Norte hit 7,180 cfs, and unheard of flow this late into the water season. The Conejos River at Mogote hit its record high flow for the season, and farmers in the southern end of the Valley, like Higel on the west end, opened ditches to take water in.

“This helps us in the long run,” said Lawrence Crowder, president of the Commonwealth Ditch.

The Commonwealth had six ditch riders working the storm and diverting water into fields throughout the week. Now the expectation is the water will freeze in the fields and then thaw in the spring to give irrigators “a little extra head start.”

Total precipitation (inches) from 9-15 October 2025 with gridded data from the PRISM Climate Group and observations from the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow (CoCoRaHS) network.

“It’s not going to dry out much between now and when the snow flies,” Crowder said.

The October moisture also turned around the calculations of the Colorado Division of Water Resources and its delivery of water to the New Mexico state line under the Rio Grande Compact. The weather event, according to initial estimates by the Colorado Division of Water Resources, added 20,000 to 25,000 acre-feet of water to the Rio Grande system itself, and around 10,000 to 15,000 acre-feet that was diverted into the private ditches like the Commonwealth and Centennial.

“All of us who live along the river on the flat have water out in the meadows today,” said rancher Greg Higel. Credit: The Citizen

With all the extra water, Colorado no longer thinks it overdelivered this year and instead likely owes in the neighborhood of 5,000 acre-feet to New Mexico. 

At the upcoming Rio Grande Water Conservation District quarterly meeting on Oct. 21, Colorado Division of Water Resources officials will deliver a report that should provide final estimates on the amount of water the great storm of October delivered and the impact it had on the Upper Rio Grande Basin.

In terms of flow on the Rio Grande, only the peak from October 1911 is higher than the current average flow for the period between October and April, according to research by Russ Schumacher of the Colorado Climate Center in Fort Collins.

Needless to say, the reversal of fortunes on the Upper Rio Grande was dramatic. At least for 2025.

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

Federal Water Tap, October 20, 2025: Abandoned Mine Cleanup Application Review to Begin This Fall, EPA Says — Brett Walton (circleofblue.org)

The “Bonita Peak Mining District” superfund site. Map via the Environmental Protection Agency

Click the link to read the article on the Circle of Blue website (Brett Walton):

The Rundown

  • Democrats on budget committees tell EPA and Interior to halt potential staff cuts during the shutdown.
  • White House budget office says $11 billion in Army Corps infrastructure projects will be paused.
  • BLM will begin an environmental analysis of a proposed expansion of a Mojave Desert gold mine that will need more groundwater to operate.

And lastly, EPA prepares to permit abandoned hardrock mine cleanups under a new Good Samaritan law.

“If you were a nonprofit or a county with a serious water pollution issue coming out of an old set of mine tailings, you could not work on that problem. The moment you touched it, you accepted total liability for the pollution going downstream. So nobody would ever do anything about all these 140,000 abandoned mines. Almost every one of them having some environmental problem. Almost all of it connected to water.” – Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) speaking with the Western Governors’ Association podcast about the problem of cleaning up abandoned mines in the western United States.

Last year the Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act was signed into law. It requires the EPA to permit 15 pilot cleanup projects to be completed within seven years. The projects can be located on private, federal, or state land.

David Hockey, acting director of the EPA Office of Mountains, Deserts, and Plains, said the agency will review project applications starting this fall. He hopes to have the first projects under construction next year and all 15 in progress by summer 2028.

By the Numbers

$11 Billion: Army Corps infrastructure projects that will be “paused,” Russell Vought, the director of the White House budget office, wrote on X. Vought blamed the government shutdown for the freeze. The targeted projects are mostly in states where Democrats are in power, E&E News reports.

News Briefs

Potential Shutdown Staff Cuts
Leading Democrats sent letters to the heads of EPA and Interior asking them to halt potential job cuts at their agencies during the shutdown.

Sen. Jeff Merkeley and Rep. Chellie Pingree are the ranking Democrats on the budget committees that oversee spending by those agencies.

Their concern is over the administration’s use of “reduction in force” during the shutdown to pare the federal workforce closer to President Trump’s vision of a diminished bureaucracy, even though Congress is supposed to set funding levels.

“This coordinated, government-wide approach to implementing RIFs during a lapse in appropriations appears designed to circumvent the appropriations process,” they wrote in their letter to Lee Zeldin, EPA administrator.

Of particular concern, they wrote, are proposed changes and reductions to the EPA’s science assessment and research division.

Similar concerns were raised in the letter to Doug Burgum, the interior secretary.

Studies and Reports

State Revolving Fund Audits
The EPA Office of Inspector General reviewed the financial documents for the state revolving fund programs, the main federal vehicle for water infrastructure funding.

The review found that 42 state drinking water programs and 43 clean water programs had an independent financial audit.

Audited financial statements help to identify wasteful and fraudulent spending.

On the Radar

Shutdown Continues
Nineteen days and counting, as of this writing.

Proposed Mojave Mine Expansion
The Bureau of Land Management will do an environmental impact analysis for a proposed expansion of the Castle Mountain open-pit gold mine in California’s part of the Mojave Desert.

The expansion would extend the mine’s life by 30 years and would entail construction of a 32-mile pipeline to supply 2,250 acre-feet of groundwater per year.

The mine is part of FAST-41, a federal program to accelerate project permitting and environmental reviews through close interagency coordination. The project dashboardsuggests that permitting for the Castle Mountain expansion will be completed by December 2026.

Public comments are being accepted through November 20. Submit them via the above link.

A virtual public meeting will be held on November 5 to outline the project and collect public input. Register here.

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.

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

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

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

October 8, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paying farmers proves most cost-effective way to conserve Colorado River, study says — Jennifer Solis (NevadaCurrent.com) #COriver #aridification

“About 80% of the water goes to agriculture. If you’re using a big share and it’s more cost-effective, then that’s going to need to be the target,” said a co-author of the study. (Photo: Bureau of Reclamation Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Click the link to read the article on the Nevada Current website (Jennifer Solis):

October 6, 2025

The most cost-effective and quickest way to conserve the Colorado River’s shrinking water supply amid persistent drought and rapid population growth is changing how states handle the largest use of water on the river: agriculture.

Agriculture uses about 80% of the river’s water, but the good news is that paying farmers not to use water allotted to them has proved to be remarkably cost-effective. 

That’s according to a comprehensive study examining 462 federally funded Colorado River conservation and supply projects using available spending data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

The study, published in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association last week, was conducted by UC Riverside’s School of Public Policy in partnership with the Utah Rivers Council.

The water projects examined – ranging from large-scale infrastructure such as reservoirs and wastewater treatment plants to agricultural water use – totaled about $1 billion in federal funding between 2004 and 2024.

“How much water is actually being saved for every dollar we are spending?” asks Mehdi Nemati, an assistant professor of public policy, co-author of the study. “If we want to be more efficient or gain more water saved per dollar spent, then answering this question matters.”

“The big message is not all water savings are equal. Some projects saved water at a fraction of the cost of others,” he continued. 

Agricultural conservation programs conserved water for as low as $69.89 per acre-foot. On average, agricultural conservation programs cost about $417 per acre-foot, while local supply projects —such as reservoirs, wells, and wastewater treatment facilities—cost more than $2,400 per acre-foot on average. (An acre-foot is the amount of water needed to cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot, or about 325,851 gallons.)

“Spending money to conserve water within the agriculture sector seems to be one of the most cost-effective ways. There’s also a lot of room to improve and save more water in this sector,” Nemati said. “About 80% of the water goes to agriculture. If you’re using a big share and it’s more cost-effective, then that’s going to need to be the target.”

Historically, farmers have been reluctant to lower their water use out of fear the government might take their water permanently. But the study found that agricultural conservation programs, particularly those that provided financial incentives to promote behavioral changes among farmers, were successful at delivering water savings at a relatively low cost.

The most common type of agricultural conservation program was paying farmers who rely on the Colorado River to reduce their water use on crops during certain non-critical periods, saving an average of 747 acre-feet per year at a cost of about $140 per acre-foot.

Paying farmers to temporarily leave their fields empty – particularly for water-intensive crops like alfalfa – produced an average annual water saving of 17,500 acre-feet per year at an average cost of about $193 per acre-foot, according to the study.

“Grass, alfalfa, corn pasture, these are all water intensive crops. That’s where we get our most savings per dollar, and there is huge room for savings. I would say these are low hanging fruit,” Nemati said.

Other programs studied paid farmers to replace flood irrigation with precision methods such as drip or sprinkler systems, which demonstrated substantial efficiency improvements while maintaining agricultural productivity.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation spent about 30% of water conservation funding between 2004 and 2024 on agricultural projects.

Agricultural conservation projects had an average lifespan of about three years, meaning once those short-term projects end water savings are expected to gradually decline. 

Water-intensive crops are where the savings are

Much of the funding used to pay farmers to conserve Colorado River water was provided by the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, which helped double agricultural water conservation from 1.5 million acre-feet of water to over 3 million acre-feet of water, according to the study.

Water recycling and treatment facilities also proved to be a cost-effective way to conserve substantial amounts of water in the long-term, despite higher initial construction costs. Water recycling and treatment facilities had an average lifetime cost of $385 per acre-feet with an average annual water savings of about 18,600 acre-feet.

Despite the large potential for water savings through water reuse projects, only about 7% of the bureau’s water conservation funding was spent on reuse projects. California got the lion’s share of that funding, about 80%. Upper Basin states received only 4% of reuse funding, while Tribal areas received no funding. 

There’s a lot of room for improvement in water recycling across states that rely on the Colorado River. One recent study found that Upper Basin states – Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico – recycled less than 5% of their water, as compared to Lower Basin states – California, Arizona and Nevada– which recycled more than 30% of their water.

The study also revealed a major disparity in federal funding for water conservation projects between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states.

Between 2004 and 2024, Upper Basin states only received about 6% of overall water conservation spending by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, while about 75% was directed to the Lower Basin, and about 19% was designated for Tribal areas, some of which extend across both regions.

Nevada received nearly $6 million for 28 water conservation projects for an average annual savings of roughly 1,500 acre-feet at a cost of about $3,800 per acre-foot. 

It’s a stark contrast to Upper Basin states like Colorado, which received about $610,000 in federal funding for 47 water conservation projects for an average annual savings of about 2,100 acre-feet at a cost of about $285 per acre-foot. 

It’s an example of how federal dollars could be more efficiently used to conserve water across the Colorado River Basin by rethinking funding priorities.

“In some areas in Nevada there has been tremendous investment in the urban side and efficiency gains in the urban side. But if you’re looking at the lowest dollar per acre feet, water-intensive crops are the areas we want to target,” Nemati said.

“There are areas in the Upper Basin that could save water for a fraction of money being used in Nevada or southern California,” he said.

Map credit: AGU

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

South Platte River south of Brush. Photo/Allen Best

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

October 16, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The South Platte River originates in South Park and then wanders northeast, entering Nebraska just a few miles west of Colorado’s northeast corner. The red line here distinguishes the upper South Platte Basin in Colorado from the lower basin. The compact between Colorado and Nebraska speaks only to the lower basin. Image: U.S. Geologic Survey.

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

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

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

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

Colorado wants to avoid this battle.

Coyote Gulch’s VW Bus South Park 1973.

A hard-working river

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

What exactly is this dispute about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is this dispute about?

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

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

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

Platte Valley Water Partnership project overview. Credit: Parker Water

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who will this contest between Colorado and Nebraska?

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

Whooping Crane. Photo: Kenton Gomez/Audubon Photography Awards

A legal wildcard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 15, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Release: #Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Reject #Nebraska Case on #SouthPlatteRiver

Perkins canal drawing showing the Colorado portion, courtesy Nebraska Department of Natural Resources.

Here’s the release from Governor Polis’ office (Lawrence Pacheco and Shelby Wieman):

October 15, 2025

Governor Jared Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a case about the South Platte River Compact and Nebraska’s efforts to build the Perkins County Canal. Colorado is complying with its obligations under the compact and not obstructing Nebraska’s efforts to build the canal, so there is nothing for the court to review at this time, according to a brief filed with the court.   

The South Platte River originates in Colorado and supplies water for the state’s biggest cities and some of its most productive agricultural lands. The river starts in the Rocky Mountains and winds roughly 380 miles northeast into Nebraska. The South Platte River Compact is an agreement between Colorado and Nebraska that establishes the States’ rights and responsibilities to use water in the South Platte. 

While Colorado acknowledges Nebraska’s right to build the Perkins County Canal, Nebraska has failed to move forward on the project for over 100 years. Recently, Nebraska officials have taken preliminary steps to plan and permit the project through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but numerous steps lie ahead during which Nebraska, and others who might be affected by the project, will identify potential issues and fully study any impacts.

Nebraska appears to be using the prospect of the canal and this request for Supreme Court action as leverage to renegotiate the South Platte River Compact. Colorado will ensure that Nebraska honors the letter of the Compact, just as Colorado always has. 

“Water is the lifeblood of our state. We have always faithfully honored the century-old South Platte Compact and all other water agreements with our downstream neighbor states, and we will continue to do so. We refuse to sit idly by while Nebraska chases a meritless lawsuit that threatens Colorado’s precious water resources, our robust agriculture industry, and our rural communities in Northeastern Colorado,” said Governor Jared Polis. 

Attorney General Weiser said Colorado is complying with the compact and not interfering with Nebraska’s efforts to build the canal. As such, Nebraska hasn’t raised any claims ripe for Supreme Court review. Whatever issues arise in the future can be addressed through federal permitting processes or lower courts. 

“Nebraska’s claimed violations rely on speculative and premature allegations. To the extent any legal issues arise in the future, there are alternative forums to resolve them. The Supreme Court need not take a case that would put the court and the parties on a long, time-intensive, and expensive path that might well, in the end, put the States right back where they were before Nebraska filed their proposed complaint,” said Attorney General Weiser. “Even if the court decides to take up part or all of Nebraska’s case, I’m confident that we will win on the merits. Both the facts and the law are on our side.”

Nebraska’s claims that Colorado authorizes water uses that harm Nebraska during the irrigation season are not supported by facts. Jason Ullmann, the State Engineer and Director of the Division of Water Resources, said Nebraska has only recently suggested they were concerned that Colorado was not meeting its obligations during the irrigation season.

“For over 100 years the Colorado State Engineer’s Office has worked with Nebraska and performed the hard work of ensuring Colorado meets its compact obligations on the South Platte River. This means we make difficult decisions every day on who receives their water and when based on the priority system and compact terms. As a result, water users in Colorado and Nebraska all receive their allotted share, said Jason Ullmann, State Engineer and Director of the Division of Water Resources “We were surprised and disappointed by Nebraska’s lawsuit and are hopeful once all the briefs are filed that we can resume discussions to meet the mutual needs of both of our States.”

The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over interstate disputes, such as border disputes and water rights. States must file a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint to bring a case to the court. The Supreme Court must still decide whether to accept the case.

The case is Nebraska v. Colorado, case number 220161.

Read Colorado’s Response in Opposition to Nebraska’s Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint (PDF).

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

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

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

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

October 14, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit: Upper Colorado River Commission

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

October 8, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


About the Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC):

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

Map credit: AGU

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

Jasper Reservoir from dam. Photo credit: Colorado Water Trust

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

September 16, 2025

Introduction

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

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

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

Jasper Lake Donation

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

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

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

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

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

Jasper Reservoir/Boulder Creek. Credit: Colorado Water Trust

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

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

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

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

How the Water Trust was Formed; Colorado Water Law 101

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

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

  1. The state’s surface waters and groundwaters constitute a public resource for beneficial use by public agencies, private persons and entities;
  2. A water right is a right to use a portion of the public’s water supply;
  3. Water rights owners may build facilities on the lands of others to divert, extract, or move water from a stream or aquifer to its place of use;
  4. Water rights owners may use streams and aquifers for the transportation and storage of water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the Water Trust has Adapted; Water Law 201

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

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

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

Borrowing from Land Conservation Practices to Save Rivers

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

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

  1. An easement allowing the public to access Jasper Lake and the parcel of land surrounding it. Colorado law limits the liability of landowners who hold title to inholdings on public lands provided there is signage, which was key to the ability of 37-Mile to take on this responsibility;
  2. Jasper Lake water must be stored until at least August 15 of each year, which provides the public with an opportunity to enjoy the beauty of its waters;
  3. The owner of the Jasper Lake water right must take water deliveries beginning on or after August 15 of each year, which ensures that flows in the Boulder Creek drainage are boosted after snowmelt, when fish and the environment need it most;
  4. The owner of Jasper Lake must take steps to avoid abandonment of the water right;
  5. The owner of Jasper Lake must allow Colorado Parks and Wildlife to stock the lake with fish; and
  6. Finally, if the owner of Jasper Court ever goes to water court, they must consult with the CWCB regarding the possible addition of instream flow use to the water right.

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

Why Storage Matters: True Volume, True Impact

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

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

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

Why Permanence Matters: Creative and Collaborative Solutions

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

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

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

A Model for the West

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

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

Lessons Learned

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

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

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

Gratitude and Foresight

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

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

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

Jasper Lake is truly a remarkable and historic gift.

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

Author Bios: 

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

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

Colorado Rivers. Credit: Geology.com

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

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

October 3, 2025

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

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

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

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

Recommendation 1: Forgo New Dams and Diversions

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

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

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

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

Rec. 2: All States Need Curtailment Plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report says: 

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

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

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

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

Rec 5: Curtailing Junior Users to Serve Tribes

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

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

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


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


Rec. 7: Protect Endangered Species

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

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

Rec. 8: Make Farms Resilient to New Realities

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

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

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


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


Rec. 9: Stabilize Groundwater Decline

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

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

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

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

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


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

🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭

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

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

Cattle feedlots and methane plumes in California’s Central Valley. Source: Carbon Mapper.
⛈️ Wacky Weather Watch⚡️

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

October 1, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The back of Glen Canyon Dam circa 1964, not long after the reservoir had begun filling up. Here the water level is above dead pool, meaning water can be released via the river outlets, but it is below minimum power pool, so water cannot yet enter the penstocks to generate electricity. Bureau of Reclamation photo. Annotations: Jonathan P. Thompson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 4, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 2, 2025

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

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

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

Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall

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

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

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

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

Then there is this arresting statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map credit: AGU

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

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

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

October 3, 2025

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

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

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

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

October 6, 2025

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

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

Read the full white paper.

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

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

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

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Daily News website (Austin Corona). Here’s an excerpt:

October 6, 2025

Three months after officials introduced a concept to revive stalled negotiations over the Colorado River, that concept has run into the same pitfalls that sank previous ideas, leaving the river on a course for federal intervention as reservoir levels plunge. Speakers at the Colorado River Water Conservation District’s annual water seminar in Grand Junction on Friday [October 3, 2025] said the new concept still falters because it would require Colorado and other upper basin states — New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — to commit to some restrictions on their water use during dry years.

“(Lower Basin leaders) are insisting that the Upper Basin is the problem in getting to an agreement because we’re refusing to take mandatory cuts,” said Andy Mueller, general manager of the river district…Upper Basin states argue that their geography and infrastructure already require them to cut their use when the rivers run dry, while downstream states can rely on water stored in large reservoirs to keep themselves wet during droughts. The new concept’s failure to gain traction means negotiators are still wrangling as the river’s levels drop further…Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s negotiator on the river, said the states are still meeting once every other week, but she and other state officials remain mired in many of the same issues that have stalled negotiations for two years.

“We’re meeting. It is not enjoyable. I want to be perfectly honest,” Mitchell said.

The Upper Basin argues it should not have to take cuts because it relies on the natural flow of the river, not stored water in large reservoirs like Lake Mead and Lake Powell. That means the Upper Basin can’t use more than what is naturally available in the river and cuts back its use during dry times already. It also means the Upper Basin already feels “pain” during dry years…

“Every year, someone in western Colorado … has not had adequate water,” Mueller said…

…Mitchell said she was “hopeful” for the negotiations. She said the Upper Basin agrees with the general idea of a supply-driven concept, like the one the Lower Basin has proposed, even if the basins are struggling to work out central issues like cuts in the Upper Basin.

“We can’t give up … A supply-based proposal is the only way to move forward. We all have to be responding to supply,” Mitchell said. 

Coyote Gulch’s Bluesky posts from the conference are here (click on the “Latest” tab): https://bsky.app/search?q=%23crd2025

Aspen trees were showing off on the east side of Wolf Creek Pass on October 5, 2025.

Gross Dam construction making steady progress: Dam is now 60 feet taller after busy summer of work — Jay Adams (DenverWater.org)

Click the link to read the article on the Denver Water website (Jay Adams):

September 18, 2025

Denver Water’s Gross Dam in Boulder County continues to rise after a busy summer of construction.

Hundreds of workers are taking part in the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project, which will raise the height of Gross Dam by 131 feet.

As of Sept. 5, crews had raised the dam by 60 feet. The project is designed to increase the water storage capacity of Gross Reservoir, which supplies water to 1.5 million people in the Denver metro area.

“Over the past two years, we’ve been working on the original dam to prepare it for the enlarged height and width,” said Casey Dick, Denver Water’s deputy program manager for the project.

“At the end of June, the concrete work reached the original crest, so now all the concrete placements are above the existing structure.”

A dump truck fills up with concrete at the top of Gross Dam. The trucks drive across the top of the dam and place the concrete in layers to raise the dam higher. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Once completed, Gross Dam will be 471 feet tall and around 2,000 feet wide.

As the dam has gone up, it has become easier to see some of the differences between the original dam, which was completed in the 1950s, and the newly renovated structure.

For instance, the original surface of the downstream side of the dam was smooth. Now, the downstream side of the dam is a series of stair steps. The steps were an integral part of the construction process and supported the trucks that deposited layers of concrete onto the original structure of the dam.

This picture was taken from roughly the crest of the original dam. The dam has been raised 60 feet as of Sept. 5. The new face of the dam features a stepped design, which was needed for the construction process. Photo credit: Denver Water.

The renovated dam will also take on a new shape.

“The original structure was built as a ’curved gravity’ dam,” Dick said. “Now, we’re taking advantage of that curved geometry in the middle portion of the dam to create what’s called a ‘thick arch’ dam in the center of the canyon.”

The middle section of the dam is arched to give the dam strength as water pushes up against the structure. Photo credit: Denver Water.

Arches are used in dam construction because the force of the water in the reservoir pushes up against the arch and into the canyon walls. This gives an arched dam more strength compared to a flat structure.

“We’ve also built what are called ’thrust blocks’ on the sides of the original dam,” Dick said. “These give the dam additional support by essentially extending the canyon walls upward to support the arch.”

The “thrust blocks,” highlighted in red, extend out from the canyon wall. The blocks provide additional strength where the arch of the dam meets the rock. Photo credit: Denver Water.

As work has risen above the original crest of the dam, workers have built formwork, or temporary molds, on both the upstream and downstream sides of the dam. The temporary structures hold the freshly placed concrete in the proper shape until it hardens and cures.

Workers build formwork, or temporary molds, on the top of the dam. The forms hold new concrete in place until it cures. Photo credit: Denver Water.

With the new added concrete added during the project, Gross Dam is now much steeper than the original structure. At the base, the dam is 300 feet thick, but it gets skinnier as it goes up. At the top, the dam will be just 25 feet thick. Crews have had to adjust to the smaller work area to maneuver their equipment as the project progressed.

Work to raise the dam will continue as late as possible into 2025, until weather conditions make it too cold to place concrete.

“We’d like to thank all the men and women out here from Kiewit-Barnard and the other contractors out here,” Dick said. “They are working around the clock and as fast as they can to complete this project.”

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.

In Lower Arkansas River Valley, a $1.39B pipeline is the Holy Grail of clean water — Jerd Smith (Fresh Water News)

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

October 2, 2025

Rick Jones strides quickly into the offices of the May Valley Water Association. He’s running late after a morning of checking leaks in a pipeline that is one of several delivering well water to his 1,500 customers.

Jones has lived in Wiley, nearly 200 miles southeast of Denver, most of his life and has served as superintendent of the association for 38 years.

Outside the front door of his office in a small, well-kept brick building on Main Street, a dispenser delivers radium-free water for 25 cents a gallon to anyone who walks up with a container. It helps the small water company offer clean water because its own groundwater-based system struggles with radium contamination. Having the dispenser helps it meet its state obligations to deliver some clean water to the public.

Last year, the machine dispensed 24,000 gallons.

“It’s usually pretty busy,” Jones says.

But this may be changing. With construction of the long-awaited Arkansas Valley Conduit finally underway,  the May Valley Water Association is in line to get clean water from Pueblo Reservoir, more than 100 miles to the west. Then contamination notices from the state health department will stop and the cloud that lies over these small towns in the Lower Arkansas River Basin due to their historically bad water will begin to lift.

The long-awaited conduit, he says, “is what everyone is hanging their hopes on.”

Arkansas Valley Conduit map via the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Chris Woodka) June 2021.

A dark water history

The need for clean water in the Lower Arkansas Valley became apparent long before the conduit was initially approved more than 60 years ago. In the 1950s and earlier, by some accounts, wells drilled near the river were showing a range of toxic elements, including naturally occurring radium and selenium. Both can cause severe health problems, including bone cancer, with long-term exposure to radium, and heart attacks and lung issues with selenium, if high amounts are consumed.

In 1962, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation prepared to build the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, an ambitious plan to capture clean water from the Arkansas and Colorado rivers and store it in Pueblo Reservoir. The conduit, or AVC, was a component of the project that never got built.

Source: Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District

Why? No one could figure out how to provide clean water to so few people living in a remote area of the state, let alone how to pay for it, according to Chris Woodka, a senior policy manager with the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The district operates the sprawling Fryingpan-Arkansas Project for the federal government and is overseeing the conduit’s construction.

But everything changed in 2023, when decades of lobbying Congress produced some $500 million in cash toward the $1.39 billion pipeline. That equals $30,888 per person, a cost many people say is extraordinary in a region whose household income of $47,000 is roughly half of the state average of $89,000.

“It’s a very expensive project for 45,000 people,” said Keith McLaughlin, executive director of the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, which has set aside $30 million in federal grant money to help cover the cost. “It’s an enormous project for that number of people.”

Still he said it’s important for the state, despite the state’s own budget challenges. “You have very low-income communities down there and it’s a really critical project. That makes this very high on our priority list,” McLaughlin said.

To date, 39 communities have signed onto the project. Towns at the far western end of the conduit, such as Avondale and Boone just outside Pueblo, could see water as soon as 2027, while others farther east will wait another 10 years or so as each segment of pipeline is laid and spurs to each community are built, Woodka said.

Alarm as costs rise

La Junta is the largest customer so far, according to Tom Seaba, who manages the historic town’s water and sewer department. He can’t remember a time when the much-delayed conduit and water quality problems didn’t hang darkly over the region.

La Junta residents are among the most critical of the pipeline largely because it’s not clear exactly when it will reach the town, and costs are expected to continue rising, Seaba said..

In the valley these are not idle concerns. The federal government’s first construction estimate in 2016 put the price of the pipeline at $600 million. Nearly 10 years later it has more than doubled, to $1.39 billion, according to the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

Seaba won’t say whether he supports or opposes the giant pipe, but he will say that the final cost is likely to be breathtaking.

“Could people’s water bills double? Absolutely,” he said.

To address those staggering costs, Colorado’s congressional delegation, in a bipartisan effort, has pushed hard to make sure the cash comes through and that repayment terms are affordable. The delegation is proposing, right now, to cut interest rates in half and extend the life of the loans to 75 years. The bill has passed the U.S. House, where it was sponsored by Republican Reps. Lauren Boebert and Jeff Hurd, whose congressional districts span the valley. It is pending in the U.S. Senate, where it is being sponsored by Democratic Sens. John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet.

The State of Colorado has also stepped in to help. The Colorado Water Conservation Board is offering $30 million in grants, and a $90 million loan. The Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority can provide up to another $30 million in federal grants if application deadlines can be met.

A plan to share costs

Right now, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is slated to pick up 65% of the project’s $1.39 billion cost, or $903.5 million. The Southeastern Conservancy District will cover its 35% share, or $486.5 million.

At the same time, there are also plans to ask the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to declare the project a hardship due to the region’s low income, and its shrinking population and economy, Woodka said. Should that occur, the valley’s remaining costs could be picked up by the federal government.

Sources: Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, Colorado Water Conservation Board

Still financial pressures are rising. The Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority received millions in federal funding after the pandemic, but it must spend all the cash by 2028. And that means that small towns and water districts hoping to connect to the pipeline must move quickly to design new delivery systems, get cost estimates, and submit applications to the state.

McLaughlin, the water and power authority director, is worried these communities, some with just 200 or 300 people, won’t be able to get their loan applications for the spur lines done in time to meet his agency’s deadlines with the federal government. Only a handful have been received to date.

“While we want to fund as many of the spur lines coming in as possible, there are lots of projects competing for the same dollar,” McLaughlin said. “And the money is awarded first-come, first-served.”

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is also watching the clock as the valley’s water woes continue.

Seventeen of the 39 districts and towns that plan to tap the conduit’s clean water, are under state enforcement orders to permanently remove contaminants, according to the CDPHE. Some of those orders have been in place for decades, and the state has, so far, allowed them to continue delivering flawed water as the long-awaited pipeline comes together.

“As part of this regulatory process, the public drinking water systems are required to do public notice, and certainly they are aware of the health risk associated with their drinking water so they can decide whether they want to make another choice,” said Ron Falco, safe drinking water program manager for the state health department.

Several communities have done just that, spending millions of dollars to install reverse osmosis systems. These remove contaminants and make the drinking water safe to consume.

Las Animas is one of them, according to Bill Long, a resident who also serves as president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

“In Las Animas, we built a reverse osmosis plant. Now our drinking water is perfect, but we have a problem with the reject water from the RO plant,” Long said, referring to the contaminated wastewater that is a byproduct of treatment. “We can discharge that back to the river, but we can’t do that in perpetuity. We solved one problem but we created a new one. … The state won’t allow us to discharge that forever.”

To Long, the pipeline is the only way to ensure long-term, clean drinking water for the Lower Valley and to provide a chance to rebuild its economy.

“Better water creates new opportunities,” Long said. “If we try to do anything in Las Animas that requires a new water supply, we can’t do it. We would have to build a new RO plant, and apply for a new discharge permit, which the state would likely not give us.” Long was referring to the Arkansas River’s own water quality problems, which can be worsened by the discharges.

Back in Wiley, Jones said the May Valley Water Association plans to start saving to pay for the $5.1 million he expects to spend to repair aging pipes, and install the new lines and pumps that will allow him to connect to the conduit and get off the state’s list of drinking water safety violators.

Does his community feel shortchanged that it has taken so long to have what most communities take for granted?

“Yes. There are people who say ‘Yeah, we got shorted.’ But the good thing is they’ve started it. I guess I’m hopeful. It will bring better water quality, and for some places like us, we will finally get out of trouble with the state.”

More by Jerd Smith

Navajo Dam operations update: Bumping down to 525 cfs on Saturday, October 4, 2025

From email from Reclamation (Conor Felletter):

October 3, 2025

The Bureau of Reclamation has scheduled a decrease in the release from Navajo Dam to 525 cubic feet per second (cfs) for Saturday, October 4, at 4:00 AM. 

Releases are made for the authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit, and to attempt to maintain a target base flow through the endangered fish critical habitat reach of the San Juan River (Farmington to Lake Powell).  The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program recommends a target base flow of between 500 cfs and 1,000 cfs through the critical habitat area.  The target base flow is calculated as the weekly average of gaged flows throughout the critical habitat area from Farmington to Lake Powell.  

This scheduled release change is subject to changes in river flows and weather conditions. If you have any questions, please contact Conor Felletter (cfelletter@usbr.gov or 970-637-1985), or visit Reclamation’s Navajo Dam website at https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/nvd.html

No water available: NGOs release new report to address #ColoradoRiver’s major problems — Great Basin Water Network #COriver #aridification

Credit: Great Basin Water Network

Click the link to read the article on the Great Basin Water Network website:

What happens on the Colorado River doesn’t stay on the Colorado River.

Indeed, the river system is not like a night on the Las Vegas Strip. When problems arise on the beleaguered system, the ancillary impacts ripple throughout the western U.S.

As water supplies shrink, the supply and demand imbalance on the river system poses questions about the long-term sustainability of communities across the west. The impacts span beyond cities in town in the Colorado River Watershed. Denver, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, and many others rely on the Colorado River even though they don’t live within the watershed. We are not yet ready for the consequences of prolonged inaction and ambivalence.  We’ve lost 20 percent of flows since the turn of the 21st Century and poised to lose even more in the decades to come. Fixing the current imbalance has come at a high price to ratepayers and taxpayers, the environment, and the public trust. Further inaction will come at an even higher price.

We are working with a group of NGO partners to answer an important question

How do we prevent more conflict?

That is why we released a new report outlining nine recommendations for the river system.

1.        No New Dams and Diversions

2.        All States Need Curtailment Plans

3.        We Need Better Accounting and Data

4.        We Need to Fix Glen Canyon’s Antique Plumbing

5.        Curtail Junior Users to Serve Tribes

6.        Invest in Reuse and Limit Municipal Waste

7.        Protect Endangered Species

8.        Make Farms Resilient

9.        Recognize Groundwater-Surface Water  Connectivity

Please share far and wide and reach out with any suggestions. Perhaps no group better understands the far-reaching impacts on Colorado River scarcity than ours. The SNWA maintains a robust agricultural operation hundreds of miles away from the Colorado River in the high desert in the heart of the Great Basin. What will happen if Lake Mead keeps shrinking? They don’t own farms because they like beef and lamb, leather and wool.

The actions we take today will leave lasting marks on our watersheds for generations to come. Right now, the leaderships on the Colorado River System is lagging. We exist to equip communities with the knowledge to take action moving forward. As we await public participation opportunities for new Colorado River management guidelines, let’s prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Click here to access the report on the Document Cloud website.

Photo credit: Great Basin Water Network

President Trump’s rollback of rule for public lands — including 13,000 square miles in #Colorado — would reduce #conservation role: Bureau of Land Management seeks comment on rescission of Biden-era policy — The #Denver Post

A view of the popular Pumphouse campground, boat put-in and the upper Colorado River. Photo credit: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

Click the link to read the article on The Denver Post website (Elise Schmelzer). Here’s an excerpt:

September 28, 2025

The U.S. Department of the Interior plans to rescind the Biden-era Public Lands Rule, which directs the Bureau of Land Management to consider the conservation of public lands to be equally important as commercial uses like oil and gas extraction, mining, grazing and timber harvesting. When they announced the rollback, administration officials said the rule placed outsized priority on conservation and threatened to curtail grazing, energy development and other traditional land uses.

“The most effective caretakers of our federal lands are those whose livelihoods rely on its well-being,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the proposal was unveiled. “Overturning this rule protects our American way of life and gives our communities a voice in the land that they depend on.”

Colorado conservation advocates said the rollback of the rule is shortsighted. The 2024 rule gives the BLM the tools to make sure the 8.3 million acres of Colorado land it manages — or nearly 13,000 square miles — remain healthy and productive for future generations, they said.

The rule provided balance so that the agency could “really embrace the most significant growing part of Western economies — the recreation economy,” said Michael Carroll, BLM campaign director for The Wilderness Society. “By not having balanced management on those landscapes, the pressure climate change is going to put on those landscapes is going to ultimately restrict the use of those lands, no matter what that use is.”

The proposed rollback is the latest in a series of moves by the Trump administration to open more public land to development and relax regulations around commercial uses on them. Months after a proposal to sell some of the West’s public lands failed due to an incredible onslaught of public opposition, federal lawmakers and the Trump administration are trying other methods to weaken protections for public lands, say conservation and recreation advocates…

Public comment on the administration’s proposed rule rescission is open until Nov. 10.

This map shows land owned by different federal government agencies. By National Atlas of the United States – http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html, “All Federal and Indian Lands”, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32180954

These ‘Traveling Wilburys’ of the #ColoradoRiver are being heard: Everyone agrees that the old rules must be revised. A behind-the-curtain conversation with three of the authors who warn of dangerous proximity to the cliff’s edge — Allen Best (BigPivots.com) #COriver #aridification

Colorado River headwaters-marker. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

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

September 28, 2025

Everyone knows about the Colorado River troubles. Even in the 1990s, the last time the river had enough water to reach the sea, problems were looming. Then came the 21st century with its mixture of severe drought, rising temperatures, and plunging reservoir levels.

You’ve likely read a few of the hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of stories that have been written about these diminishing flows and difficulty of the seven states and 30 tribes who share the river (along with Mexico) in reaching agreement about reduced uses. With a deadline of Nov. 11 looming to reach some basic agreement, the parties have not publicly retreated from their rigid talking points.

An ad hoc group of six Colorado River experts began assembling reports in 2025. They have been dubbed the Traveling Wilburys of the Colorado River Basin. Although several have previously served in various government roles, they report to no specific constituencies now. All save one are affiliated with academic institutions. They have freedom to speak the truth as they see it. They have no direct authority but they do have credibility.

In these white papers, they have consistently argued for the need to recalibrate expectations, to align demands with the water delivered by the shrinking Colorado River. They have not necessarily defined exactly how that is to be done. They argue for a shared burden.

Their position conflicts, to an extent, with the position of the four upper-basin states, who have never fully developed the 7.5 million acre-feet allocated to them in the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and insist that this allocation must be honored. Similarly, lower-basin interests have also continued to assert their rights to river entitlements.

Is this group of six having impact? That is hard to gauge, but observers and participants in Colorado River matters point to at least some small evidence that their thoughts and observations are showing up in take-away messages from meetings.

Big Pivots convened a conversation with several of the report authors on Sept. 18, a week after their latest report had been issued. In that report, (“Analysis of Colorado River Basin Suggests Need for Immediate Action,” Sept. 11, 2025) they took stock of the 24-month report from the Bureau of Reclamation that was issued in late August. That report delivered the numbers that collectively showed dramatically increased risk during the upcoming two years of the dams on the Colorado River becoming dysfunctional.

For reasons of expedience, the conversation was limited to three of the six individuals:

Eric Kuhn, who in 2018 retired from the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District after 22 years as general manager.

  • Eric Kuhn, who in 2018 retired from the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District after 22 years as general manager.
  • Anne Castle, a senior fellow at the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment at the University of Colorado Law School, who was the assistant secretary for water and science at the U.S. Department of Interior from 2009 to 2014 and the U.S. commissioner and chair of the Upper Colorado River Commission from 2022 to 2025. She had practiced water law for many years with Denver-based Holland & Hart.
  • John Fleck, the writer in residence at the Utton Transboundary Resources Center in Albuquerque since 2002 and before that directed the University of New Mexico’s Water Resource Program for five years. He was a journalist in his younger life.

Also contributing to the reports have been:

  • Jack Schmidt, director of the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University, and former chief of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey;
  • Katherine Sorensen, of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University and former director of Phoenix Water Services; and
  • Katherine Tara, staff attorney for Utton Transboundary Resources Center at the University of New Mexico.

The conversation reported below has been tightened considerably and modified slightly to enhance clarity.

The three of you were among six authors of a report issued on September 11 that asked, “How close to the cliff’s edge we are in the Colorado River Basin?” How do you get six people in agreement to an answer for that question? What process do you use to produce these reports?

Eric Kuhn: When you focus on the data, coming to a similar conclusion about the future is actually quite easy. The (Bureau of Reclamation’s) 24-month study from August was out. It suggests that we’re closing in on the cliff. Jack Schmidt was very much involved in the numbers, the technical aspects. The message was easy. Getting agreement on the exact wording requires a little more patience.

John Fleck: Something that makes a process like this work with this group of people is that we all begin with a deeply shared understanding of how the system works and what those numbers mean. We don’t need to spend time learning about reservoir levels and the relationship between Powell and Mead. This is a group of people who already have a shared knowledge. [ed. emphasis mine]

In late May 2022, Lake Powell was declining after another year of low snow and high temperatures. By August, it was 26% full, the lowest it had been since waters had begun backing up behind Glen Canyon Dam in 1967. Photo/Allen Best

Anne Castle: I think we also share an overall goal of seeing a sustainable river system. We think that changes need to be made in an equitable way to match supply and demand, and that’s not happening. We all bring slightly different skills to the table and different experiences, which has improved the end product (the reports).

Fleck: One of the challenges in Colorado River governance is that you have many people who have a great deal of expertise who operate as employees of and advocates for a particular geography, for a particular community, especially those representing community or state water supplies.

Our group acts as citizens of the basin as a whole. Other people also see their role that way, especially folks in the federal government. But we have some freedoms that other people might not have in terms of being able to speak out publicly.

This is a third report since April by the same set of six authors. How did you come together? 

Kuhn: Jack (Schmidt) is with the Center for Colorado River Studies. Jack and I co-authored white papers four and six among Jack’s series. That was now five years ago. Those papers are still very, very good. Because the supply-and-demand issue hasn’t been addressed, they’re still relevant. Jack and Anne go back a long way to when Jack was the head of the Grand Canyon research effort out of Flagstaff and Anne was assistant secretary of Interior. We’ve known each other for a long time. The new one is Katherine Tara, who just graduated a couple years ago from New Mexico law school and is now helping out John. So it was actually a pretty easy get together.

Fleck: We’ve all worked together in sort of twos and threes on books and papers.

Castle: John, Eric, Jack and I were having periodic meetings just to sort of talk through what was going on with the river and what the issues were. We were each doing our independent writing things. Jack and Eric and John had all worked with Katherine (Sorensen, of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University), and we wanted that lower basin expertise that Katherine has in spades.

We started to talk as a six-person group. In the spring, we decided the time was right for us to write something about the next set of guidelines. And that was the instigation for the report that we put out in April. See “Essential Pillars for the Post-2026 Colorado River Guidelines,” April 25, 2025.

All but one of the six of authors of these recent reports live in the upper basin states. I know you say that you do not have affiliations that tie you to a particular point of view. Still, does this tilt toward the upper basin dull some of your effectiveness?

Castle: I think, on the contrary, that the upper basin state principals would say that we tilt toward the lower basin because we haven’t adopted the positions that the upper basin principals have been taking.

Fleck: I have long been criticized here in New Mexico and by folks in the upper basin in general for always taking the side of the lower basin. I was born in California. One of my books was really lower basin focused. So I have a lot of connections and interest in the lower basin. It’s certainly the critique that we’ve received.

Kuhn: I agree. I think John and I wanted to take a basin perspective when we started writing our book (“Science Be Dammed: How Ignoring Inconvenient Science Drained the Colorado River”), but I acknowledge that after working for the Colorado River District for almost 38 years, that I do have an upper basin perspective on many things. In the recent papers, not much. My focus has been the entire basin.

Your reports have been very action oriented, and that is particularly true of this last one, where you call for drastic and immediate action. Are you seeing evidence that your work is having impact?

Castle: It’s getting attention. I don’t know if it’s resulting in action.

Fleck: One of our goals is to move conversations into the public arena that should be held in the public arena rather than in the sort of cloistered spaces in which a lot of Colorado River decision making is conducted. Katherine Tara, the newest member or youngest member of our group, talks about the need for a Colorado River C-SPAN, the need for broader public forums. And I think our work has contributed to forcing some issues and discussions into public.

I want to go back to something that Eric said at the outset. You said that you are of like mind, because you’ve all studied the data, and the data take you to the same conclusions. If that is the case with you having studied the data, what does that say about the broader basin discussion? If everybody has studied the data, should that not take everybody to the same conclusion?

Kuhn: The problem is that all the principals work for a governor or a board or constituents. The six of us all have focused on the data, and I think many, many of the journalists and many of the experts in the basin acknowledge the data. There’s still a culture among the major agencies and the states that supports a system that is unsustainable. We must reduce our uses to match the supply. But they all have constituencies and probably lawyers that tell them this is why it’s everybody else’s responsibility, not mine or not ours. We have yet to crack that culture that the basin must reduce water use — but not me.

Fleck: One of the things important about the book Eric and I wrote is in the title, ignoring inconvenient science, because we have a history in this basin of doing things for political expediency. Looking away from the most unpleasant scientific conclusions about the available water supply makes it easier for political actors to deal with their local and state constituencies. Because it’s hard to go to a community and say, “I’m sorry, there really is less water.” So, the political incentives are not aligned with responding to the science the way we think they should be, which is why we have to say these things that are really hard for a governor or governor’s representative to say.

Castle: Because we’re independent and do not answer to political constituencies, we have the ability and, frankly, the luxury of pointing to wherever the data takes us. The political incentives are almost diametrically opposed to doing the hard things that need to be done to balance what nature is supplying with what we’re using. One of the goals we’re pursuing is to educate a broader community about what the data shows and what conclusions that leads us to. That enables people to advocate to their own representatives for sensible solutions.

Do you have a bigger game plan in mind? Are you being reactive to events or do you have a strategy that goes beyond into like what we do in 2026, for example.

Fleck: Speaking for myself, I believe it is possible for us to continue to have communities that not only survive but thrive with less water if we find reasonable and equitable ways of sharing the burden of the impact of climate change across the entire West. My personal concern is that sort of parochial advocacy creates a winner- loser situation. Some community might win and not have to cut at all; another community could have disastrous cuts. That violates my basic notions of the moral framework that I have for thinking about what I want the future to look like.

Kuhn: My goal in this goes back to what John said about our book, which is paying more attention to the data and the science. We no longer have the luxury of ignoring the data and the science. Doing so will lead to an outcome that our constituents won’t like. We have to get over that hurdle. That has been my goal all along. More reliance on good data-based decision making.

The Rio Grande in New Mexico between Taos and Espanola. Photo/Allen Best

Are there lessons for the seven states in the Colorado River Basin from the recent Rio Grande settlement?

(For background, see the E&E News report on Sept. 2, 2025: “States reach new settlement over Rio Grande.”)

Kuhn: I think so. Going out on a limb, I think the lesson here is that even if there’s litigation in the Colorado River Basin, the negotiations are going to continue. The mediation is going to continue.

My view of this Rio Grande agreement from 30,000 feet and from a long way away was that the court-appointed special master pretty much forced them to reach an agreement. He kept pushing them to reach an agreement. They failed initially (and) at last succeeded.

So I think the lesson is, even if there’s litigation, there’s going to be continued discussions and negotiations. I question whether, without the litigation, New Mexico would have been willing to enter into the agreement that they have entered into. I think that the additional risk of the court case brought New Mexico to the table on several issues, but that’s just my view of it from a long way away.

Castle: A legal lesson learned from the Rio Grande experience is don’t ignore the objections of the feds.

Fleck: A related lesson I have taken is that we have a history of litigation in the Colorado River Basin that was very, very much conflict-based for more than a decade. But the Rio Grande experience shows that, while extremely unpleasant and extremely expensive, it was possible to manage this river. It’s my river, right? I’m in Albuquerque. On the Rio Grande, we’re able to manage this river during the time of litigation. It did force the parties into collaboration and compromise, however ugly and unpleasant the process may have been.

It makes me think litigation on the Colorado River would be a terrible idea. A collaborative solution is much preferred. But I also think that litigation might very well push us toward the collaborative solution anyway. My argument is let’s just do it now (without the expense and the heartache) because ultimately we will end up with the same thing. That is the lesson we might draw from the litigation on the Rio Grande.

A hay meadow along the Colorado River in Middle Park, near Kremmling. Photo/Allen Best

What is the most hopeful thing that you’ve heard or seen in the last year or two in the Colorado River Basin?

Fleck: I have been really impressed with the continued push toward permanent, relatively deep reductions in the Lower Colorado River Basin. They’re consistently coming in well below their 7.5 million acre-feet. They’ve been learning important lessons about how to approach that since the early 2000s when California was using more than 5 (million acre-feet) and had to cut back to 4.4. There’s a lot of built-up experience about how to go about reducing your water use.

And the communities are still thriving. Las Vegas’s water use reductions are stunning. You’re seeing significant reductions in the water flowing down the Central Arizona Project canal and really successful adaptations in the Imperial Valley. Over and over again we are seeing that when people have less water, they use less water, and communities can still thrive.

One thing that bothers me — which I wrote about in my book (“Water is for Fighting Over: And Other Myths about Water in the West”) over a decade ago — is this sort of limbic fear that we get, that a reduction in our water supply means the death of our community. We can, in fact, get by with less water

The significant reductions you’ve seen in the lower basin are clearly not enough. The reservoirs are still dropping. But it shows what is possible.

Castle: The action that I found most surprising and hopeful or constructive was the lower basin’s willingness to own the structural deficit. The lower basin stepped up and said, “we’re not negotiating this. This is what we’re going to do.” I think that was huge and I think it shows that there can be movement that kind of goes against the political expediency.

Kuhn: Another example is that California basically accepted a portion of the shortages. This happened a while ago. This happened back in 2018 or 2019. Under the 1968 law (that authorized the Central Arizona Project), Arizona was to absorb the shortages and not California. They basically realized that that agreement that was made in the ’60s was tying up the lower basin from being able to move forward. California compromised on that, at least for the moment. And I think that this willingness of California to go along with what else has happened in the lower basin shows progress. Where we haven’t made any progress is what I would call the crossing of the Lee Ferry divide. That’s going to take more effort.

Editor’s note: The Colorado River Compact distinguished between the upper basin and the lower basin, creating an artificial dividing line at “Lee Ferry,” a point just below Glen Canyon Dam. George Sibley, a water writer from Gunnison, along with others. have maintained that this artifice creates unnecessary problems. See: “Why not create the Colorado River Compact they wanted in 1922?”Sept. 1, 2025.

Fleck: We’ve just contradicted ourselves here, or at least I’ve contradicted myself. We talked about the political incentives that make it difficult to accept the reality of what the numbers are showing us, but we have just described a situation where, in fact, the political leadership, especially in Arizona, but also in California, and for a long time in Nevada, has been willing to accept this reality.

Partly, it’s just through a lot of long, hard learning, the realization by these communities that we took these steps to use less water. And we’re still okay, you know, we still have water in the fountain at the Bellagio (hotel in Las Vegas). We still have hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of irrigated ag land in the Imperial Valley. There’s less than there used to be, but there’s still a lot. There’s still a robust agricultural economy there. So, in fact, this runs counter to the notion that political incentives always lead you to ignoring convenient science, because there’s clearly evidence to the contrary.

Denver Water gains supplies from tributaries to the Colorado River in Grand County for diversion to metropolitan Denver. Photo/Allen Best

In your papers, you have consistently said that the water rights of the tribal nations must be honored. Can their claims on the river actually be resolved at this juncture? Or is there an irreconcilable conflict?

Castle: There are several reasons we’ve called attention to the Tribal rights. One is historically, Tribal rights and interests haven’t been front and center. The tribes have historically been left out of these kinds of high-level negotiations. But the fundamental reason, in my mind is the tribal water rights are part of the bargain that our federal government made with individual tribes in exchange for the relinquishment of some of their ancestral lands. They were promised a livable homeland. Part of a livable homeland is the amount of water necessary to fulfill the purposes of that land, and that’s a promise of the federal government.

Many tribes have quantified their water rights, so we know exactly how much that promise meant in terms of the amount of water that goes along with their reservation land. And it’s a different animal than all the other kinds of Western water rights. It’s important that we keep that in mind, that it is a different kind of promise. It’s a different kind of property right. And we can’t solve this supply and demand imbalance on the backs of the tribes.

Fleck: Anne talked about a promise made by the federal government. But that’s us. This is our promise. We are the people of this country, the people of the federal government, right? The federal government is a creature of us. This is our promise to those people. It’s not something that we as individuals in this particular state should get in a fight with the federal government over. We made this promise to those people and that’s important. I describe it as a legal and a moral obligation. Respecting the legal obligation is critical to making the books balance. It’s also this moral obligation.

Eric, I have a question for you. I know you have followed climate science very closely over the years. We’ve talked about it from time to time, the current state of the science. How would you describe that? I mean, there’s a lot of uncertainty. What we really don’t know, we can’t know until it happens. Nonetheless, if you were to summarize, what should that tell us about the Colorado River going forward?

Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2024. Credit: Brad Udall

Kuhn: There is a lot of uncertainty, but with time, we’re seeing a narrowing of that uncertainty. We’re in some would say the 25 years of a drought, others would say it started in the late 80s. We’re seeing a very distinct stepwise reduction in flows, natural flows at Lee Ferry, and we’re seeing temperatures increase. We have documented both.

I still think there’s going to be a lot of uncertainty when it comes to what happens in those rare, odd years where we have a real wet winter and you have atmospheric rivers that run into the San Juans or the central Rockies. We could end up with a big year, and that’s all a part of climate science.

But I think the message is pretty clear that it’s unlikely that river flows will return to what we thought there was historically, which was around 14 to 14.5 million acre-feet per year. That’s unlikely. And I know no one in the basin, including the current administration, based on comments from Mr. Cameron (Scott Cameron, acting assistant secretary for water and science, Department of the Interior), who thinks that it’s likely. We’re dealing with the river that we have today, and that means that the uncertainty around the climate science has narrowed, and we sort of understand the future of this river. As long as temperatures keep going up, we’re going to see aridification of the basin.

A final question, if you will abide it, and it’s kind of a big, sweeping question. It strikes me that it’s a really interesting journey that all three of you have been on during this shift in attitudes in the Colorado River Basin. I remember going to the Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas maybe 15 years ago, and there were people from Los Angeles or wherever who were kind of dubious. This was drought. This wasn’t climate change. We don’t have to have fundamental change. That (attitude) has clearly dissipated. My question has to do with what has not changed. How have attitudes NOT changed?

Kuhn: People are still going to be very reluctant to give up what they believe was their entitlement. They’ll compromise; they’ll reach agreements. But Colorado, which is among the leaders when it comes to the public’s acknowledgement of the issues related with climate change, has yet to say we’re going to sacrifice any portion of our theoretical entitlement. But we all have to give up some of those theoretical claims. So the culture is still “protect our entitlement,” even though that entitlement was based on data and science that are no longer valid. Just the word entitlement is indicative of the problem.

Castle: A component of that problem is the failure to recognize that while I have a perfectly good legal argument about why I have this entitlement, there are other perfectly good legal arguments about why I don’t, and we haven’t made huge steps toward acknowledging that. There are lots of legal arguments and lots of good ones, but they can’t all carry the day. Like John says, there’s not enough water for all the lawyers to be right.

What remains of the Colorado River as it enters Mexico is diverted to the farm fields near Mexicali. Farther south, near San Luis Rio Colorado, this is what the riverbed looked like in February 2017. Photo/Allen Best
Music video by The Traveling Wilburys performing Handle With Care. (C) 2007 T. Wilbury Limited. Exclusively Licensed to Concord Music Group, Inc. http://vevo.ly/LGLafI

As #ColoradoRiver negotiations near a critical deadline, a new way of looking at risk is revealing hard choices — Matt Jenkins (WaterEducation.org) #COriver #aridification

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

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Foundation website (Matt Jenkins):

September 25, 2025

Western Water in-depth: After a thwarted quest to better predict the effects of drought and climate change, federal water managers are taking a radically different approach

After four years of contentious negotiations, the seven states that rely on water from the Colorado River are racing against the clock to reach agreement on a new long-term operating strategy for the river’s dams and reservoirs. They face a Nov. 11 deadline from U.S. Interior Department officials to signal whether they think a deal among them is likely.

This is a high-stakes moment on the Colorado: Some 40 million people, 5.5 million acres of farmland and a $1.4 trillion economy depend on water from the river. But the double whammy of climate change and a now-quarter-century-long drought has strained relationships between the seven states that share the dwindling river.

Over the past two decades, scientists, engineers and water managers have invested tremendous effort in trying to deduce what the future might bring. They have used reconstructions of climate patterns stretching more than 1,200 years into the past to understand natural variability, and turned to global models to better grasp the potential impacts of climate change.

A key player in the effort has been the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which is primarily responsible for operating the massive dam-and-reservoir system on the Colorado River. Its in-house research and computer modeling team has played a crucial role in bringing new science about climate variability and change to Colorado River water managers.

Even with that, though, water managers have been repeatedly blindsided after conditions on the river proved even worse than predicted. Two earlier rounds of negotiations, dating back to 2005, yielded a pair of “interim” operating agreements to help the states weather the drought. But the river’s flow has continued to deteriorate so rapidly that water managers have found themselves stuck in a perpetual scramble to buy themselves time before the river enters an all-out crisis.

“The policies weren’t robust enough, and we were in this Band-Aid mode,” says Carly Jerla, who heads Reclamation’s long-term planning process and was previously a leader on the research and modeling team. Everyone, she says, realized that “we need something else.”

As a result, Reclamation has quietly abandoned the effort to rely on best guesses about the river’s future via traditional modeling methods. Now, it’s bringing a radically different style of thinking to the negotiating table: Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty, or DMDU.

The approach focuses on testing out operating strategies, with the help of artificial intelligence, that perform well against a far wider range of possible hydrologic scenarios than has ever been considered before — some of which no one on the river may anticipate or even be able to imagine. DMDU gives water managers a way to see how well their ideas fare, and to better understand how, and why, they might fail.

Scrambling to Stay Ahead of the Curve

Reclamation’s research and modeling team is based in Boulder, Colo., and works out of a nondescript University of Colorado building tucked between a city bus depot and an Audi dealership a mile from campus. The Reclamation team shares an office with the university’s Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental Systems (CADSWES), which developed the software system used to model the Colorado.

The downstream face of Glen Canyon Dam, which forms Lake Powell, America’s second-largest water reservoir. Water is released from the reservoir through a hydropower generation system at the base of the dam. Photo by Brian Richter

Reclamation’s collaboration with CADSWES began in the mid-1990s, and was initially led by Terry Fulp, who would go on to serve as the agency’s regional director for the Lower Colorado River Basin. CADSWES provided modeling know-how, but it also served as a pipeline of talented grad students that its director, Professor Edie Zagona, would send Fulp’s way. Many of the most promising candidates wound up working for Fulp’s team, which operated with relative autonomy within Reclamation’s larger hierarchy.

“We kind of flew under the radar,” says Fulp, who retired in 2020. “We had a little bit of a notion that we were special. But we also didn’t want to be too special.”

As the team took shape, trouble was brewing on the river. The 1922 Colorado River Compact, which initially allocated the river’s water between the states, was based on an assumption that average annual flows on the river were 16.4 million acre-feet per year. Over the past century, however, that number has decreased by approximately 20 percent.

A dramatic wakeup call came in 2002, two years after the drought first took hold. Inflows to Lake Powell, one of the two main reservoirs on the river, were only about 25 percent of average, and water managers had the unnerving realization that the world might be changing in ways they couldn’t predict.

“We were walking into a complete unknown,” says Pat Mulroy, who at the time was the head of the Las Vegas-based Southern Nevada Water Authority. “You have to assume that a 2002 runoff is not an anomaly, but that it’s going to happen again, and it’s going to happen with greater frequency.”

In 2005, governors’ representatives from the seven states began to negotiate an operating strategy they hoped would give them a way to ride out the deepening drought. But they were treading into delicate territory.

Legal Minefields and Flawed Crystal Balls

The Colorado River is governed by a complex series of rules laid out not just by the Colorado River Compact, but by an amalgamation of subsequent laws, treaties, agreements and court decisions that are collectively known as the “law of the river.” That has set up fundamental tensions over how the river’s water is divided not just between individual states, but also — because of the Compact’s legal structure — between the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico and the Lower Basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada, as well as the U.S. and Mexico, which has its own share of the river’s water.

The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S. states and part of Mexico. Lake Powell, upstream from the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, near Las Vegas, are the two principal reservoirs in the Colorado River water-supply system. (Bureau of Reclamation)

Numerous legal minefields lurk within the law of the river, ambiguous provisions about which various states deeply disagree. Among the thorniest are: What is the Upper Basin’s precise obligation to provide water to the Lower Basin downstream? What are the relative responsibilities of the Upper and Lower basins in ensuring that Mexico receives its legal entitlement to water? How does water that the Lower Basin uses from local tributaries factor into its Compact entitlement?

The negotiating effort that began in 2005 was an attempt to find creative ways to survive the drought while staying within the boundaries of the Compact. By avoiding those legal minefields, the states could capitalize on areas of mutual flexibility to meet everyone’s needs — or at least get as close as possible.

To figure out how to make it work, the states’ representatives and their technical support staff began relying on Reclamation’s research and modeling team in Boulder to calculate the probabilities of success or failure for various options they were considering. In 2007, the negotiating effort yielded a set of “interim guidelines” for Colorado River operations that would remain in effect until 2026.

During that process, Fulp and his colleagues had started using tree-ring based reconstructions of past climate history, together with computer projections of the possible impacts of climate change, to get a clearer sense of the future. But as the effort went on, the team’s members realized they had a problem: The results from the global climate models weren’t squaring with what they saw playing out in real time.

“The climate change projections in the Colorado didn’t map up with what we’ve been experiencing the last 10, 15, 20 years,” says Alan Butler, a research and modeling group chief on Reclamation’s Boulder team. “There was a disconnect.”

That disconnect only seemed to be getting worse. One set of climate projections, for instance, suggested that future flows on the Colorado could range from less than five million acre-feet a year to more than 45 million — twice as much water as came down the river in 1983 in a massive flood that nearly tore apart Glen Canyon Dam.

“That’s just a massive range,” says Nolie Templeton, a senior policy analyst for Central Arizona Project, which supplies water to cities like Phoenix and Tucson, as well as tribes. “If you get a five-million-acre-foot river, you’re going to be planning and adapting significantly differently than if the dam gets blown out because it’s 45.”

Jim Prairie, the other research and modeling group chief on Reclamation’s Boulder team, recalls a warning he got from a respected climate modeler in 2009: Global climate models are research, not decision-making tools. They were never intended to provide the kind of probability-based projections that water managers so desperately needed.

The team began to back off from its pursuit of long-term probabilities and search for a better approach.

Learning to Navigate Uncertainty 

Humans are practically hardwired to look to past experience to anticipate what the future might hold. Yet the world is changing in ways that our lived experience is ill-suited to help us comprehend. Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty is a broad conceptual approach to addressing that problem.

Robert Lempert is a principal researcher at the RAND Corporation, the Santa Monica-based think tank that made its name devising Cold War nuclear deterrence strategy for the military. He’s also one of the intellectual pioneers of DMDU, a concept that’s being increasingly applied to long-term policy and planning challenges where future conditions are tough to predict. DMDU has been used in fields ranging from infrastructure, energy and transportation planning to public health and global security, and has helped cut airlines’ fuel costs and carbon emissions, formulate pandemic responses and analyze the effectiveness of the federal government’s terrorism risk insurance program.

It is particularly suited to situations where decision makers cannot reach consensus about future conditions or when traditional forecasting methods prove inadequate — exactly the problem that Reclamation’s team found itself facing with the climate models.

“What the climate models really give us,” Lempert says, “is overwhelming scientific evidence that the stable planning environment we built the system on has disintegrated.”

Rather than trying to make a best guess about what’s probable, DMDU is laser focused on what’s possible. A DMDU analysis typically starts by generating a wide range of possible future scenarios — or, in the case of a river, future flows. Policy makers can then test potential operating strategies to see which perform reasonably well, or are most robust, against that range. Based on those results, the operating strategies can then be refined to make them even stronger.

Carly Jerla heads Reclamation’s long-term planning process for the Colorado River. (Water Education Foundation)

The process can also be used to identify vulnerabilities in the system and flag them with “signposts.” If system conditions begin approaching those danger zones, the people who depend on them can take up the challenge of devising contingency plans, or damage-control efforts, to stave off a descent into a full-blown water-supply crisis. Navigating those hazardous areas requires difficult choices, but flagging them up front — even if decision makers defer action on them to only when they absolutely have to be dealt with — allows for crucial wiggle room: They can still take some action in the face of uncertainty, even as they punt the really difficult questions to the future.

Lempert and other RAND researchers led much of DMDU’s conceptual development, and they occasionally crossed paths — and exchanged business cards — with members of Reclamation’s Boulder team. Then in 2009, when the team’s members began work on the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, a comprehensive look at the river’s next 50 years, they realized they needed help.

“We found ourselves buried in data,” says Jerla, who has headed the team since 2010. “And we were like, ‘Anyone got those RAND guys’ numbers to come dig us out of this mess?’”

A Brave New World

Even after the seven states reached agreement on the 2007 interim guidelines, the rapidly changing realities of the river forced them into a near-constant series of ongoing negotiations. In 2012, the Reclamation team brought RAND representatives to the meetings to familiarize the states’ technical staff with DMDU.

University of Colorado professors Edie Zagona and Joseph Kasprzyk have played a crucial role in Reclamation’s effort to bring advanced modeling and decision-making techniques to the Colorado River. (Water Education Foundation)

That effort — at least initially — wasn’t exactly a smashing success. The states’ water managers were flummoxed by RAND researchers expounding on abstract concepts from the world of decision science. And, Jerla says with a laugh, “I don’t know that any of usreally even understood what was happening.”

The partnership between Reclamation and RAND wound down after the Water Supply and Demand Study concluded. But the Reclamation team continued working to incorporate DMDU techniques into its research and modeling.

At Reclamation’s behest, Zagona, University of Colorado professor Joseph Kasprzyk and others on the CADSWES team took the Colorado River model and married it with an AI tool called a “multi-objective evolutionary algorithm” developed at Penn State. The algorithm — somewhat ominously named Borg — is a sort of computational supercharger that can create many potential operating strategies, test them out in the river model, and sort through them to find the ones that perform best.

Glen Canyon Dam has four bypass tubes, also referred to as river outlet works (ROWs) that can draw water from Lake Powell around elevation 3,370 feet, bypassing the powerplant and sending the water downstream.

In 2016, the Reclamation team began exploratory work with the Borg-enhanced software to see what it could do. The following year, Kasprzyk, Zagona and a graduate student named Elliot Alexander — who would quickly be hired on with the Reclamation team — used the augmented modeling package to find an operating strategy for Lake Mead, the other main reservoir on the Colorado, that outperformed the one the states had painstakingly negotiated for the 2007 interim guidelines.

But the operation of Lake Mead is just one, albeit very important, variable in the complex Colorado River system. The potential beauty of Borg was that it can combine many policy variables to identify strategies that perform well across multiple objectives in a wide range of hydrologic scenarios.

There’s a catch, however: Multi-objective strategies, practically by definition, demand constant compromise. Keeping the water level in Lake Powell as high as possible, for example, improves the odds of being able to continue generating hydropower at Glen Canyon Dam. But it simultaneously limits water deliveries to the downstream states of California, Arizona and Nevada, among other tradeoffs.

Still, Borg offered a little more. The “evolutionary” part of the algorithm gave it the ability to essentially breed well-performing operating strategies with each other — and even artificially induce mutations — to create new approaches that might perform even better.  

Yet Borg sometimes showed a naughty streak.

“It would find a lot of mathematical solutions that maybe were optimal for a certain metric,” says Butler. “But then you’d look at them and you’d think: ‘That’s just absurd.’”

Rebecca Smith is Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Basin research and modeling team lead. (Photo courtesy of Rebecca Smith)

In one test, the team set Borg loose on a mission to minimize the frequency of water shortages over a 30-year model run. The algorithm diligently avoided implementing water-delivery cuts for as many years as possible, until Lake Mead dropped so low that water could not be released from the reservoir, resulting in a sudden, six-million-acre-foot cut to California, Arizona and Nevada — an amount roughly equal to those three states’ entire annual Colorado River water use.

Ultimately, both Reclamation and the state and local water managers would end up using Borg not to generate specific strategies for consideration, but to test strategies of their own devising. But the exploratory work with Borg helped create a virtual anvil on which they could hammer out their own strategies and see how they compared with the bigger world of possibilities — even though some of those might be absurd.

“Borg created this dartboard where, if we’re throwing darts, at least we know where they land,” says Rebecca Smith, Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Basin research and modeling team lead. “Without having that, we’re just saying: ‘I guess this is good’ — but we don’t know how much better we could do.”

Translating Science into Action

Meanwhile, the clock was ticking on the Colorado River. After six grueling years of negotiations, the states reached agreement in 2019 on a Drought Contingency Plan that added to the interim guidelines. But the entire package of agreements was set to expire in just another six years. And so, in 2021, the state negotiating teams started meeting informally again to develop what, after a decade and a half of workarounds, they hoped would be a longer-term operating strategy.

Nathan Bonham of Reclamation’s research and modeling team has played a key part in helping the agency refine its analyses of robustness and vulnerability on the Colorado River. (Water Education Foundation)

While that was happening, the Reclamation team tasked Nathan Bonham, a newly arrived University of Colorado doctoral student who would also eventually be hired by Reclamation, with refining the methods used to assess system vulnerabilities and the robustness of potential operating strategies. That work led to a public web tool, designed in collaboration with CADSWES and consulting firm Virga Labs, that would put the DMDU-inspired upgraded software package into the hands of the negotiating teams as well as water agencies and anyone else, like tribes and environmental groups, with an interest in the river’s future.

The effort to develop the web tool reached a blistering pace over six months in 2023. Smith and H.B. Zeff, another Reclamation engineer at the time, would upload massive numbers of simulations to Microsoft’s cloud of high-performance Azure computers and remotely babysit the models as they ran, only to discover that the computers were rebooting themselves to install updates in the middle of the night.   

Despite such glitches, the upgraded software package went online in November 2023, just as the negotiating effort to develop a post-2026 operating strategy was kicking into high gear. Now, water users had a way to test the strategies they were considering against 8,400 possible hydrologic scenarios.

One of the biggest challenges is presenting such complex data in a way that allows negotiators to compare the tradeoffs between various operating strategies.

“I can crunch the numbers all day long,” says Bonham, “but there’s a whole other element of how do you present it visually?”

In the web tool, each strategy under consideration can be displayed on an interactive parallel-axis chart. To a first-time user, the charts look like twisted skeins of yarn on a loom gone haywire. But with familiarity over time, they become a window into possibility.

A web tool allows users to see tradeoffs between the “performance objectives” of various operational strategies, such as keeping water levels higher in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, minimizing water shortages to the Lower Basin states and maintaining conditions that will prevent invasive small mouth bass from entering the Grand Canyon. (Bureau of Reclamation)

Users of the web tool can adjust the relative importance of various “performance objectives”: water levels at lakes Mead and Powell; water releases from the Upper Basin downstream to the Lower Basin; potential water cuts to Lower Basin states; favorable conditions for native fish in the Grand Canyon. Then, at least theoretically, they can find strategies that help them meet the goals they most care about without adversely affecting the objectives of other users, whose buy-in they need for a real-world agreement.

The web tool’s vulnerability analyses also help identify the danger zones — like low river flows below which problems start to occur at particular points in the system — that would necessitate more extensive damage-control efforts.

“That puts some numerical context around it,” Prairie says, “to track not just a feeling, but actually a level of flow that the analysis shows is a point where you start to see failure.”

DMDU’s ability to accurately flag those hazards could also potentially help water managers better respond when conditions start getting really bad.

“If we can understand where (an operating strategy) falls short, and have also seen what is more effective if things get worse,” says Smith, “then we are more prepared to adapt.”

Crunch Time for a Deal

The governors’ representatives are now racing to meet the Nov. 11 deadline to notify the Interior Department whether they’re likely to reach agreement on a post-2026 operating strategy. Reclamation’s Boulder team has been busy helping them with on-the-spot modeling work.

The Central Arizona Project canal cuts through Phoenix. Photo credit: Ted Wood/The Water Desk

For water managers, DMDU is proving to be a mixed blessing — or a double-edged sword. It is helping illuminate and more quantitively delineate the hazardous areas in the river’s future. But it’s also pushing hard questions to the fore.

“It’s a totally different way to think about risk,” says Central Arizona’s Project’s Templeton. “Just by exploring all these potentials, we’re understanding that there are critical thresholds in our future that should prompt some decision-making. That definitely has resonated within our agency.”

The catch, she says, is that DMDU doesn’t provide an unequivocal path through those decisions; it only illuminates the tradeoffs.

“The DMDU approach doesn’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to any of those,” she says. “It’s always: ‘It depends.’”

The algorithm is not going to find a super-strategy for the future — at least not one that all seven states can agree to.

“I think many people like the idea of being able to have a magic strategy. But on the ground, it’s not that simple,” says Laura Lamdin, a senior engineer with the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies urban Southern California. “Having the ability to quickly test a bunch of ideas as you try and incorporate some out-of-the-box thinking is valuable to creating those more handcrafted strategies.”

In the end, DMDU’s real utility may not lie in delivering miracle fixes, but simply in helping water managers better understand the ramifications of their decisions.

The negotiators for the states may be able to reach agreement on a less-than-perfect plan that still gives them the flexibility to deal with tougher questions as they arise. In fact, it seems likely that any operating strategy the states can agree on will follow the incremental approach they’ve taken so far. If that turns out to be true, DMDU could help bring a better-informed style of incrementalism to the effort to work through the problems on the river.

In that mode of problem-solving, the danger zones are critical. In one sense, they are the perilous realms where water gets really tight. Yet they also mark the legal minefields that the states have so carefully steered clear of throughout the negotiations since 2005.

“One of the big problems is there’s a lot of the Compact questions that have been put off for many, many, many years,” says J.B. Hamby, the California governor’s representative in the negotiations. “We’ve continued to dance around them — and (now) here we are dealing with them, but with really bad hydrology, which then puts these core questions to the test.”

Paradoxically, as punishing as the entire two-decade-long negotiating process has been, it has spurred an era of innovation on the river, opening the door to more flexible reservoir operations and what has grown to be a massive water banking and transfer program.  

Viewed more optimistically, then, DMDU’s ability to mark the danger zones in a post-2026 operating strategy might also reveal places where there could be new opportunities for the states to cut even more of the incremental deals they’ve managed to make between themselves so far.

Tough Choices Lie Ahead

Still, nearly everyone at the negotiating table acknowledges that a hard reality lies behind all of this. Annual water use throughout the Colorado River Basin currently exceeds inflows by at least 3.6 million acre-feet. The only way to make the numbers work over the long term — to truly make the Colorado River system robust against a future in which the only certainty is that there will be far less water — is to reduce the total amount of water used throughout the entire basin.

The white “bathtub ring” behind Hoover Dam shows the decline in Lake Mead levels since the beginning of the Millennium Drought. (Bureau of Reclamation)

Depending on how big they are, water cuts could have enormous economic impacts. In fact, the biggest point of contention in the negotiation of the post-2026 operating guidelines is which states would take cuts, and how big they’d be. In 2024, California, Arizona and Nevada committed to collectively reducing their use by 1.25 million acre-feet a year — 20 percent of what they used that year — and proposed splitting additional cuts with the Upper Basin and Mexico up to a total of 3.9 million acre-feet.

For their part, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico have, at least publicly, been adamant about not taking any cuts. They argue that, without any large upstream reservoirs backstopping their water supplies, they’ve already been disproportionately affected by drought and climate change — and, because they’ve grown slower than their downstream counterparts, they’re still entitled to water under the Compact that they haven’t yet put to use. 

Breaking through that stalemate is the key challenge negotiators now face, and by most accounts their prospects for doing so are dim. But regardless of whether they can resolve that impasse by November, the really hard questions may be coming sooner rather than later.

The research and modeling team’s analyses suggest that when the Colorado River’s 10-year average annual flow dips into the 12- to 13-million acre-foot range, a lot of things start going wrong. As it happens, the river’s flows over the past five years have fallen squarely within that range. And in September, an independent group of Colorado River experts released an analysisshowing that, without immediate reductions in water use, the amount of “realistically accessible storage” in Lake Powell and Lake Mead could essentially be exhausted by early 2027.     

The 21st century Colorado River is a world of inescapable tradeoffs, and DMDU is, at root, a search for the least-bad strategy to which everyone can agree. But, Smith says, that kind of compromise comes with a big question: “Are we prepared to deal with the realities of whatever gets chosen?”

“That’s the thing about DMDU,” she adds. “It shifts when you have to make the call — but you do still have to make a call.”


Reach Writer Matt Jenkins at mjenkins@watereducation.org

Know someone who wants to stay connected to water in the West? Encourage them to sign up for Western Water and follow us on LinkedInX (formerly Twitter)Facebook and Instagram.

The dismantling of the Forest Service: President Trump’s administration plans would remake the agency and public lands. The deadline to comment is September 30, 2025 — Jonathan P. Thompson (High Country News)

Welcome to the Landline, a monthly newsletter from High Country News about land, water, wildlife, climate and conservation in the Western United States. Sign up to get it in your inbox.

Click the link to read the article on the High Country News website (Jonathan P. Thompson):

September 23, 2025

In the 1880s, giant cattle companies turned thousands of cattle out to graze on the “public domain” — i.e., the Western lands that had been stolen from Indigenous people and then opened up for white settlement. In remote southeastern Utah, this coincided with a wave of settlement by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The region’s once-abundant grasslands and lush mountain slopes were soon reduced to denuded wastelands etched with deep flash-flood-prone gullies. Cattlemen fought, sometimes violently, over water and range.

North American Indian regional losses 1850 thru 1890.

The local citizenry grew sick and tired of it, sometimes literally: At one point, sheep feces contaminated the water supply of the town of Monticello and led to a typhoid outbreak that killed 11 people. Yet there was little they could do, since there were few rules on the public domain and fewer folks with the power to enforce them.

That changed in 1891, when Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act, which authorized the president to place some unregulated tracts under “judicious control,” thereby mildly restraining extractive activities in the name of conservation. In 1905, the Forest Service was created as a branch of the U.S. Agriculture Department to oversee these reserves, and Gifford Pinchot was chosen to lead it. And a year later, the citizens of southeastern Utah successfully petitioned the Theodore Roosevelt administration to establish forest reserves in the La Sal and Abajo Mountains.

Manti-La Sal National Forest in the La Sal Mountains, Utah. The mountains have been managed by the U.S. Forest Service since 1906. Luna Anna Archey/High Country News

Since then, the Forest Service has gone through various metamorphoses, shifting from stewarding and conserving forests for the future to supplying the growing nation with lumber to managing forests for multiple uses and then to the ecosystem management era, which began in the 1990s. Throughout all these shifts, however, it has largely stayed true to Pinchot and his desire to conserve forests and their resources for future generations. 

But now, the Trump administration is eager to begin a new era for the agency and its public lands, with a distinctively un-Pinchot-esque structure and a mission that maximizes resource production and extraction while dismantling the administrative state and its role as environmental protector. Over the last nine months, the administration has issued executive orders calling for expanded timber production and rescinding the 2001 Roadless Ruledeclared “emergency” situations that enable it to bypass regulations on nearly 60% of the public’s forests, and proposed slashing the agency’s operations budget by 34%.

Forest Service lands declared as “emergency” situations this year, which includes nearly 60% of the nation’s forests. Credit: U.S. Forest Service

The most recent move, which is currently open to public comment, involves a proposal by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to radically overhaul the entire U.S. Department of Agriculture. Its stated purposes are to ensure that the agency’s “workforce aligns with financial resources and priorities,” and to consolidate functions and eliminate redundancy. This will include moving at least 2,600 of the department’s 4,600 Washington, D.C., employees to five hub locations, with only two in the West: Salt Lake City, Utah, and Fort Collins, Colorado. (The others will be in North Carolina, Missouri and Indiana.) The goal, according to Rollins’ memorandum, is to “bring the USDA closer to its customers.” The plan is reminiscent of Trump’s first-term relocation of the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters to Grand Junction, Colorado, in 2019. That relocation resulted in a de facto agency housecleaning; many senior staffers chose to resign or move to other agencies, and only a handful of workers ended up in the Colorado office, which shared a building with oil and gas companies.

Though Rollins’ proposal is aimed at decentralizing the department, it would effectively re-centralize the Forest Service by eliminating its nine regional offices, six of which are located in the West. Each regional forester oversees dozens of national forests within their region, providing budget oversight, guiding place-specific implementation of national-level policies, and facilitating coordination among the various forests.

Rollins’ memo does not explain why the regional offices are being axed, or what will happen to the regional foresters’ positions and their functions, or how the change will affect the agency’s chain of command. When several U.S. senators asked Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden for more specifics, he responded that “decisions pertaining to the agency’s structure and the location of specialized personnel will be made after” the public comment period ends on Sept. 30. Curiously, the administration’s forest management strategy, published in May, relies on regional offices to “work with the Washington Office to develop tailored strategies to meet their specific timber goals.” Now it’s unclear that either the regional or Washington offices will remain in existence long enough to carry this out.

The administration has been far more transparent about its desire to return the Forest Service to its timber plantation era, which ran from the 1950s through the ’80s. During that time, logging companies harvested 10 billion to 12 billion board-feet per year from federal forests, while for the last 25 years, the annual number has hovered below 3 billion board-feet. Now, Trump, via his Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production order, plans to crank up the annual cut to 4 billion board-feet by 2028. This will be accomplished — in classic Trumpian fashion — by declaring an “emergency” on national forest lands that will allow environmental protections and regulations, including the National Environmental Protection Act, Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, to be eased or bypassed.

Logging operations in Coconino National Forest, Arizona, in 1957. Credit: U.S. Forest Service

In April, Rollins issued a memorandum doing just that, declaring that the threat of wildfires, insects and disease, invasive species, overgrown forests, the growing number of homes in the wildland-urban interface and more than a century of rigorous fire suppression have contributed to what is now “a full-blown wildfire and forest health crisis.”

Emergency determinations aren’t limited to Trump and friends; in 2023, the Biden administration identified almost 67 million acres of national forest lands as being under a high or very high fire risk, thus qualifying as an “emergency situation” under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Rollins, however, vastly expanded the “emergency situation” acreage to almost 113 million acres, or 59% of all Forest Service lands. This allows the agency to use streamlined environmental reviews and “expedited” tribal consultation time frames to “carry out authorized emergency actions,” ranging from commercial harvesting of damaged trees to removing “hazardous fuels” to reconstructing existing utility lines. Meanwhile, the administration has announced plans to consolidate all federal wildfire fighting duties under the Interior Department. This would completely zero out the Forest Service’s $2.4 billion wildland fire management budget, sowing even more confusion and chaos.

The administration also plans to slash staff and budgets in other parts of the agency, further compromising its ability to carry out its mission. The so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE, fired about 3,400 Forest Service employees, or more than 10% of the agency’s total workforce, earlier this year. And the administration has proposed cutting the agency’s operations budget, which includes salaries, by 34% in fiscal year 2026, which will most likely necessitate further reductions in force. It would also cut the national forest system and capital improvement and maintenance budgets by 21% and 48% respectively.

The goal, it seems, is to cripple the agency with both direct and indirect blows. The result, if the administration succeeds, will be a diminished Forest Service that would be unrecognizable to Gifford Pinchot.

Gifford Pinchot portrait via the Forest History Society

Big Tech invades #Nevada’s power grid (and desert): Data Center Watch; President Trump Ticker; Messing with Maps — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org)

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

September 23, 2025

🤖 Data Center Watch 👾

Last week, Jeff Brigger, an executive with NV Energy, Nevada’s largest utility — and a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary — told a gathering in Las Vegas that tech firms are asking the utility to supply up to 22,000 megawatts of electricity to support planned data centers.

That is an insanely enormous amount of generation capacity. It’s about two-and-a-half times NV Energy’s current peak demand of 9,000 MW, according to a Las Vegas Review-Journal story. It’s enough to power about 11 million homes. And it’s equivalent to the generating capacity of five Palo Verde generating stations, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant.

Brigger noted, correctly, that these are “unprecedented times” before going on to say that the utility is “excited to serve this load.” I bet they are. Not only does it mean selling a hell of a lot more of their product, but it will also require investing in new infrastructure in a massive way, for which they can then recover the costs, with a profit, from all of their ratepayers. Warren Buffet’s about to get even richer — so long as power line-sparked wildfires don’t drain his utilities of all their cash.

To its credit, NV Energy has largely moved away from coal generation, shutting down its heavily polluting Reid Gardner plant near Moapa and replacing it with battery storage and solar. It is in the process of shutting down its North Valmy coal plant, too, but instead of tearing it down, the utility will convert it to run on natural gas, adding to its already substantial fleet of the fossil fuel-burning facilities. It’s likely that a portion of that requested 22,000 MW will come from new methane-fired plants.

But a great deal of the new capacity will also come from solar power. NV Energy is currently constructing the $4.2-billion Greenlink West transmission line between Las Vegas and Reno. And it is seeking Bureau of Land Management approval for its Greenlink North line that will run along Highway 50, also known as the Loneliest Road in America. These lines will open up hundreds of square miles of public land to utility-scale solar development, with most or all of the power going to data centers in the Reno and Las Vegas areas.

Proposed path of the Greenlink North transmission project. Credit: BLM

Look, I’d much rather see a solar or wind facility than a coal or natural gas plant. No matter how you figure it, the environmental and human health toll from burning fossil fuels is far greater than solar or wind power. A solar plant doesn’t spew sulfur dioxide and mercury and arsenic into the air (and bodies of those nearby); nor will it explode catastrophically, as a natural gas pipeline did this week in southern Wyoming, damaging a freight train and sending up flames visible from Colorado. Coal mining and natural gas extraction often occurs on public lands, damaging the ecosystem, fragmenting wildlife habitat, and polluting the water.

So it’s one thing when a new giant solar installation leads to a fossil fuel generator being retired. Yet the Big Data Center Buildup’s energy needs are so high that utilities end up deferring coal and gas plant retirements, building more gas plants, and carpeting public lands with solar. As the Center for Biological Diversity’s Patrick Donnelly put it in an email: “Turns out the destruction of the desert for renewable energy isn’t about displacing fossil fuels, it’s about feeding the big tech machine.”

Of course, at this point it’s anyone’s guess whether those solar and wind installations are ultimately built. While some are already under development in Nevada along the Greenlink West line, the Greenlink North line has yet to garner BLM approval. And since it is intended to carry primarily solar-generated electrons, it could face added scrutiny from the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” wiped out federal tax credits for solar and wind, making new developments less feasible.

It’s somewhat surprising that data centers continue to flock to the Las Vegas area given the water constraints. Nevada has butted up against the limits of its 300,000 acre-feet (down to 279,000 under current restrictions) Colorado River allotment for years. That has forced the Southern Nevada Water Authority to crack down on water consumption by banning new lawns, limiting pool sizes, and putting a moratorium on commercial and industrial evaporative cooling systems like those used by many data centers in arid regions.

As long as the moratorium stays in place — a Nevada lawmaker unsuccessfully tried to ban the ban this year — it will force new data centers in the Vegas-area to use less water-intensive, but more energy-intensive, cooling methods1. Still, the Las Vegas data centers that began operating prior to the 2023 ban use a lot of water: more than 716 million gallons, or about 2,200 acre-feet2, in 2024, according to Las Vegas Valley Water data obtained and reported by the Review-Journal.

It’s a bit overwhelming, especially since it all came on so fast. I looked back through the news and noticed that just five years ago talk about data centers’ energy and water use was confined to a few cryptocurrency miners setting up shop in rural Washington to take advantage of cheap hydropower. While the impact was big locally, it wasn’t yet throwing utilities’ long-term plans into disarray. But here we are.

Stopping the Big Data Center Buildup may not be possible. But there are ways to mitigate the impacts, and the Great Basin Water Network has some good ideas for doing so.

***

In other data center news, the Doña Ana County commissioners voted 4-1 to approve tax incentives for Project Jupiter, a proposed $165 billion data center campus in Santa Teresa in the southeastern corner of New Mexico. Once again it’s a situation in which the community and region need the economic benefits and diversity the campus offered, but which is also short on water. As such, it sparked both opposition and support.

New Mexico journalist Heath Haussamen has the most in-depth rundown in a series of stories at haussamen.com.


🤯 Trump Ticker 😱

You may wonder why a place would try to lure, welcome, or even allow data centers into their communities, given their hefty resource consumption.

Sometimes they don’t: Tucson’s city council recently rejected a proposed data center after local residents raised concerns about water and power use and a lack of transparency. (The developers re-upped their proposal for a site outside the city, but opponents aren’t backing down).

The answer, as is often the case, is for the economic shot in the arm they offer. These sprawling facilities each create hundreds of construction jobs, which offer relatively high wages (even if they are short lived). Then they need employees to operate the centers (although not nearly as many). And they pay property taxes.

Right now, Las Vegas and Nevada as a whole seem to need a little help, given that they are one of the nation’s biggest victims of Trumponomics. Visitor volume to Las Vegas was down 11% in June and 12% in July compared to the same months in 2024, with hotel occupancy rates also taking a big hit. The state has lost 600 federal government jobs since Trump took office. And it has shed a whopping 7,300 construction jobs since January. Ouch.

On a similar note, Wyoming’s mining and logging sector shed about 1,000 jobs since January, a 6% drop. That’s surprising, given that this includes coal and uranium miners and oil and gas workers, who are supposed to be the main beneficiaries of Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda. Go figure.

🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭

Here’s one more from the USGS’s Guidebook of the western United States: Part E – The Denver & Rio Grande Western route, published in 1922. This map shows a segment of the Wasatch Front in Utah. I’ve also included a Google Earth image of the same area now. It’s remarkable to me because back then Salt Lake City was a small city that stood on its own; now it’s surrounded by a sea of sprawl. Salt Lake was a bit bigger then (or rather, the lake level was higher than it was when the Google Earth image was made; when the map was made in 1909 it was 4,203 feet, now it’s about 13 feet lower). And Bingham Canyon still was a canyon, with little towns in it, rather than the gaping hole known as the Bingham Canyon copper mine.

U.S. Representative Paul Gosar looks to eliminate two #Arizona national monuments: Plus — Mining Monitor, Hydrocarbon Hoedown, Messing with Maps — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org)

Rock fins jutting up at the south foot of the Henry Mountains laccolith in southern Utah. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

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

September 19, 2025

🌵 Public Lands 🌲

For the most part, President Donald Trump has done everything we feared the candidate would do and then some: following Project 2025 to a T, gutting environmental and public health protections, shredding the First Amendment (to the point of even losing Tucker Carlson), threatening political opponents, and generally embracing authoritarianism.

But when it comes to public lands, there is actually one act we expected the administration to do shortly after the inauguration, but that it hasn’t yet attempted: Shrinking or eliminating national monuments, especially those designated during the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations. Even after Trump’s Justice Department opined (wrongly, I’d say) that the Antiquities Act authorizes a president to shrink or revoke national monuments, the administration didn’t actually do it.

I suspect this is because they realize how deeply unpopular that would be. Sure, Trump’s first-term shrinkage of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments may have garnered some support from a handful of Utah right-wingers, but they’d be behind him regardless. Meanwhile, it pissed off a lot of Americans who value public lands but might otherwise support Trump’s policies.

That’s not to say the national monuments are safe. It’s just that the administration seems to be intent, for now, to outsource their destruction to their friends in Congress. The House Republicans’ proposed budget, for example, would zero out funding for GSENM’s new management plan — a de facto shrinkage.

And now, Rep. Paul Gosar, a MAGA Republican from Arizona, has introduced bills that would nullify Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument and the Ironwood Forest National Monument northwest of Tucson. The former blocks new mining claims in an area that has been targeted for uranium extraction. And the latter, established by Bill Clinton in 2000, covers a 189,713-acre swath of ecologically rich Sonoran Desert near the gaping wound known as the Asarco Silver Bell copper mine. The national monument designation blocked new mining claims.

Ironwood Forest is immensely popular with locals, and the Marana town council in August voted unanimously to oppose efforts to reduce or revoke the monument designation.

Interestingly enough, neither of the national monuments are in Gosar’s district, which covers the heavily Republican western edge of the state, so he won’t suffer from voter blowback if the legislation succeeds.

⛏️ Mining Monitor ⛏️

Congressional Republicans, with some Democratic support, are again trying to pass legislation that would allow mining companies to dump their waste on public lands.

The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, made it through the House Natural Resources Committee this week on a 25-17 vote. It would tweak the 1872 Mining Law to ensure that mining companies can store tailings and other mining-related waste on public land mining claims that aren’t valid, meaning the claimant has not proven that the parcels contain valuable minerals. This was actually the norm for decades until 2022, when a federal judge ruled that the proposed Rosemont copper mine in Arizona could not store its tailings and waste rock on public land. That ruling was followed by a similar one in 2023, leading mining state politicians from both parties to try to restore the pre-Rosemont Decision rules.

The bill would supplement Trump’s executive order from March invoking the Defense Production Act to expedite mining on public lands, and his “emergency” order that fast-tracks mining and energy permitting on public lands.

***

Photo credit: Jonathan P. Thompson/The Land Desk

IsoEnergy, the company that owns the controversial Daneros Mine just outside Bears Ears National Monument and the Tony M Mine, plans to begin exploratory drilling at its Flatiron claims in Utah’s Henry Mountain uranium district. Last year, the Canada-based company staked a whopping 370 lode claims on federal land. Along with two Utah state leases, this adds up to about 8,800 acres south-southwest of Mt. Hillers.

🛢️ Hydrocarbon Hoedown

A peer-reviewed study out of UCLA recently found that pregnant women living near the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility in Los Angeles during the sustained blowout of 2015 experienced more adverse birth outcomes than expected. Specifically, the prevalence of low birthweight was 45% to 100% higher than those living outside the affected area. This should concern not only folks living near Aliso Canyon (which is still operational), but also anyone who lives near an oil and gas well or other facility.

Aliso Canyon is a depleted oil field in the hills of the Santa Susana Mountains in northern LA. Southern California Gas pipes in natural gas, pumps it into the oil field, and stores up to 84 billion cubic feet of the fuel there. In October 2015, one of the wells blew out and for the next 112 days spewed a total of about 109,000 metric tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas and the main ingredient of natural gas.

That’s bad. But also mixed into the toxic soup that erupted from the field were other compounds such as mercaptans including tetrahydrothiophene and t-butyl mercaptan, sulfides, n-hexane, styrene, toluene, and benzene. All really nasty stuff that you don’t want in your air, and that is often emitted by oil and gas wells. The authors write:

“The emissions of BTEX and other HAP compounds are of particular concern as even at levels below health benchmarks they have been linked to health effects, including neurological, respiratory, and developmental effects.”

That appears to have been the case with the Aliso Canyon blowout, where “low birth weight and term low birth weight was higher than expected among women living in the affected area whose late pregnancy overlapped with the disaster.”

It’s simply more confirmation that fossil fuel development and consumption can take a big toll on the environment, the climate, and the people who live in or near the oil and gas patch or associated infrastructure. And that limits on methane emissions are important, even if you don’t care about climate change.

***

Long-time Land Desk readers might remember my story about the Horseshoe Gallup oil and gas field and sacrifice zone in northwestern New Mexico. I wrote about how the area had been ravaged by years of drilling and largely unfettered development, how the wells had been sold or handed off to increasingly irresponsible and slipshod companies as they were depleted, and how that had left dozens of abandoned facilities, oozing and seeping nasty stuff, but were not cleaned up because state and federal regulators still considered them to be “active.”


A trip through a sacrifice zone: The Horseshoe Gallup oilfield — Jonathan P. Thompson

Saga of an Oil Well (The Horseshoe Gallup Field Sacrifice Zone Part II) — Jonathan P. Thompson


The field is still there, along with most of the abandoned wells. But Capital & Main’s Jerry Redfern reports that some of the worst sites, including the NE Hogback 53, are being cleaned up. Well, sort of. The extensive reclamation of the well and the tank battery was started, only to be halted in May at the end of the state’s fiscal year. It resumed in July, and is expected to cost about $650,000.

This highlights the need for stronger enforcement and, most importantly, adequate reclamation bond requirements. At prices like that, cleaning up just the Horseshoe Gallup could cost tens of millions of dollars, and the taxpayer will be left to shoulder most of the bill.

🥵 Aridification Watch 🐫

Clarification: In Tuesday’s dispatch on the Colorado River and Lake Powell, I wrote that another dry winter would put “… the elevation of Lake Powell at 3,500 feet by this time next year. And, due to the infrastructure’s limitations, Glen Canyon Dam would have to be operated as a ‘run of the river’ facility.” That probably needs a bit more explanation. 

One smart reader pointed out that even after the surface level of Lake Powell drops below minimum power pool, or 3,490 feet in elevation, the dam can still release up to 15,000 cfs from its river outlets. Technically, managers would not be forced to go to run of the river until the surface level dropped below 3,370 feet, which is known as “dead pool.”

However, the Bureau of Reclamation is very wary of relying on the river outlets, because they weren’t designed for long-term use and could fail under those circumstances. So, BoR is intent on keeping the water levels above minimum power pool so that all releases can go through the penstocks and the hydroelectric turbines. “In effect,” the authors of the paper wrote, “at least for the short term, the engineering and safety issues associated with the ability to release water through Glen Canyon Dam mean that the amount of water actually available for release from Lake Powell is only that which exists above elevation 3500 feet.”

So, as long as this is the case, the BoR will need to go to run of the river as soon as the elevation drops to 3,500 feet. I hope that helps clear things up!

🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭

Today’s map is less about the map than it is about the publication it comes from, the USGS’s Guidebook of the Western United States Part E. the Denver & Rio Grande Western Route, published in 1922. This thing is super cool, and super detailed (it’s 384 pages long). It’s got some great photos and maps, like this one (click on the image to see it in larger size on the website).

Besides having a cool, hand drawn style, this map struck me because it was made prior to the reservoirs on the Gunnison River. And it shows how the railroad tracks used to go into the Black Canyon at Cimarron and continue along the river all the way to Gunnison (most of that section is now under water). I suppose I should have known that was where the tracks went, but it never really occurred to me before. Credit: USGS

Related to that map were these two photos illustrating the miracle of irrigation.

Map of the Gunnison River drainage basin in Colorado, USA. Made using public domain USGS data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69257550

#Colorado poised to join lawsuit over alleged endangered species violations linked to oil trains — David O. Williams (ColoradoNewsline.com) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

A Union Pacific train travels along the Colorado River near Cameo on May 16, 2023. (Chase Woodruff/Colorado Newsline)

Click the link to read the article on the Colorado Newsline website (David O. Williams):

September 21, 2025

Projects in Utah’s Uinta Basin could significantly increase hazardous oil shipments through Colorado

Colorado, along with 15 other states, is poised to sue the federal government for ignoring endangered species regulations in a wide range of infrastructure projects on public lands. One of those projects, a controversial proposal to expand an oil shipping facility in Utah, would significantly increase hazardous rail shipments through Colorado.

Phil Weiser, Colorado’s attorney general, and the attorneys general of the other states provided in a July 18 letter to Trump administration officials a 60-day notice of their intent to sue. The notice expired last week.

The letter cites violations of the Endangered Species Act it says have occurred in pursuit of an executive order, called “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” which President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office in January. 

“The ESA and implementing regulations do not allow agencies to routinely avoid and delay implementation of the ESA’s protections of endangered species and their critical habitats in the manner you have directed and which your agencies are carrying out,” the letter says.

The letter was addressed to Trump, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and the directors of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The letter lists pipeline, cable and mining projects in states from Washington to Illinois — including the Wildcat Loadout Facility Right-of-Way Amendment on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land near Price, Utah — that it says pose risks to listed endangered species or critical habitat for fish and aquatic mammals from rainbow trout to salmon to sturgeon to whales.

The letter says Trump’s executive order declaring an energy emergency to fast-track fossil fuel production, despite record oil production in the United States, “unlawfully directs the (Army) Corps and Interior to bypass legal requirements, including those provided in the ESA. Congress did not authorize agencies to routinely bypass the ESA’s requirements to develop the President’s preferred energy sources.”

Asked if by signing onto the pending endangered species lawsuit, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser is signaling he intends to join a separate lawsuit challenging the legality of Trump’s “energy emergency” executive order, a spokesperson for Weiser said that has yet to be determined.

“The notice of intent to sue to enforce the ESA could be a basis for joining the lawsuit challenging the White House energy emergency executive order,” Weiser spokesman Lawrence Pacheco wrote in an email this month. “The attorney general, however, has not made a decision on joining the EO lawsuit.”

Pacheco did not provide additional information on when the endangered species litigation will be filed or how it will be announced.

“We announce all lawsuits that we join or file ourselves,” Pacheco said. “I don’t have any idea on timing.”

Sued by environmental groups

The Wildcat Loadout expansion, as first reported by Newsline in 2023, has been plagued by air quality violations and other matters related to Native American antiquities. It would allow crude oil producers in the Uinta Basin to vastly expand drilling and transportation, including by rail through Colorado. Another proposed project in the basin, the bitterly opposed Uinta Basin Railway, would allow for even greater oil shipments. When the U.S. Supreme Court in late May cleared the way for the 88-mile rail link project, proponents said their next step was “completion of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) process.“

The BLM in early July invoked Trump’s emergency declaration to complete an accelerated environmental review of the permit for the Wildcat facility, which could increase oil capacity on the main rail line through Colorado by up to 80,000 barrels a day. Combined with the expansion of other nearby facilities, it will allow for the trucking and transfer to rail of up to 75% of the oil proposed for the Uinta Basin Railway project.

The railway project, estimated to cost at least $2.4 billion to build, would allow for up to 350,000 barrels of oil per day — more than doubling U.S. oil-by-rail transport — to move in heated oil tankers for 100 miles along the headwaters of the Colorado River, under the Continental Divide at Winter Park and through Denver on their way to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Backers of the project are seeking low-interest U.S. Department of Transportation private activity bonds.

Eagle County and five environmental groups sued to overturn U.S. Surface Transportation Board approval of the railway in 2022. They were initially successfully, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a favorable 2023 federal appellate court decision. Eagle County has long sought more direct state involvement in litigation opposing the project.

In a press release following the Supreme Court ruling, Keith Heaton, director of Utah’s Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which has been using taxpayer dollars to pursue the railway project, said, “It represents a turning point for rural Utah — bringing safer, sustainable, more efficient transportation options, and opening new doors for investment and economic stability. We look forward to continuing our work with all stakeholders to deliver this transformative project.”

The coalition is not a sponsor of the Wildcat Loadout project.

Asked for project updates and comment on the pending endangered species litigation, Melissa Cano, director of communications for the Uinta Basin Railway and the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, replied in an email: “At this time, the coalition does not have additional information or updates to provide beyond what has already been made publicly available. What I do wish to stress is that the Uinta Basin Railway Project is moving forward.”

Uinta Basin Railway project proposed routes.Credit:Surface Transportation Board

Negotiations to continue beyond 14-hour hearing over one of the #ColoradoRiver’s oldest water rights — The #Aspen Times #COriver #aridification

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

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

September 20, 2025

The battle over one of the Colorado River’s oldest, non-consumptive water rights continued this week during a 14-hour Colorado Water Conservation Board hearing over whether the rights could be used for the environment. The Colorado River District is seeking to acquire the Shoshone water rights — tied to a hydropower plant on the Colorado River in Glenwood Canyon — from Xcel Energy for $99 million. The River District, a governmental entity representing 15 Western Slope counties, is proposing to add an instream flow agreement to the acquisition, which would allow a certain amount of water to remain in the river for environmental benefits. While the state’s water board — the only entity that can hold an instream flow water right in Colorado — was set to decide on the proposal this week, this was pushed to November after the parties agreed to take more time to reach a consensus on the proposal.

“The exercise of the Shoshone water rights impacts almost every Coloradan,” said Davis Wert, an attorney speaking on behalf of Northern Water.

Northern Water is contesting the instream flow agreement alongside Denver Water, Aurora Water, and Colorado Springs Utilities. These providers rely on transmountain diversions from the Colorado River basin to supply water to their customers…While the hearing did include some back and forth, the entities west and east of the Continental Divide agreed on a few things during the hearing. First, adding an instream flow agreement to the Shoshone right will preserve and improve the natural environment. Second, they want to maintain the status quo on the Colorado River…Michael Gustafson, in-house counsel for Colorado Springs Utilities, said the provider did not oppose the change of the senior Shoshone water right for instream flow purposes “to provide for permanency of the historic Shoshone call and maintenance of the historical Colorado River flow regime…

With that, however, there were a few sticking points during the hearing: who should manage the instream flow agreement — and have the authority to make decisions on Shoshone calls — and how much water has historically been granted as part of the right. The historic flow regime has been highly contested between the parties but will ultimately be determined in the Colorado Water Court proceedings that will conclude the River District’s acquisition. Wert acknowledged this as the Front Range entities presented a historic use analysis that contrasted the preliminary analysis obtained by the River District…The Colorado River District’s proposed instream flow agreement includes a “co-management strategy,” while the contesting Front Range providers want the sole management authority to reside with the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Navajo Dam operations update September 23, 2025: Bumping up releases to 650 cfs #SanJuanRiver

The San Juan River near Navajo Dam, New Mexico, Aug. 23, 2015. Photo credit: Phil Slattery Wikimedia Commons

From email from Reclamation (Conor Felletter):

The Bureau of Reclamation has scheduled an increase in the release from Navajo Dam to 650 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the current release of 500 cfs for Tuesday September 23, at 4:00 AM. 

Releases are made for the authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit, and to attempt to maintain a target base flow through the endangered fish critical habitat reach of the San Juan River (Farmington to Lake Powell).  The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program recommends a target base flow of between 500 cfs and 1,000 cfs through the critical habitat area.  The target base flow is calculated as the weekly average of gaged flows throughout the critical habitat area from Farmington to Lake Powell.  

This scheduled release change is subject to changes in river flows and weather conditions. If you have any questions, please contact Conor Felletter (cfelletter@usbr.gov or 970-637-1985), or visit Reclamation’s Navajo Dam website athttps://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/nvd.html

Experts: Slash #ColoradoRiver consumption ASAP to avoid crisis. Wacky Weather Watch: Tornadoes in Utah; no fruit in Capitol Reef — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org) #COriver #aridification

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

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

September 16, 2025

🥵 Aridification Watch 🐫

The deadline is rapidly approaching for the Colorado River Basin states to come up with a plan for divvying up the river’s waters and operating its reservoirs and other plumbing infrastructure after 2026. But a team of experts1 warns that even if the states do make the November deadline — and it’s looking more and more likely they won’t — it won’t be soon enough to avert a crisis in the coming 12 months if the region experiences another dry winter.

Their analysis found that a repeat of the 2025 water year, which ends at the end of this month, will result in consumptive water use in the basin exceeding the Colorado River’s natural flow by at least 3.6 million acre-feet. That would potentially use up the remainder of the “realistically accessible storage” in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, constraining reservoir operations as early as next summer.

“Given the existing limitations of the river’s infrastructure,” they write, “avoiding this possible outcome requires immediate and substantial reductions in consumptive use across the Basin.”

The authors of the paper acknowledge that, despite a plethora of available data, it can be “difficult to see the water forest amid all the data trees.” Interpreting the data is rife with complexity, and translating snow water equivalents at hundreds of SNOTEL sites into streamflow forecasts is an uncertain science. However, it is abundantly clear that for the last quarter century, the collective users of the Colorado River have consumed more than the river offered, leading to a deep drawdown of the basin’s “saving accounts,” i.e. Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and a dozen smaller federal reservoirs.

As of Sept. 14, Lake Powell contained about 6.85 million acre-feet of water2, which is less than one-third of what was in the reservoir on the same date in 1999 (23.23 MAF). Lake Mead held about 8 MAF, or 32% of capacity. Equally striking is that in just the last year, Lake Powell has lost about 2.4 MAF of its water — or about 30 feet of surface elevation — to downstream releases and evaporation. The savings account is rapidly draining.

The authors assume that next year’s natural flow on the Colorado River will be the same as in 2025, or 9.3 MAF3, which they describe as a “realistic and conservative, but not overly alarmist, projection” based on the Bureau of Reclamation’s own forecasts. And, also based on Reclamation reports, they assume total Colorado River consumptive use in the U.S. and Mexico will be 12.9 MAF.

That makes for a deficit of 3.6 MAF that will have to come from the reservoirs’ dwindling storage, potentially putting the elevation of Lake Powell at 3,500 feet by this time next year. And, due to the infrastructure’s limitations and the Bureau of Reclamation’s desire to keep the reservoir from dropping below minimum power pool, Glen Canyon Dam would have to be operated as a “run of the river” (ROR) facility. That means it couldn’t release more water than is coming into the reservoir at any given time, severely reducing downstream flows in the Grand Canyon and causing an even more rapid drawdown of Lake Mead.

Crystal Rapid via HPS.com
Lava Falls: “This, I was told, is the biggest drop on the river in the GC. It’s 35 feet from top to bottom of the falls,” John Fowler. The photo was taken from the Toroweap overlook, 7 June 2010, via Wikimedia.

Lake Powell inflows this August totaled about 268,000 acre-feet, while releases were 761,000 acre-feet, meaning under the ROR scenario the monthly release volume would be cut by nearly 500,000 acre-feet. Even more alarming is that instead of sending between 9,000 and 12,000 cubic feet of water per second into the Grand Canyon, late summer streamflows below the dam could fall as low as 2,000 cfs, affecting aquatic life and making river running significantly less predictable (and more like the pre-dam days4, save for the amount of sediment in the water). I’d be curious to see Crystal rapid or Lava Falls at 2,000 cfs. Any insight on that one would be appreciated.

While this scenario could be delayed by essentially draining upstream reservoirs such as Flaming Gorge in Utah and Wyoming or Blue Mesa in Colorado, it would only offer a temporary reprieve. Two consecutive dry years would certainly render Glen Canyon Dam essentially useless, and leave Lower Basin users high and dry. Which leaves the folks relying on the river with a couple of choices: They can pray for a lot of snow and hope someone’s listening, or they can slash consumption significantly and rapidly.


Challenge at Glen Canyon — Jonathan P. Thompson

Would a Colorado River deal spell disaster for the Grand Canyon? — Jonathan P. Thompson


⛈️ Wacky Weather Watch⚡️

Not just one, but two tornadoes hit San Juan County, Utah, over the weekend, and when I say tornadoes, I mean honest-to-god twisters of the kind you normally see in the Midwest, not in the Four Corners region. In fact, one of them wrecked three houses and damaged others in the Montezuma Creek area, according to a Navajo Timesreport, while another touched down south of Blanding and destroyed or damaged homes, trailers, and a hay barn. While there were no reports of human injuries, but an unknown number of pets and livestock went missing during the event.

The tornadoes were part of a series of late-season monsoonal storms that hit the region, bringing downpours, increasing streamflow, and leaving some mountain peaks white with a dusting of snow. The storms’ effects varied across the region. Flows in the San Juan River in Pagosa, for example, shot up from around 100 cfs to over 1,000 cfs in a matter of hours before falling back down again almost as rapidly, whereas the Animas River in Durango jumped up to almost 600 cfs and plateaued for a few days. It’s the latter, more sustained increase that could give Lake Powell a much-needed bump, although it won’t mean much without a lot of snow this coming winter.

It looks like AI generated this. It did not. That’s real life, as surreal as it may appear. Source: San Juan County Sheriff Facebook page.

***

Well this is a bummer: There’s no fruit in the Fruita Historic District orchards in Capitol Reef National Park this year.

The Gifford Homestead in Capitol Reef National Park. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

The orchards sit in the lush valley of the Fremont River under the watch of desert varnished Wingate sandstone cliffs, and typically the trees produce cherries, plums, peaches, almonds, pears, apples, quince, walnuts, mulberries, nectarines, and apricotsthat are free for the picking. The folks at the Gifford Homestead store even make and sell outrageously good pies using said fruit (I think I may have eaten more than one pie last time I was there).

But this spring “an unusual warm spell began the bloom at the earliest time in 20 years,” according to Capitol Reef National Park’s climate webpage. “The warmth was interrupted twice by nights that plummeted below freezing. This temperature whiplash froze even the hardier blossoms, causing a loss of over 80% of the year’s fruit harvest. Climate change threatens this bountiful, interactive, and historical treasure.”

That sucks, but I have to say I’m pleasantly surprised that the National Park Service still has this sort of climate-related information on its website, and that it is even allowed to use the word “climate” these days. 

😀 Good News Corner 😎

Yes, there are some bright spots in these dark times. One of them is shining out of California’s Central Valley, where the Turlock Irrigation District’s solar-over-canal installation is now online. The project is exactly what it sounds like: An array of photovoltaic panels spanning an irrigation canal. One portion is 20 feet wide, the other 110 feet, and the system has a capacity of 1.6 megawatts, which isn’t huge, but it’s enough to power pumps and other equipment.

A map of the Aqueduct route from the Colorado River to the Coastal Plain of Southern California and the thirteen cities via the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

The California installation follows a similar installation built by the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona last year. Both are scene as test cases that could open the door to much larger, utility-scale arrays.

The arrays not only generate power, but also shade the canals, reducing evaporation. Best of all, the canals are a low-conflict site for solar, and don’t require scraping any deserts of vegetation or messing up neighbors’ views, though it could restrict fishing — if looking to land a catfish or something from a cement-lined waterway is your sort of thing.

There’s really no reason all of the canals in California and Arizona couldn’t be covered with solar. Yes, there are transmission constraints, and some areas would have to remain uncovered for access and maintenance, but still. And while we’re at it, why not put the panels over parking lots and on top of big box stores and reclaimed coal mines and, well, you get the picture.

***

Also in the cool news department: Navajo entrepreneur Celesta Littleman’s Sunbeam Tours and Railway is working to convert the old electric railway that hauled coal from Black Mesa to the Navajo Generating Station into a track for zero-emissions electric rail vehicles for tourists, sightseers, and anyone else that wants to travel the scenic route.



1
Analysis of Colorado River Basin Storage Suggests Need For Immediate Action, by: Jack Schmidt, Director of the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University; Anne Castle of the Getches-Wilkinson Center at CU Boulder and former U.S. Commissioner of the Upper Colorado River Commission; John Fleck, Writer in Residence at the Utton Transboundary Resources Center at the University of New Mexico; Eric Kuhn, Retired General Manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District; Kathryn Sorenson, of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University and former Director of the Phoenix Water Services; and Katherine Tara of the Utton Transboundary Resources Center.

2 This is the total amount of water backed up behind Glen Canyon Dam. But this is not all available for use due to the dam’s infrastructure and the need to keep the water level above minimum power pool so that water can continue to be released via the penstocks and hydroelectric turbines. There’s actually only about 2.7 million acre-feet of “realistically accessible storage” in Lake Powell and 3.6 MAF in Lake Mead (as of 9/1/2025).

3 This includes 8.5 MAF natural flow at Lees Ferry, plus about .8 MAF from springs and tributaries running into the river between Lees Ferry and Hoover Dam.

4 For months after the dam was first completed, managers released a relative trickle at times, with daily flows at Lees Ferry dropping as low as 700 cfs in 1963 and lower than 1,000 cfs on many occasions in the sixties. And prior to the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, when minimum daily releases were implemented, managers sometimes released as little as 1,300 cfs from the dam at times to try to maintain reservoir levels.

President Trump moves to nix Public Lands rule; Alfalfa exports data dump: Also re-upping and freeing-up a piece on political violence and rhetoric — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org)

This field is irrigated with water from the Roaring Fork River, under a senior water right. CREDIT: BRENT GARDNER-SMITH/ASPEN JOURNALISM

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

September 12, 2025

🌵 Public Lands 🌲

It’s not a surprise, but it’s a bit disappointing and maddening nonetheless: Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have officially moved to rescind the Biden-era Public Lands rule that aimed to put conservation on a par with other uses on federal land, such as energy development, grazing, mining, and recreation. 

For a quick review, the main provisions of the rule are:

  • It directs the agency to prioritize landscape health in all decision making;
  • It creates a mechanism for outside entities (tribes, states, nonprofits) to lease public land for restoration projects, and allows firms to lease land for mitigation work to offset impacts from development elsewhere;
  • It clarifies the process for designating areas of critical environmental concern, or ACECs, where land managers can add extra regulations to protect cultural or natural resources.
  • And it directs the agency to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into decision-making, particularly when considering ACECs.

The rule was hailed by some conservationists as a “generation-defining shift” in public land management, and lambasted by Sagebrush Rebel-wannabes as a “misguided land grab meant to prevent oil and gas production … <and> … an attack on our ranchers and farmers that will end grazing on federal lands and will also prevent Coloradans from accessing their public lands.” 

I would say it is neither of those things, and did and would do little if anything to block drilling or grazing, and certainly hasn’t stopped anyone from accessing public lands. After all, it’s been in effect for over a year, and I certainly haven’t heard of anyone taking any significant actions under it, and I bet Burgum hasn’t either. In the end, the rule is essentially a reminder to the BLM that their job is not just to bend over for corporate and extractive interests, but to actually care for the land that belongs to all Americans. It is simply reinforcing the multiple-use charge Congress set forth when it passed the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act back in 1976. 

But Burgum’s and the Trump administration’s entire raison d’etre a la public land policy is to bend over for corporate and extractive interests, so I guess they’ve got to throw this rule out along with all of the other environmental protections. 

📈 Data Dump 📊

By this time of year most hay farmers have had multiple cuttings, have scrambled to get the hay baled and bucked and under cover before the monsoon hits, and maybe sold a bunch. So I figured it was a good time to check in and see how hay exports are doing this year. The answer: Not so hot, at least compared to other years.

There are various reasons for this — exports from Colorado River Basin states, especially California, have been falling for the last couple of years, perhaps in part because some farmers are being paid to stop irrigating, which cuts into overall production. But Trump’s tariffs — and the retaliatory tariffs our trading partners hit back with — are certainly having an effect. 

If you’ve wondered where your state’s hay is going and how much it’s worth, we’ve got the answer in this series of charts. I just included Colorado River states, and left out New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming because exports were negligible. Keep in mind that these figures are thousands of U.S. dollars, meaning that in 2022, for example, California exported just over $200 million worth of hay to China, alone. Also, this is for all types of hay, including alfalfa. But most exported hay goes to dairy cattle, and so is mostly alfalfa. And, finally, the scales are different for each state. California exports far more hay than anyone else.


On the tragic occasion of the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, the right-wing commentator, I point you to a piece I wrote last year after the attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump’s life. (Kirk was killed in Utah and lived in Arizona, making this a sort of Western story). The situation, the rhetoric, the players, and the reaction are so similar that to write about it again would be just to repeat myself. So here it is, removed from behind the paywall so even you free-riders can take a gander (but maybe you’ll consider upgrading to paid so you can see ALL the archives all the time!).

A few thoughts on this fraught moment in time — Jonathan P. Thompson


📸 Parting Shot 🎞️

An apt poem from Richard Shelton. This appeared in Selected Poems 1969-1981.

A stormy meeting in #Yuma about water — Allen Best #RepublicanRiver #OgallalaAquifer

Center pivot south of Holyoke. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

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

September 18, 2025

Cumulus clouds towering over the Great Plains on Tuesday afternoon inspired visions of Greek gods casting bolts. In McCook, Neb., the storm dumped five inches of rain accompanied by hail that ranged from the size of golf balls to baseballs.

McCook is located along the Republican River, which originates on the eastern plains of Colorado far distant from mountain snows. Despite summer thunderstorms, it’s a dry area with an average annual precipitation of about 17 inches. The water in the river that flows into Nebraska comes almost entirely from the Ogallala Aquifer, much of that water deposited millions of years ago.

In Colorado, the North Fork of the Republican River flows through Yuma. It stormed there on Tuesday night, too, lightning flashing occasionally through the windows. But the storm inside a room at the Yuma County Fairgrounds was of an entirely different sort.

The simple question was how did those farmers who pump water from the underlying Ogallala aquifer wish to tax themselves? For Colorado to honor its compact commitments to Nebraska and hence Kansas, both of them downstream, it has to make changes.

Those who spoke loudest said they did not want to be taxed based on the volumes of water they use. Some questioned the need for any fees. Some questions suggested a denial that any problem exists. Just let us keep pumping the aquifer as we have!

The meeting was the finale of six meetings held across the Republican River Basin in recent weeks. Like the others, it was well attended. At least 75 people showed up, many wearing the cap and blue jeans they had worn earlier in the day while working in their fields of corn and other crops.

Republican River Basin. By Kansas Department of Agriculture – Kansas Department of Agriculture, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7123610

In November, directors of the Republican River Water Conservation District must decide exactly how they want to move forward. To stay in compact compliance, the district wants to expand a well field that has allowed them to do so, if sometimes with narrow margins.

A 1942 compact among Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas specified how much water the upstream states must allow to flow downstream. That wasn’t an issue until the massive application of high-capacity pumps and then center-pivot sprinklers in the 1960 and 1970s allowed farmers to mine the aquifer in the Republican River Basin. In Colorado, more than a million acre-feet of water were pumped in peak years.

This has had the effect of reducing flows in downstream states. Kansas sued Nebraska, and then Nebraska sued Colorado. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, as all interstate compacts must.

The upshot is that Colorado agreed to toe the line. The Republican River Water Conservation District was created in 2004 with the principal function of keeping Colorado in compact compliance.

That’s a tall order. Rod Lenz, the president of the board of directors, said that farmers in the district need to figure out how to reduce their pumping to extract an average of 600,000 acre-feet a year. They have averaged 700,000 acre-feet in recent years.

The warming climate has not helped. Drought most definitely does not. In 2022, a hot and dry year, farmers pumped 940,000 acre-feet.

By reducing pumping to 600,000 acre-feet, farmers in the basin will have a longer glide path as they figure out more sustainable ways to farm.

Pumping at current rates will cause some areas to lose water in 25 years, although other areas will have water for many more decades. Yuma lies in one of the more water-flush areas.

“We’re not here to regulate,” said Lenz at a meeting in Joes the prior week. “We’re here to stay in compact compliance.”

That’s a thin distinction but one suggestive of the tricky line being negotiated by directors. Change must occur, but change is rarely welcomed except by babies with soiled diapers.

The district’s directors have adopted a two-pronged strategy for keeping Colorado out of the courtroom with Nebraska. One strategy, which was initiated in 2016, involving taking land out of irrigated production. By early 2025, more than 17,000 acres had been removed from irrigation, almost entirely within the river’s south fork area. The Ogallala in that area around Cheyenne Wells, Burlington, and Idalia never was as thick, the reservoir of water amid the underground rocks never as plentiful. In many places, the aquifer has been drained.

The second strategy to ensure compact compliance has been to mine water from north of Wray, where the aquifer has greater quantities of water, to deliver at the Nebraska border to ensure compact compliance. Those wells have produced 98,519 acre-feet in the first 10 years.

All of this has not come cheaply. More than $123 million has been spent by the district so far, a combination of federal and state funds along with assessments by the Republican River district of irrigated lands. Those assessments began at $5 an acre but have elevated to $30 an acre.

At the meeting in Yuma, as they had the week before in Joes, Lenz and other directors outlined their thoughts and choices. Foremost in their current strategy is to continue to pay landowners enough money to take land out of production to achieve the goal of 25,000 acres before the end of 2029. The district has about 8,000 acres to go. Landowners are paid for full or partial retirement of land from cultivated agriculture.

More controversially, they also want to expand the well field that allows water to be pumped and then delivered to Nebraska. They plan eight more wells at an estimated cost of $11 million.

Beyond that, they envision even more wells, elevating the total cost to more than $165 million to keep in compliance. That would allow the farmers now mining the Ogallala to continue to mine it without drastic alteration.

The immediate question is whether to stay with the existing assessment of $30 per acre of land. Another approach would be to adopt a fee, half of it to be based on amounts of land being irrigated and half on the amount of water pumped. The third option is the amount of land being irrigated and a tiered rate based on amount of water used, with those using more water paying more.

These latter two proposals would have the effect of encouraging conservation. Directors say they would keep the district’s budget at $15 million annually. However, it’s not clear what impact expanding the well field will have on that budget.

A show of hands at the Yuma meeting showed little appetite for changes in the fee structure. Some questions from audience members suggested rejection of the need for change. Do you really need this money? And is this expensive expansion of the well field needed? Might just two wells, not eight, suffice?

One speaker even challenged whether Colorado had to comply with the compact.

The short answer is that yes, it must. It’s that or agree to spend considerable money in litigation that would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has already twice.

The question beyond that question is what would be the stance of Colorado’s governor and attorney general in 2030 if Colorado were to choose to violate the compact? The state water engineer — an appointee of the governor — has authority to shut down all wells in the basin as necessary to comply. Would the state water engineer do so?

That strategy would be risky, responded Randy Hendrix, the river district’s engineering consultant. Wells could be shut down for multiple years.

A few audience members, however, did acknowledge the difficult challenge. “I want to thank all you guys for the hard work. This is a hard job, hard subject,” said one audience member.

What can be said with certainty is that directors of the district who fielded questions managed to keep their cool in the face of the sometimes hard questions and statements.

At their quarterly meeting in November, directors must figure out how to move forward. Or, as some suggested, just ignoring Nebraska and the state engineer and letting those chips fall where they may.

Ogallala Aquifer. Credit: Big Pivots

Nominee for top federal water role withdraws amid pushback from some #ColoradoRiver states — Alex Hager (KUNC.org) #COriver #aridification

Water from the Colorado River flows into the Central Arizona Project on August 5, 2025. Ted Cooke spent much of his career at the agency, and some water leaders worried that he would bring bias from that job into a new federal role. Alex Hager/KUNC

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

September 18, 2025

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

The Trump Administration’s nominee to run the Bureau of Reclamation is withdrawing from the process. Ted Cooke, a longtime water manager in Arizona, said he was asked to step back by the White House.

Cooke had been nominated to serve as commissioner of the federal agency that oversees the Colorado River. He faced pushback from some politicians and water officials who worried that he might bring bias into the position.

“I was a political casualty,” Cooke told KUNC on Wednesday.

The seven states that use the Colorado River are stuck in tense talks about how to share its water in the future. They are split into two camps: the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico, and the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada.

Negotiations ahead of a 2026 deadline appear to be making little progress, and federal water officials can help push states towards agreement. If they can’t reach a deal in time, the federal government can step in and make those decisions itself. After Cooke’s nomination in June, some policymakers in the Upper Basin quietly expressed concern that he might favor the Lower Basin during that process.

Top water officials in the Upper Basin were tight-lipped in their opposition, but multiple sources with knowledge of the situation told KUNC that Cooke would face a difficult path to confirmation.

In a June meeting, Utah’s top Colorado River negotiator, Gene Shawcroft, briefly touched on the Trump Administration’s pick to run Reclamation.

“I hesitate to use the word disturbing, but it is a little disturbing,” Shawcroft said. “That is concerning to us for a variety of reasons, and I’ll probably leave it at that.”

Water levels sit low in Lake Powell near Bullfrog, Utah on September 15, 2025. Negotiations to manage the shrinking reservoir and the rest of the Colorado River system may be more difficult without federal leadership. Alex Hager/KUNC

Cooke spent more than two decades working for the Central Arizona Project, which brings Colorado River water to the Phoenix and Tucson areas. Any new plan for managing the Colorado River is likely to include cuts to demand, and Cooke’s former employer is generally among the first entities to lose water under any plan for cutbacks.

Water experts around the region said he was a qualified expert, and Cooke himself denied that he would bring a bias to his new position.

A panel of officials from the lower basin states at the Colorado River Water Users Association in Las Vegas, on Dec. 13, 2018. From left, Thomas Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources; Ted Cooke, General Manager, Central Arizona Project; Peter Nelson, chairman, Colorado River Board of California; and John Entsminger, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority.

“I don’t really appreciate being pre-judged by folks saying, ‘oh he’s just going to be a Lower Basin or an Arizona partisan,’” Cooke told KUNC in June, shortly after his nomination. “I call that projection. If this is what someone else would do in my shoes, then I feel sorry for them. But it’s not necessarily where I’d be coming from.”

Cooke said he was recently contacted by a White House staffer who asked him to withdraw from the nomination process for a certain reason, but Cooke declined to share that reason.

“I’ve since learned from other folks that I know, and I know lots of people, that that reason was pretty much a BS reason to basically get me out of the running,” Cooke said. “Because there were certain objections that had been raised from some of the states with which I would be dealing.”

Cooke’s withdrawal means that the top federal Colorado River agency will remain without a permanent leader. The seat has already been vacant for eight months. That may make seven-state negotiations more challenging. State water leaders have saidthat the threat of federal action can make it easier to find agreement.

While the top Reclamation role goes unfilled, other federal water officials appear to be filling the gap. Scott Cameron, a longtime federal official who currently serves as the Department of the Interior’s acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, told a room of water experts in June that he was intimately involved with those seven-state talks.

As for Cooke, he said he plans to stay in the Colorado River space.

“If this door is shut, there’s lots of other open doors,” he said. “It’s disappointing, don’t get me wrong, but I’m not going to sulk or be mad or develop a resentment about it. Whatever happened, happened.”

Map credit: AGU

White House to pull back Bureau of Reclamation nomination: Ted Cooke, a longtime #Arizona water official, said he’d been told his nomination will be rescinded — EENews.net #ColoradoRiver #COriver #Aridification

Ted Cooke and Tom Buschatzke: Photo credit: Arizona Department of Water Resources

Click the link to read the article on the EENews.net website (Jennifer Yachnin). Here’s an excerpt:

September 17, 2025

The White House plans to pull back its nomination of a former a veteran Arizona water official to lead the Bureau of Reclamation, leaving the agency without permanent leadership nine months into President Donald Trump’s second term. Ted Cooke, a former top official at the Central Arizona Project, told POLITICO’s E&E News on Wednesday that he has been informed his nomination will be rescinded.

“This is not the outcome I sought, and I’ll leave it at that,” said Cooke in a message.

[President] Trump tapped Cooke to lead the agency in June, and the selection drew praise from both environmental advocates and some state officials who pointed to Cooke’s knowledge of the Colorado River Basin. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources had not yet considered Cooke’s nomination. Interior and Reclamation have been involved in negotiations for a new long-term operating plan among the seven states that share the Colorado River…Although it is not unusual for Reclamation to be without permanent leadership until late in the first year of a new president term, the Colorado River negotiations put more pressure on the White House to fill the post. 

Cooke spent more than two decades at the Central Arizona Project before stepping down as its general manager in early 2023, which distributes Colorado River water to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties.

‘No One Comes Out of This Unscathed’: Experts Warn That #ColoradoRiver Use Needs Cutting Immediately — Wyatt Myskow (InsideClimateNews.org) #COriver #aridification

Glen Canyon Dam creates water storage on the Colorado River in Lake Powell. Credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Click the link to read the article on the Inside Climate News website (Wyatt Miskow):

September 15, 2025

A new report finds that Lakes Mead and Powell, the nation’s largest reservoirs, could store just 9 percent of their combined capacity by the end of next summer.

Consumption of Colorado River water is outpacing nature’s ability to replenish it, with the basin’s reservoirs on the verge of being depleted to the point of exhaustion without urgent federal action to cut use, according to a new analysis from leading experts of the river.

The analysis, published Thursday [September 11, 2025], found that if the river’s water continues to be used at the same rate and the Southwest sees another winter as dry as the last one, Lakes Mead and Powell—the nation’s two largest reservoirs—would collectively hold 9 percent of the water they can store by the end of next summer. After enduring decades of overconsumption of the river’s water, the lakes would have just under 4 million acre feet of water in storage for emergencies and drier years when demand can’t be met. Every year, roughly 13 million acre feet is taken from the river for drinking water and human development across the region, with conservative forecasts estimating roughly 9.3 million acre feet of inflow next year. 

The report is stark in its assessment of the situation: Current Colorado River levels require “immediate and substantial reductions in consumptive use across the Basin” or Lake Powell by 2027 would have no storage left and “would have to be operated as a ‘run of river” facility” in which only the inflow from the river could be released downstream. 

“The River recognizes no human laws or governance structures and follows only physical ones,” the report’s authors wrote. “There is a declining amount of water available in the Colorado River system, primarily caused by the effects of a warming climate—longer growing seasons, drier soils, and less efficient conversion of the winter snowpack into stream flow. Although American society has developed infrastructure to store the spring snowmelt and make that water available in other seasons to more completely utilize the variable runoff, the Colorado River watershed produces only a finite volume of water, regardless of how many dams exist.”

The lifeblood of the American Southwest, the Colorado River’s water flows from Wyoming to Mexico, enabling the region’s population and economies to develop. The damming of the river has diverted water to booming metropolises like Los Angeles and Phoenix while also supporting the U.S.’s most productive agricultural areas and powering some of the its largest hydroelectric dams. In total, the river supplies seven states, 30 tribes and 40 million people with water.

The compact that divvied up the river’s water a century ago overestimated how much actually flowed through it, and climate change has diminished the supply even further. The melting snowpack that runs off mountains in the spring to feed the river has declined, shrinking the river and its storage reservoirs during decades of drought. The seven states that take Colorado River water are divided into two factions engaged in tense conversations about its future and how cutbacks should be distributed. Current guidelines for managing the river in times of drought are set to expire at the end of next year, and new ones are legally required to take their place, but negotiations between states, tribes and other stakeholders over the sharing of the necessary cuts in water usage are at an impasse. 

But if current conditions persist, further cutbacks on the river won’t be able to wait until those negotiations are finished, the report’s authors find, and they urged the Department of the Interior “to take immediate action.”

“Let’s hope that we are all wrong and that it snows like hell all winter and runoff is wonderful and we buy ourselves some time and additional buffer,” said Kathryn Sorensen, director of research for Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy and one of the report’s co-authors. “But of course, it never makes sense to plan as if it’s going to snow, and we have to deal with what is a realistic but not worst-case scenario and take responsible actions.”

Adding to the issue is the status of the infrastructure that enables the river to be diverted and stored for use. For example, the researchers write, it was thought that anything above what’s known as “dead pool”—a water level below the reservoirs’ lowest outlets that can pass water through the dams—was “active storage.” But testing last year from the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency overseeing the river and its dams, found that those outlets can only be safely used at water levels higher than previously thought and cannot be used for long durations.

Margaret Garcia, an associate professor at ASU’s School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, who was not a part of the study, said the analyses makes clear the “reality of dead pool is within sight” for the basin’s reservoirs, even without considering the possibility of having an extremely dry year.

She likened the reservoirs to having a savings account with a bank. “When you have a savings account, you have some time to scramble and figure things out,” Garcia said. “But if you’ve already drawn down your savings account and then  [you’re laid off] and you never filled it back up at least a little bit, you’re in for a really tough situation.”

And just like a savings account, Garcia said, a reservoir isn’t much good if it can’t generate hydropower or store water. 

Sorensen said the secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, has broad authority to act to protect critical infrastructure in both of the river’s basins. The question is what those actions should be.

“The solutions are there,” she said. “The solutions are known. They’re just extraordinarily painful to implement. “

State negotiators have worked this year to determine how to manage the river after 2026, Sorensen said, but the buffer of water stored in reservoirs “that we’re relying on to kind of get us through the negotiations and these difficult times is potentially much smaller than maybe was commonly understood.”

“No one comes out of this unscathed,” she said. 

Map credit: AGU

Delta County ranchers want state action on conservation: ‘Shepherding’ needed to get water to Lake Powell — Heather Sackett (AspenJournalism.org) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

From left, Western States Ranches Agricultural Operations Manager Mike Higuera, Conscience Bay Research Program Officer Dan Waldvogle and Colorado State University researcher Perry Cabot. The three held a field day and ranch tour in August for other local ranchers to learn about water conservation and deficit irrigation. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

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

September 9, 2025

As reservoir levels continue to plummet at the end of another dismal water year, some agricultural water users are asking Colorado lawmakers to consider a bill next session that would make it easier for them to get credit for conserving water. 

It would be the next step in creating a conservation pool in Lake Powell that the Upper Basin states could use to protect against water scarcity.

Over the past decade, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have dabbled in programs that pay willing participants to use less water on a temporary basis. But so far, that saved water has flowed downstream unaccounted for. Changes to state laws would be needed to allow state officials to shepherd conserved water into a Lake Powell pool. 

“Our message is simple: Protect Colorado agriculture by enabling voluntary, compensated water conservation without causing injury to other water users,” Dan Waldvogle told state legislators at an August meeting of the Water and Natural Resources Committee in Steamboat Springs. “Give us credit for the water we save and guarantee that conserved consumptive use is fairly and fully compensated … . The 2026 legislative session is our last best chance to take action and control our future.”

Waldvogle was speaking on behalf of the Colorado Farm Bureau and Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. He also works for Conscience Bay Co., a Boulder-based real estate investment firm that owns a cattle-ranching operation in Delta County known as Western States Ranches. 

But allowing the state to shepherd conserved water resurrects old concerns for some on the Western Slope. They say it could open the state to speculators and interstate water markets, with Colorado water users selling their water to the highest bidder in the Lower Basin, which includes California, Arizona and Nevada. 

“We’re saying you should not pass a standalone shepherding law or conserved consumptive use law that would allow and enable the state engineer to do that without having a thorough discussion with all stakeholders and encoding in legislation important sideboards and protections for our agricultural industry and our community,” Colorado River Water Conservation District General Manager Andy Mueller told lawmakers at the August meeting. 

State Engineer Jason Ullmann said in an email that he does “not have authority to require water conserved through voluntary programs to bypass other Colorado water users’ headgates unless it is necessary to meet Colorado’s compact obligations.” The bypassing of other users’ headgate to deliver water to a point downstream is more commonly known as shepherding.

The General Assembly would need to pass legislation in order to give him that authority, many stakeholders believe.

Western States Ranches near Eckert enrolled some of its fields in the 2024 System Conservation Pilot Program. The ranch was paid about $278,000 to save about 550 acre-feet of water. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

The conservation conversation comes at a pivotal time for water users on the Colorado River, which remains wracked by drought and climate change. The most recent projections from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation show water levels at Lake Powell potentially falling below the threshold needed to make hydropower by November 2026. The reservoir is currently about 28% full. 

State Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Democrat who represents several Western Slope counties including Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt and Summit and is the chair of the Water and Natural Resources Committee, told Aspen Journalism that as of now, no bill to address shepherding or future conservation programs is in the works in Colorado. But that may be because the seven states that share the Colorado River are still hashing out how reservoirs will be operated and how cuts will be shared when the current guidelines expire next year.

The potential path forward.

At the beginning of this summer, negotiators from the seven basin states agreed to a concept that would share water based on flows in the river and not on demands, but talks have since stalled. Federal officials have given the states a Nov. 11 deadline to come up with the outline of a deal.

“I remain fully committed to reaching consensus, but I want to be candid, especially with you all,” Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s lead negotiator, told lawmakers. “The discussions with my counterparts have been and continue to be challenging. I understand why this discussion is so challenging for our Lower Basin counterparts. They have developed a reliance on water that is above their apportionment that is simply not there.”

Colorado and the other Upper Basin states have been tiptoeing into voluntary conservation pilot programs since 2015, and the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan allowed for a 500,000-acre-foot conservation pool in Lake Powell. Late last year, Upper Basin officials offered up a 200,000-acre-foot pool in Powell as part of negotiations, and some type of future voluntary conservation program for the Upper Basin appears increasingly likely. 

The System Conservation Pilot Program, which first ran from 2015 to 2018, was rebooted in 2023 and paid water users in the Upper Basin to cut back in 2023 and 2024. Over two years, the program doled out about $45 million to conserve just over 100,000 acre-feet of water across the four states.

A main criticism of the SCPP was that the conserved water was not tracked to Lake Powell, even though one of the program’s stated intents was to boost levels in the nation’s second-largest reservoir. In some cases, the water was probably picked up by a downstream water user, with no net gain to Lake Powell. This is the issue that new state legislation could remedy. Until now, the experimental conservation programs were allowed with temporary approvals from state officials.

“We want action,” Waldvogle said. “And I think the way I define action is for [lawmakers] to move forward in developing a program in order to really catalyze our communities into these discussions. To really develop all the sideboards necessary to have a program is going to take a longer time frame.”

Western States Ranches

Conscience Bay owns about 3,800 acres on parcels scattered throughout Delta County, 3,000 of which the company says are irrigated. About 3,200 of these total acres are clustered in Harts Basin near Eckert, making up the headquarters of the company’s reaching operation known as Western States Ranches. The ranch participated in the SCPP in 2024, with water to some fields shut off June 1 and others July 1. The ranch saved about 550 acre-feet, or 7% of its water, according to ranch managers. 

Ranch representatives see participation in these early voluntary conservation programs as a way to have some control over their operations should water cuts become mandatory in the future. They say they are interested in innovative ways to adapt to water scarcity, and they partnered with Colorado State University scientists to study the effects on forage crops of taking irrigation off their fields that were enrolled in SCPP in 2024.

“We wanted to figure out how this is going to affect us, and if we are required to do this in the future, we want to have the knowledge to make good decisions,” said Mike Higuera, agricultural operations manager of Western States Ranches. “We assume that we are going to have to conserve water in this game.”

Western States Ranches in Delta County participated in the 2024 System Conservation Pilot Program. The ranch is working with Colorado State University researchers to learn what happens when water is removed from fields. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Western States Ranches hosted an August field day in Eckert with the Western Landowners Alliance for other local farmers and ranchers to learn about drought-resilient ranching and share the findings from CSU researchers. 

The ranch’s participation in SCPP has resurrected fears that the owners, who began purchasing the Delta County properties in 2017, are speculating — buying up land for its senior water rights and hoarding them for a future profit. With a water-conservation program in the Upper Basin all but guaranteed, some worry that Western States Ranches could be looking to profit off sending their water downstream. 

The question came up at the August field day when a Paonia-area rancher said he had heard the ranch owners were speculators. Conscience Bay representatives have always denied that accusation.

“I can tell you there are a lot better ways to make money,” Higuera replied. 

According to SCPP documents, the ranch was paid $278,372 for their water in 2024. Higuera said that amounted to about 10% of their revenue last year, with cattle sales making up the other 90%. 

Colorado in recent years has tried to tackle the thorny issues of how to fairly roll out a conservation program while prohibiting speculation. Defining what speculation is and who is a speculator is slippery and hinges on determining the water rights purchaser’s intent — a nearly impossible thing to know or police with 100% certainty. The bottom line of the state’s existing anti-speculation policy is that water-rights owners must put that water to beneficial use.

Ultimately, a 2021 workgroup failed to find consensus about ways to strengthen protections against speculation and a drought task force failed to provide recommendations about conserved consumptive programs for lawmakers, underscoring the difficulty of protecting the state’s water without infringing on private property rights. Some agricultural producers balked at laws that could restrict their ability to make money by selling their land and associated water rights.

At the heart of speculation concerns is the fear of large-scale, permanent dry-up of agricultural lands. Mueller has long cautioned that conservation programs, if not done carefully, could disproportionately impact rural agricultural communities. Although SCPP was open to all water-use sectors, all of Colorado’s participants in SCPP in 2023 and 2024 were from Western Slope agriculture.

“Any program that we have must be designed for our state’s best ability to support the longevity of agriculture and the vitality of our communities, and we’ve got to be thoughtful and precise,” Mueller said.

This equipment in a field on Western States Ranches helps figure out how much water crops use. The ranch partnered with Colorado State University researchers to track what happens to a forage crop when water is removed mid-way through the irrigation season. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Paying for programs

Another big question about Upper Basin conservation remains: How will it be paid for?

SCPP in 2023 and 2024 was funded with money from the federal Inflation Reduction Act. The bill that could have authorized SCPP again in 2025 is still stalled in the House. Over 2023 and 2024, the program doled out about $45 million to water users in the Upper Basin and saved about 101,000 acre-feet.

Without overhauling the West’s system of water rights, voluntary, temporary and compensated conservation programs are one of the only carrots to entice agricultural water users — who account for the majority of water use in the Colorado River Basin — to cut back. But they are expensive, and it’s unclear how future long-term conservation programs would be funded. 

Colorado’s entire congressional delegation in early August sent a bipartisan letter to federal water managers, in an effort to shake loose $140 million in funding that was promised for projects addressing drought on the Western Slope in the final days of the Biden administration and then frozen by the Trump administration. 

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., addressed the question at a Colorado Water Congress meeting in Steamboat Springs in August.

“We’re now not going to have a great federal partner for a while, I’m afraid, and we’re going to have to figure out how to rely on each other and do it in more imaginative ways than maybe we have in the past,” Bennet said. 

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

#Colorado Parks and Wildlife confirms additional adult zebra mussels discovered in #GrandJunction #ColoradoRiver #COriver

Adult Zebra mussel. Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Click the link to read the release on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife website (Rachael Gonzales):

September 15, 2025

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — Through ongoing increased sampling efforts on the Colorado River and nearby bodies of water, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) staff have detected adult zebra mussels in the Colorado River and a nearby lake in Grand Junction. 

“While this is news we never wanted to hear, we knew this was a possibility since we began finding veligers in the river,” said CPW Director Jeff Davis. “I can’t reiterate this enough. It was because we have a group of individuals dedicated to protecting Colorado’s water resources that these detections were made. It is because of these same dedicated individuals and our partners that we will continue our efforts to understand the extent of zebra mussels in western Colorado. ”

On Thursday, Aug. 28, the Aquatic Animal Health Lab (AAHL) notified Robert Walters, CPW Invasive Species Program Manager, that suspect veligers (the microscopic larval stage of zebra mussels) collected from West and East Lake, west of 31 Road within the Wildlife Area section of James M. Robb-Colorado River State Park, had tested positive for zebra mussel DNA. During a follow-up survey on Tuesday, Sept. 2, staff discovered suspected adult zebra mussels in the lake. 

Surveys were also conducted in the side channel, where water from the lake is released before flowing into the Colorado River.  During these subsequent surveys, additional suspect adult zebra mussels were found in the side channel and in the Colorado River where the side channel meets the mainstem of the river. 

Visual identification of the samples from the lake, channel, and river was performed by ANS staff. Samples were then sent to the AAHL for DNA confirmation. On Monday, Sept. 8, the AAHL confirmed the samples collected are adult zebra mussels. 

With this discovery, the Colorado River is now considered an “infested” body of water from the 32 Road bridge downstream to the Colorado-Utah border. This is the first time adult zebra mussels have been detected in the Colorado River. 

A body of water is considered “infested” when a water body has an established (recruiting or reproducing) population of invasive species; in this instance, multiple zebra mussel life stages have been found in that body of water. 

The following bodies of water have the designation of an “infested” body of water:

  • Highline Lake at Highline Lake State Park (2022)
  • Mack Mesa Lake at Highline Lake State Park (2025)
  • West and East Lake at the Wildlife Area Section of James M. Robb – Colorado River State Park (2025)
  • Colorado River from 32 Road bridge downstream to the Colorado-Utah border (2025)
  • Private body of water in Eagle County (2025)

The Colorado River remains “positive” for zebra mussels from the confluence of the Roaring Fork River to the 32 Road bridge.

No detections of zebra mussels have occurred between the headwaters of the Colorado River and the confluence of the Roaring Fork River.

CPW, in collaboration with our partners at the local, state and federal levels, will continue our increased sampling and monitoring efforts from the headwaters of the Colorado River in Grand County to the Colorado-Utah border.  

“We won’t give up,” said CPW Invasive Species Program Manager Robert Walters. “Our priority remains utilizing containment, population management and education to protect the uninfested waters of the state.”

CPW will continue to evaluate options for the future containment and mitigation of Highline Lake, Mack Mesa Lake, and West and East Lake. CPW does not intend to treat the mainstem of the Colorado River due to multiple factors, including risk to native fish populations and critical habitat, length of the potential treatment area, and complexity of canals and ditches that are fed by the Colorado River.

Since sampling efforts began in mid-April, CPW has collected 427 water samples from various locations in the Colorado River. Of those samples, CPW has confirmed six samples to contain zebra mussel veligers. ANS staff has also collected 41 samples from the Eagle River and 42 samples from the Roaring Fork River. There have been no detections of zebra mussel veligers in the samples from the Eagle and Roaring Fork rivers. 

Private Body of Water in Eagle County treatment
During the week of August 25, CPW ANS staff treated a privately owned body of water in western Eagle County using EarthTec QZ, an EPA-registered copper-based molluscicide. In follow-up surveys conducted during the weeks of Sept. 1 and Sept. 8, staff observed positive initial results, having found dead adult zebra mussels in multiple areas around the body of water. CPW staff will continue to routinely monitor the water to evaluate its effectiveness. 

Oh, Shell No!
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Aquatic Nuisance Species team is asking for your help. If you own a pond or lake that utilizes water from the Colorado River or Grand Junction area canal systems, CPW would like to inspect your body of water. You can request sampling of your body of water by CPW staff at Invasive.Species@state.co.us.

“Despite these additional detections, it remains critical for the continued protection of Colorado’s aquatic resources and infrastructure to fully understand the distribution of zebra mussels in western Colorado,” said Walters. “We can only achieve this with the assistance and participation of the public.”

In addition to privately owned ponds and lakes, CPW  also encourages those who use water pulled from the Colorado River and find any evidence of mussels or clams to send photos to the above email for identification. It is extremely important to accurately report the location in these reports for follow-up surveying.

Prevent the spread: Be a Pain in the ANS
With the additional discoveries of adult zebra mussels, it is even more important for everyone to play their part in protecting Colorado’s bodies of water and preventing the spread of invasive species. Simple actions like cleaning, draining and drying your motorized and hand-launched vessels — including paddleboards and kayaks — and angling gear after you leave the water can make a big difference to protect Colorado’s waters.

Learn more about how you can prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species and tips to properly clean, drain and dry your boating and fishing gear by visiting our website. Tips for anglers and a map of CPW’s new gear and watercraft cleaning stations are available here.

Federal Water Tap, September 15, 2025: EPA Says It Won’t Regulate Four #PFAS in Drinking Water — Brett Walton (circleofblue.org)

Unprotected farm fields yield topsoil as well as farm fertilizers and other potential pollutants when heavy rains occur.

Click the link to read the article on the Circle of Blue website (Brett Walton):

The Rundown

  • EPA intends to retract a Biden-era regulation for four PFAS in drinking water.
  • Report on children’s health highlights MAHA concern with fluoride in drinking water.
  • GAO finds that the outcomes from Biden-era environmental justice focus are unknown.
  • Defense spending and harmful algal bloom bills move through Congress.

And lastly, Reclamation will do more analysis on an ag-to-urban Colorado River water transfer in Arizona.

“Following the completion of studies on fluoride, CDC and USDA will educate Americans on the appropriate levels of fluoride, clarify the role of EPA in drinking water standards for fluoride under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and increase awareness of the ability to obtain fluoride topically through toothpaste.” – Excerpt from the MAHA Commission strategy for improving children’s health.

By the Numbers

$1 Billion: Federal aid to livestock producers who were affected by wildfire and flooding in 2023 and 2024. The funds, announced by USDA, are intended to offset higher feed costs.

News Briefs

PFAS Regulation…And Others
The EPA says it will attempt to retract its regulation of four PFAS in drinking water, a rule that was established during the Biden administration.

The agency will keep federal drinking water limits on two forever chemicals: PFOA and PFOS. But it wants to drop federal regulation of four others: PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS, and Gen X.

The EPA is also not defending the rule in court, asking judges to invalidate it, Bloomberg Law reports.

Utilities are challenging the rule on procedural grounds as well as objecting to its cost for small systems. Public health groups point out that federal law has “anti-backsliding” provisions to prevent existing drinking water limits from being weakened.

The agency signaled its intention to scrap limits on the four PFAS in the Unified Agenda, a semiannual listing of the federal government’s regulatory plans.

Other water-related regulatory actions mentioned in the agenda: perchlorate in drinking water, a definition of the “waters of the United States” that are subject to Clean Water Act permitting, and expanding the area in which oil and gas wastewater (a.k.a “produced water”) can be reused.

Water Bills in Congress
The House passed a defense spending authorization bill that includes several water provisions.

It instructs the department to provide clean drinking water from an alternative source to any household on a private well that is contaminated with PFAS due to military activities.

The bill also directs the military secretaries to assess water-supply risk at their bases. Each secretary will identify the three most at-risk bases under their command and develop a strategy to reduce water-supply risk.

The Senate, meanwhile, passed a bill that reauthorizes a federal program for harmful algal bloom research and monitoring.

Arizona Injection Well Management
The EPA granted Arizona’s application to oversee permitting for wells that inject fluids and waste underground in the state.

Studies and Reports

Water and Children’s Health
The Make America Healthy Again Commission released its strategy for improving children’s health.

The 20-page document refers to drinking water as a pathway for contaminants. But it provides vague direction on solutions. Federal agencies “will assess ongoing evaluations of water contaminants and update guidance and prioritizations of certain contaminants appropriately,” it states.

Several contaminants are called out. Fluoride, a favored enemy for the MAHA movement, is one. Others are pharmaceuticals and PFAS. Farm chemicals are indirectly cited, in a sentence that asks the USDA to research water quality and farm conservation practices. At the same time, EPA is directed to reduce permitting requirements to “strengthen regional meat infrastructure.”

The report is undermined by actions other federal agencies are taking – approving new chemicals for commercial use, cutting research and enforcement budgets, not defending PFAS regulations.

Evaluating Environmental Justice Push
To help poor and disadvantaged communities overcome histories of pollution, racism, and poverty, the Biden administration ordered that they receive 40 percent of the benefits of certain federal spending. Donald Trump ended this Justice40 initiative in his first month in office.

What did the program achieve?

That’s hard to say, according to an audit by the Government Accountability Office.

Looking at three agencies that were key players in the program – EPA, Interior, and USDA – the audit concluded that, though they modified grant programs, provided assistance, and began to track outcomes, “overall results of agency actions are unknown.”

On the Radar

Arizona Water Transfer
Following a court order for a more-thorough analysis, the Bureau of Reclamation will conduct an environmental impact assessment of an ag-to-urban transfer of Colorado River water that it already approved.

Queen Creek, a fast-growing Phoenix exurb, purchased water from GSC Farm, in La Paz County, on the opposite side of the state. The assessment will also consider the effects of moving the water to Queen Creek via the Central Arizona Project canal.

Cities and counties in western Arizona sued to block the water transfer.

Two virtual public meetings will be held on October 1 to gather comments. Log-in details are found here.

Senate Hearing
On September 17, the Environmental and Public Works Committee will hold an oversight hearing on the Army Corps of Engineers.

House Hearings
On September 16, an Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee will hold a hearing on weather modification. The subcommittee is led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who incorrectly blamed Hurricane Helene on a “they” who control the weather. She introduced a bill in July to ban geoengineering, cloud seeding, aerosol injection, and other methods of altering the weather. Carbon emissions, however, are not explicitly mentioned.

Another Oversight subcommittee will hold a hearing that same day on EPA enforcement during the Biden administration.

Also on September 16, an Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing on appliance efficiency standards, which Republicans and the president have criticized as limiting customer choice, even though they reduce water and energy consumption.

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.

Navajo Dam operations update September 16, 2025: Bumping releases down to 650 cfs

The San Juan River’s Navajo Dam and reservoir. Photo credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

From email from Reclamation (Conor Felletter):

The Bureau of Reclamation has scheduled a decrease in the release from Navajo Dam to 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the current release of 650 cfs for Tuesday September 16, at 4:00 AM. 

Releases are made for the authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit, and to attempt to maintain a target base flow through the endangered fish critical habitat reach of the San Juan River (Farmington to Lake Powell).  The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program recommends a target base flow of between 500 cfs and 1,000 cfs through the critical habitat area.  The target base flow is calculated as the weekly average of gaged flows throughout the critical habitat area from Farmington to Lake Powell.  

This scheduled release change is subject to changes in river flows and weather conditions. If you have any questions, please contact Conor Felletter (cfelletter@usbr.gov or 970-637-1985), or visit Reclamation’s Navajo Dam website athttps://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/cs/nvd.html

Adapting to a dry reality, ‘The natural world is going to prevail in the end’: Saguache County water users work to restore aquifer after years of drought and over-pumping — Evan Arvizu (AlamosaCitizen.com) #RioGrande

Saguache Creek flows from the northwest corner of the San Luis Vallley. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website (Evan Arvizu):

September 13, 2025

The San Luis Valley is running out of water and there’s no way around it.

In Saguache County specifically, the amount of water in Saguache Creek has consistently been going down, while the amount needed to irrigate remains the same. This lack of water due to climate change, drought and overuse affects every aspect of life. Impacts on water access and streamflow are making irrigation more complicated and unpredictable, and for a community that has been built around, and economically relies on, agriculture, this is concerning. Millions of dollars are being spent to try to find solutions and mitigate the impacts, but as these challenges persist, a broader discussion is opening up about the future of agriculture in the Valley. 

The question at the heart of the issue: how do communities around the San Luis Valley, like Saguache, not only manage and survive this crisis, but sustainably adapt to a landscape with less water? 

The answer is complicated. 

Saguache Creek in September, 2025. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

Since 2002, the entire American southwest has been experiencing a severe drought. The San Luis Valley is at the center of this crisis, warming faster than any other region. Increased temperatures, inconsistent precipitation, and decreasing snowpack – alongside overpumping and overuse – has created a dire situation in which the amount of water available for use in Saguache County is rapidly decreasing. 

There are two ways to access water in the Valley: pulling directly from surface water sources like creeks, rivers, and lakes, or pumping from wells that pull from the aquifer below. The water system is all connected, and the water level of the aquifer contributes to the streamflow of creeks and surface water through groundwater discharge and baseflow. 

Currently, the unconfined aquifer is down over a million acre-feet of water, an amount equal to the size of the Blue Mesa Reservoir in Gunnison. The San Luis Valley has both an unconfined and confined aquifer, but the part that is under Saguache in the north end of the Valley is the confined artesian aquifer. With the structure of a confined aquifer, the loss of water, though concerning, does not prevent well users from accessing water. 

It does, however, impact surface water. Unlike the aquifer, where there is still water to pull from even with losses, for surface water, significant losses to the water system mean lower streamflow and sometimes a nonexistent water source.  

“If the water table drops 3 to 5 feet, suddenly it becomes disconnected from the creek and doesn’t support the streamflows. The streams just start sinking into the ground,” said Tom McCracken, a farmer and former Saguache creek surface water user. “Streamflows are down across the board. It’s really really getting bad, and it’s exacerbated by the fact that the aquifer is so low. The water is just soaking into the ground instead of running out into the Valley like it used to.”

San Luis Valley Groundwater

This means that when the wells are pumping from the aquifer, if the water level drops low enough, they’re inadvertently depleting the flow of the creek, which is water somebody has a right to divert. While this pumping impacts the aquifer as a whole, and is not localized specifically to Saguache County, streamflow of surface water around the Valley feels the impacts. These losses are considered injurious depletions, and they have been disproportionately impacting surface water rights holders, who rely on streamflow to irrigate.

This is especially problematic because water rights in the Valley operate on the concept of prior appropriation, where the longer a water right has existed, the more seniority it gets. In times of water shortage, older water rights have priority over newer water rights.

Saguache rancher George Whitten, owner of Blue Range Ranch and San Juan Ranch. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

“On a creek system like this, there’s a longstanding history of struggles between one ranch and the other because the doctrine of prior appropriation kind of sets up a struggle for water rights right from the very beginning,” said George Whitten, a lifelong rancher in Saguache, who owns Blue Range Ranch and San Juan Ranch.  “It’s not a system of sharing but a system of allocation. You have all the water until there’s enough for the next guy and on down. And that changes daily depending on the flow of the stream.”

Generally, in Saguache County, surface water rights are older, and considered senior, often holding numbers that rank priority within surface rights, and well water rights are newer and considered junior. 

This has created a unique and challenging problem, spurring tensions in the community, as surface water users, used to having senior water rights, are finding themselves with decreasing water access because of low streamflow, while well water users are able to continue pumping from the aquifer. 

“People with surface water rights that are from the 1870s are never happy with the idea that a well that was drilled in 1970 could be flowing when their water right is not there anymore,” said Whitten. “As the Valley starts to dry up, with climate change and a lack of snow fall, surface rights are less and less dependable. We’re set up in this epic struggle for how to deal with that.”

The solution to this problem might seem simple: people just need to pump less water. And while that is true to a degree, addressing this problem is a lot more complicated than that. 

“Most people want to restore the aquifer, really, in their heart,” said McCracken. “But it’s like ‘I’m not going to do it if my neighbor’s not going to do it. Why should I be the one to suffer?’” 

Under the current state Division of Water Resources model, established with the passing of Senate Bill 04-222, the state provides subdistricts with a maximum amount of predicted depletions for the area annually. Subdistricts then must find enough water to repair those depletions before the growing season starts, mapping it out in an annual replacement plan, which is approved by the state. 

That means that for wells to continue operation, the injurious depletions must be remedied, by putting an amount equal to the amount of depletions back into the creek, so that surface water users also have access.

If enough water isn’t located and the plan isn’t approved, users won’t be granted access until it can be figured out. This means water shut off during the growing season. In 2021, Subdistrict 5’s replacement plan was rejected, resulting in about 230 wells being shut off from April 1 through the end of June, when a challenge to the rejection was finally approved, granting water access. Nearly half of the growing season was lost, yielding serious economic consequences. 

In order to meet these goals, the Rio Grande Water Conservation District (RGWCD) has been leasing and buying properties and water rights around Saguache County, retiring them from agricultural production, and redirecting the water to repair depletions. 

In early 2022, Subdistrict 5 was looking to be in a similar spot as 2021: without enough water to counter the depletions and unable to agree on how to get that water. The RGWCD bought its first big property, the Hazard Ranch, in May of 2022. The purchase consisted of 110 acres of property and 143 acres of water rights from the Hazard family, who had been ranching in the Valley since the 1870s. The water from the Hazard sale was enough to replenish the remaining depletions and got the annual replacement plan approved, allowing other water users to stay in operation. This last-minute purchase ultimately saved Subdistrict 5’s water from being shut down for a second year in a row.

The way the process works is that the subdistricts can purchase water rights and sometimes also the property that those water rights sit on, retiring the land from agricultural use. But finding the right properties and water rights can be tricky. There are limited water rights that are available to be used by the subdistricts, because existing conservation easements along the creek and other factors restrict the locations of potential surface water rights purchases. Each subdistrict also has its own criteria and valuations for what water rights are valuable, and only certain properties meet those criteria. 

Currently, Subdistrict 5 is funding projects using loans from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Right now it has two loans worth about $12 million. 

Once purchases have been made, the subdistrict files a change of use form that switches the water’s usage designation from irrigation to augmentation. Because this process is usually happening quickly in order to meet depletion needs, this form is often filed as a temporary change of use. A permanent change requires a lengthy court process that can take up to 20 years. As long as the subdistrict has started the court process to get the designation changed, it can continue to operate under the new, temporarily changed designation, until that is officially changed, which allows for more immediate action. 

After the change of use, using augmentation wells that pump water to the creek, the water that was previously irrigation and consumptive use (the amount being consumed by the crops) can be redirected and returned, offsetting depletions. 

For Subdistrict 5, when it makes this switch to augmentation, it isn’t actually retiring the water rights. The water remains available to be pumped if the subdistrict needs more water to meet requirements in years with large depletions. It is still conserving water because it usually isn’t pumping, and when it is, it isn’t getting anywhere near the historical levels that were pumped when pumping was used for agriculture. 

“We all need to pump significantly less or else everybody is going to be shut down. So if we shut down these quarters here, it will allow the other quarters to continue to operate versus everyone being shut down,” said Chris Ivers, program manager for Subdistrict 5. “It’s not that we want to retire productive agricultural land, it’s just that the rules limit how much we can sustainably pump – the rules of nature, I mean.” 

Subdistricts must meet both sustainability mandates and injurious depletion mandates from the state. Currently, to meet sustainability goals, Subdistrict 5 must remain within the limits of the historical pumping that took place between 1978-2000 for a 10-year period. Because the district is well within this sustainable range, it has been able to focus on buying water rights without having to prioritize full retirement for sustainability reasons, which is the main focus of some other subdistricts. 

“What we’re seeing in the state’s annual measurement under the groundwater rules is that the Saguache response area, the aquifer, is actually recovering in that area at a greater rate than anywhere else in the confined aquifer in the Valley,” said Amber Pacheco, deputy general manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District.


The district’s next big purchase will likely be more of North Star Farm, from whom it has been leasing and buying property for years. North Star, one of the largest water users in the Valley, runs around 30 circles in Subdistrict 5, growing alfalfa for large dairy operations in California. North Star only holds junior, groundwater rights, and its operation consists of a system that pumps water from wells and irrigates using water pivots at the center of every circle. 

Farm land in Saguache. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

For surface water users, this purchase is a step in the right direction, as North Star’s water usage has been a point of contention for many years. 

“It’s a difficult thing to see a sprinkler running on North Star Farm when the number 10 water right is off in Saguache Creek,” said Whitten, who is vice president of the Subdistrict 5 board of managers. “Seeing them able to pump a full supply of water without any surface rights whatsoever, when the people on the creek, due to the lack of inflows, are sitting there drying up and watching that go on – it’s a hard spot in this community for sure,” said Whitten. “I totally get it. I have a lot of land that is not usable anymore because of North Star.” 

This situation acts as a prime example of the cultural clash that exists in the Valley, not only between surface and well water rights holders, but also between a large corporate entity in a sea of family-owned and operated businesses. 

But even though North Star is an out-of-state corporation, the situation is complicated because the locals who are employed by North Star are a part of the community as well. 

“You know the people who work there, who manage that farm, they live in Sanford, but they have kids in school and they’re part of the community too. If you get too focused on Saguache Creek you lose your perspective,” Whitten said. 

Drying up North Star has been a longtime goal of the RGWCD and other community members. They have embarked on several endeavors over the years with the goal of purchasing the whole property and all of its water rights, but the price has always been just out of reach. Ultimately people want the land dried up and revegetated, with all of that water being put back into the creek. 

Today, the goal remains the same, but instead of all at once, it’s starting to happen in small pieces. Starting in 2021, Subdistrict 5 was leasing one to three groundwater irrigated sprinkler quarter sections from North Star, negotiating those leases annually. Each quarter contains about 120 acres of irrigated ground. In 2024, Subdistrict 5 purchased the water rights to those three leased quarters, and Subdistrict 2 purchased two  quarters as well. Subdistrict 5 is planning to purchase four  additional quarters in the upcoming year, using funding from a loan approved in January of this year.


Having recently made big purchases like the Hazard Ranch and parts of the North Star property, Subdistrict 5 has a large quantity of water available to be redirected. 

Some wells that already exist work as augmentation wells, but sometimes new augmentation wells need to be built in more optimal locations in order to connect certain groundwater areas to the creek. This is a priority for the subdistrict right now. 

“Our current problem isn’t the amount of water. [With recent purchases], we have enough water, but we don’t have enough ability to deliver that water,” said Ivers. “We’re really focused on finding locations for augmentation wells on Saguache Creek.” 

While things are moving in a positive direction, the situation will likely only intensify in the upcoming years. When the state model gets updated, predicted depletions change based on the water situation from the prior decade. The new calculations that have come out, which would go into effect in 2026, show a drastic jump in the amount of depletions Subdistrict 5 will have to remedy. 

“It’s a pretty significant increase for the subdistrict, which means it’s going to have a significant and kind of an immediate impact on those subdistrict members to try to recover enough groundwater that they can pay for these increased depletions,” said Pacheco. “It’s going to be a big, big challenge for Subdistrict 5 especially, to try to be able to meet those with the limited availability of what they can use in the area. They’re working on it already and I have faith that we’ll be able to do that successfully, but it will be a challenge for sure.” 

While the subdistricts operate individually, 1, 4, and 5 all owe depletions to Saguache Creek, and are combining efforts and sharing resources when they can to make sure depletions and goals get met. 

“Subdistricts 1, 4, and 5 have agreed to work together as best they can to solve the problem as one. It’s kind of a good opportunity for a more collaborative effort for Saguache Creek,” said Ivers.


While the purchasing and retirement of agricultural land has been regarded as one of the only sustainable solutions to the problem, the strategy has been met with some questions and concerns – both economic and environmental. 

The establishment of the state model was controversial in some circles because it created an irrigation season and seasonal restrictions on water access for all water rights holders. It was met with backlash from certain parts of the community, particularly surface water users, who were used to irrigating when they felt it was necessary, even if it was outside of the usual growing season. Many still don’t love it, and a consistent point of frustration has been centered around the impacts of climate change, which is causing fluctuations in the timing of runoff and snowpack melt. Earlier flows, coming down before the start of the state’s irrigation season, means farmers have to watch water go by in the river that can’t be diverted, while struggling with a lack of water later in the season. 

How the property retirement and dry-up will impact taxes is another area of concern. 

“Saguache County’s tax base could be drastically affected by all this dry-up. The property tax base is based on agriculture mainly, and if we lose that, we gotta find alternative ways to finance the county’s operations. It really should be part of the negotiations to dry up a circle to maintain that tax base, but it’s not at the moment. So I’m really concerned about it,” said McCracken, who serves on the Saguache County Board of Commissioners.

Property taxes are calculated based on how productive the land is, so when it gets dried up and stops, it loses that productivity and therefore also the tax classification. Losing large properties to dry-up, while good for water, could mean a huge loss to county coffers. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District says that this is something it takes into consideration. 

“If the RGWCD buys the land and actually controls the land, we do work with the counties to try to continue the tax base for that property, even though it’s now gone to a different taxable classification,” said Pacheco. “We try to keep their budgets as whole as we can when we buy properties, so we pay Alamosa County, we get bills from Saguache County, all to try to minimize the impact on those government services.”

Retiring agricultural land also creates a few environmental concerns. First, putting surface water back into the ground, while sustainable, endangers riparian zones on the creeks going up into the canyons, which are critical wildlife habitats and for regional tourism. 

Diverting a property’s water without the proper plan, especially with a persistent drought, can also create the optimal conditions for a dust bowl. Changing weather, with decreasing precipitation and strong, unpredictable winds, alongside the removal of water and crops, causes the topsoil to dry up. With no roots or vegetation to hold the soil in place, the potential for it to blow away increases.

“You potentially have these huge dust storms where you lose an inch of top soil in the storm, and there’s traffic pile ups on Highway 17 and there’s drifts of soil up to the top of the fencelines. I mean it’s just out of control,” said McCracken. “Those circles, if they’re dried up, have to be revegetated. It’s just an absolute necessity.” 

The RGWCD, along with other groups in the Valley, is working to make revegetation a priority. Whitten is part of a group, along with Patrick O’Neill and Madeline Wilson from CSU Extension, that has been discussing the best ways to go about revegetation in the area. The goal would be to improve soil health and restore nutrients that have been stripped during prior agricultural use, by bringing in native plant cover and potentially grazing livestock as well. Different plans allow for a few inches of water to be left on retired land to support revegetation efforts in the first few years. 

Enforcing revegetation is a problem the RGWCD and county officials are still working to address. If the RGWCD doesn’t control the land, either because it only owns water rights, or because landowners had to dry up land they couldn’t afford to farm, but aren’t connected to a program, the RGWCD can’t force them to revegetate. These situations are complicated, because while people may want those properties to be revegetated for environmental and aesthetic reasons, it’s unclear who has the authority, and whose responsibility it is, to make those decisions or enforce rules.

Many also question whether or not the millions of dollars being spent buying properties could be better allocated toward other sustainability and conservation efforts that impact water. Instead of so much money being used to buy properties, a portion could be going to farmers to help them start practicing more sustainable methods, like sequestering carbon and improving soil health, which naturally help reduce water usage while also restoring the ecosystem. 

A view of silos in Saguache. Credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

This concern is rooted in the idea that, if industrial agriculture practices are going to continue running through water and harming the soil, eventually requiring more and more land to be bought up and retired – which some call a “Band-aid solution” – it might be productive to look into reworking the agricultural system into a more sustainable model. 

“We have farmers in the Valley using sustainable farming methods that have reduced their water usage by like 40 to 50 percent. Why aren’t we doing that? Why aren’t we taking the resources we have and spending at least some of them to try to change, not just take land out of agriculture permanently,” said McCracken. “Change their way of farming and maybe change some of the crops and the number of rotations that they do. Maybe we can get that water back if we do this right. Maybe we can keep more people in business. Maybe it doesn’t have to be only the corporations that survive all of this.” 


The efforts being made around the Valley by Rio Grande Water Conservation District  and other organizations are an important part of the search for a solution to what could be considered an impossible problem, one that communities around the southwest continue to grapple with. 

“I’m really proud of the San Luis Valley and the RGWCD and the people here who have tried to figure out a way to mitigate those impacts on surface rights by well pumping,” said Whitten. “I’ve spent most of my life involved in this struggle and we’re way ahead of most people in the West, I think, in dealing with these issues.” 

It will likely only continue to get more complex, as climate change, drought, and water availability become more unpredictable. But, it is a Valley-wide and basin-wide issue that affects everyone, and it seems as though, despite certain disagreement points, the community can agree that attempting to adapt and find sustainable paths forward is the only solution. 

“What we endeavored to do back in the day was to control the collapse of the agricultural empire that we’ve built here. We’re running out of water and there’s just no way around that,” said Whitten. “So do you let everybody just pump until the last guy who can drill the deepest well is the last one left? Or do you somehow try to control this collapse of our economy and somehow salvage it? The natural world is going to prevail in the end. How do we control this and try to become sustainable and resilient?” 

These questions remain at the center of conversations in Saguache County. 

1869 Map of San Luis Parc of Colorado and Northern New Mexico. “Sawatch Lake” at the east of the San Luis Valley is in the closed basin. The Blanca Wetlands are at the south end of the lake.

Denver Water supports push by state delegation in Congress for Shoshone, other water funds — The #GrandJunction Daily Sentinel #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

The Colorado River District is working to buy the water rights to the Shoshone hydroelectric power plant for $99 million from Xcel Energy to ensure they exist in perpetuity, due to their importance in helping assure a sizable amount of Colorado River water continues flowing downstream at times of low water levels rather than being diverted. It is pursuing an instream flow right to protect the flows associated with the rights at times when the plant isn’t operating, and so the flows will continue should the plant ever close.Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism

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

September 10, 2025

Front Range utility giant Denver Water has thrown its support behind the effort by Colorado’s entire congressional delegation to get the Bureau of Reclamation to release previously announced drought-mitigation funding for 15 Colorado water projects, including $40 million to help acquire the Shoshone hydroelectric plant water rights on the Colorado River. In a Sept. 5 letter to the bureau’s acting commissioner, David Palumbo, and Scott Cameron, acting assistant Interior secretary for water and science, Denver Water CEO/Manager Alan Salazar voiced the utility’s support for the funding for 15 Colorado projects selected for the bureau’s Upper Colorado River Basin Environmental Drought Mitigation funding opportunity. The money is part of a category of funding also known as “Bucket 2” or “B2E.”

[…]

In the waning days of the Biden administration, the Bureau of Reclamation announced the Shoshone funding and tens of millions of dollars of funding for other water projects in the state. Among the other projects are about $25.6 million for drought mitigation in southwest Colorado, about $24.3 million for the Grand Mesa and Upper Gunnison watershed resiliency and aquatic connectivity project, $4.6 million for the Mesa Conservation District and Colorado West Land Trust to work on drought resiliency on local conserved lands, and $2.8 million for the Fruita Reservoir Dam removal project on Piñon Mesa. Most of that funding has been frozen under the Trump administration, although it did eventually agree to release nearly $12 million to the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District for water projects that were among the projects previously announced for funding…

Of particular interest particularly for West Slope water interests is the Shoshone funding. The Colorado River District is trying to close a $99 million deal with Xcel Energy to buy what are large and senior water rights associated with the plant in Glenwood Canyon. Those rights, due to their seniority, have helped protect flows into the canyon and downstream, and the river district wants to protect those water rights and their associated flows in cases when the plant isn’t operating, and should it eventually shut down. The federal funding is key to the fundraising effort to buy the water rights. The river district has proposed dedicating the Shoshone water rights to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for instream flow use, Salazar noted in his letter.

Where are the anti-tyranny, federal overreach folks when you need them? — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org)

Looking up Recapture Canyon in the Lands Between. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

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

September 9, 2025

🤯 Annals of Inanity 🤡

Please forgive me for being confused about the state of our nation, about the actions of our president, and about the reaction to it.

See, a decade ago, Western state politicians — particularly conservative Republicans and, if you will, Sagebrush Rebels — were up in arms, sometimes literally, about something they called “federal overreach.” In most cases, it referred to actions by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service that ranged from closing roads or prohibiting motorized vehicles in sensitive areas to attempting to round up cattle that had been grazing illegally on public land to arresting suspected pothunters to enforcing laws on federal land.

When a herd of assault-weapon toting self-proclaimed militia showed up at Cliven Bundy’s Bunkerville ranch in 2014, they were resisting federal overreach; when Phil Lyman led a flock of ATV riders down Recapture Canyon in Utah, he was protesting federal overreach; when Ammon and Ryan Bundy led the siege of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, they were protesting federal overreach.

In 2014, congressional Republicans even held a hearing on what they called “Threats, Intimidation, and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies.” In this case, according to witnesses, “bullying” included enforcing the Endangered Species Act and failing to coordinate with the local sheriff.

Indeed, in 2011 Dennis Spruell, then-sheriff of Montezuma County, Colorado, threatened to arrest land management officials who dared to close roads across federal lands. He continued: “The sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement authority. I have an obligation to protect my county from enemies, both foreign and domestic. So if the federal government comes in and violates the law, it’s my responsibility to make sure it stops.”

A couple of years later, 28 Utah sheriffs wrote a letter to President Obama threatening violent revolt if he were to enact gun control. “No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them,” they wrote. “We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”

All of which is a very wordy lead in to a question: Where the hell is the concern about federal overreach now?

The Trump administration is figuratively shredding the U.S. Constitution on an almost daily basis; masked federal ICE agents are terrorizing immigrants and citizens, alike; the administration is forcing utilities to keep operating coal plants; and not only has it sent the National Guard and even the Marines into Democratic-led cities unbidden in clear violation of states rights, but Trump himself declared “war” on an American city in a social media post. This makes a bit of BLM “overreach” look like child’s play.

If anything would warrant a response from the so-called militia, or the folks who oppose gun control because it would hamper their ability to resist tyranny, it would be this. Or so it seems. After all, sending the Marines to Los Angeles appears to have violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which makes it illegal “to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws.” This Reconstruction-era law is often used by “constitutional” sheriffs and federal overreach crowd to bolster their positions.

So where’s Ryan Bundy and his pocket Constitution? Where are Richard Mack and the “constitutional sheriffs” and the folks that used to rail about posse comitatus? Where’s Phil Lyman, who repeatedly called the Obama administration and the BLM “despotic” for daring to increase protections on public lands and for sending in law enforcement officers to arrest folks who violated the Antiquities Act?

They are, it turns out, nowhere to be found. The reason is obvious: All of the “federal overreach” grievance was performative. An act based not on principle, but on false victimhood, on a sense of entitlement, on a selfish desire the liberty to do what they please, not for Liberty as a principle or creed. So long as ICE doesn’t come after them, their cattle, their guns, they don’t have any beef with federal overreach, no matter how egregious or harmful — especially if it’s done in the name of retribution and “owning the libs.”

But there is an exception, and a surprising one to me. Ammon Bundy, who led the armed takeover of the wildlife refuge in Oregon, told Mother Jones’ Stephanie Mencimer that he actually finds the military occupation of cities “very concerning.” I’ll admit I didn’t catch Mencimer’s story, which was published a month ago, until I was writing this piece, and was looking for possible Bundy reactions. Ammon told her he has been relatively subdued (he hasn’t occupied any federal facilities yet) in response to Trump because he’s got enough legal troubles as it is 1.

While I’m no supporter of Ammon Bundy, you got to hand it to him for his consistency. He rightly considers the ICE raids as an affront to the founding principles of the United States. And he points out — apparently referring to his one-time allies — “It has been my sad experience that most people will set principles, justice, and good aside to spite those whom they despise.” You got that one right. [ed. emphasis mine]


Wise Use Echoes: The rhetoric and ideology of today’s right-wing extremism mirrors that of a lesser-known anti-public lands movement of the 1990s — Jonathan P. Thompson

Sage Brush Rebellion folks, Recapture Canyon, Utah Photo credit: Jonathan P. Thompson

Like millions of people from around the globe, I watched the images of coup-pawns invading the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 with shock, rage, and sadness. But, like many others, I wasn’t surprised. After all, almost exactly five years earlier we had been transfixed and alarmed by another violent attack on an American institution, the occupation of the Malheur…


1 *Ammon Bundy was one of the few people to speak out against the Trump administration and FBI head Kash Patel for honoring the FBI agents who shot and killed LaVoy Finicum amid the Malheur occupation, and for fabricating the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Xcel Energy plans to sell water it once held for power production to Lower #ArkansasRiver farmers — Jerd Smith (Fresh Water News)

As part of the sale, a new company is being formed by combining shares in two irrigation companies the Las Animas Consolidated Canal System and the Las Animas Consolidated Extension Canal, both in in Bent County. (Western Water Partnerships map)

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Jerd Smith):

September 11, 2025

Xcel Energy will offer water it owns but no longer needs to farmers in the water-strapped Lower Arkansas River Valley, in an innovative deal advocates hope will help the struggling region regain control of vital water supplies and protect its agricultural economy.

Under the preliminary terms of the proposal, valued at more than $44 million, Xcel will sell 12,500 acre-feet of water to a newly formed irrigation company, 70% of which will be owned by farmers and 30% of which will be owned by Colorado Springs Utilities.

An acre-foot of water equals 326,000 gallons, enough to serve two to four urban households for one year, or enough to cover an acre of farmland with a foot of water.

The news comes as tensions continue to rise between farm interests in the Lower Arkansas River Basin and cities, such as Colorado Springs and Aurora, that continue to tap its water to supply growth.

Advocates say this new project may be an important new method for reducing those tensions by keeping farm water in the communities where it has historically been used.

The water sale is backed by a coalition that includes Xcel Energy, the Palmer Land Conservancy, farmers, and Colorado Springs Utilities. The planning work is funded by a $245,000 grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and additional support from Colorado Springs and Palmer.

“The new company means farmers will become owners,” said Jennifer Jordan, a spokesperson for Colorado Springs Utilities. “It also means the water will remain in the Arkansas Basin.”

Xcel bought the water back in the 1980s as part of a new coal-fired power plant project that never materialized. Since then, the power company has leased the water to farmers in the region under year-to-year contracts.

The decision to sell the water to farmers is an effort by Xcel to aid the community, according to Todd Doherty, a principal with Western Water Partnerships, which is coordinating the sale.

“Xcel is really wanting to leave this community as good as, or better off, than they found it,” Doherty said. “They could have sold the water to the highest bidder and walked away.”

Closing coal-fired power plants frees up water

Xcel officials did not respond to a request for comment. The power company is also involved in another, larger water sale on the Western Slope, where it has agreed to sell several hundred thousand acre-feet of water it owns on the Colorado River to local water districts and cities.

Power companies are closing coal-fired power plants across the state and the country, and Doherty said the hope is the sale to a company majority-owned by farmers could serve as a model when water previously used for power production is sold.

An appraisal placed the value of the water rights at $9,000 an acre-foot for municipal use and $1,250 an acre-foot for agricultural use, Doherty said. At those prices, the deal would be valued at $44.6 million.

Rebecca Jewett, president of the Palmer Land Conservancy, said the Las Animas project has the potential to create new tools to protect irrigated farm lands in Colorado. During the past 30 years, those lands have shrunk by 30% due to chronic drought, climate-related reductions in streamflows and municipal water purchases.

The state has tried for decades to find ways to keep farm communities whole and to protect their water supplies and economies. To do so, it has spent millions of dollars and crafted new laws that made it easier for farmers and cities to share water, largely through leasing deals. But farm economies have continued to suffer and farmers have called for better tools to protect their water.

Through the new company, farmers will control their water supplies and will be able to use their water each year. But some dry up of farmland will occur to provide 30% of the water to Colorado Springs, Doherty said.

Originally, some 6,500 acres were served by the irrigation systems that will now become part of a new consolidated ditch company. But because hundreds of acres of irrigated land on the system are no longer being used as farmers have left the system, the sale will likely require a dry up of just 100 new acres, once Colorado Springs Utilities begins taking its water out of the system. That will leave 4,100 acres still in production.

Farmer and rancher Glen Brown, president of the new company, said the intent of the sale agreement and the new company “is to keep the water in the valley. We’ve protected 70% of this water better than it has ever been protected before.”

But other growers in the valley remain concerned that this deal doesn’t provide enough long-term protection.

“If there is no perpetual tying of 70% of the water to the land, that would be a major concern of ours,” said Jack Goble, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. “Who knows, when enough money is laid on the table 10 or 20 years down the road, unless it’s a perpetual agreement, what will happen.”

Doherty and Jewett acknowledge that the legal mechanism in place right now, which gives farmers majority control of the new company, might not prevent a future sale of the water if the farmers decided to do so themselves, but they say it would be extremely difficult to pull off.

“At Palmer, our ultimate goal is an unbreakable long-term tying of the water to the land,” Jewitt said, and she said more protections may be added before the final papers are signed early next year.

For now, Brown said, growers are ready to move forward with the purchase.

“Getting the water back on the ground is an opportunity that can’t be passed up,” he said.

More by Jerd Smith

Straight line diagram of the Lower Arkansas Valley ditches via Headwaters Magazine

Analysis of #ColoradoRiver Basin Storage Suggests Need For Immediate Action — Jack Schmidt, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Kathryn Sorensen, Katherine Tara (Center for Colorado River Studies) #COriver #aridification

Photo credit: Center for Colorado River Studies

From email from the Center for Colorado River Studies:

September 11, 2025

While Colorado River Basin attention is focused on negotiating post-2026 operating rules, a near term crisis is unfolding before our eyes. If no immediate action is taken to reduce water use, our already-thin buffer of storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead could drop to just 9 percent of the levels with which we started the 21st century.

Water consumption in the Basin continues to outpace the natural supply, further drawing down reservoir levels. While Basin State representatives pursue the elusive goal of a workable and mutually acceptable set of post-2026 operating rules, our review of the latest Bureau of Reclamation data shows that the gap between ongoing water use and the reality of how much water actually flows in the Colorado River poses a serious near term threat. Another year like the one we just had on the Colorado River would nearly exhaust our dwindling reserves.

In a report issued today, we look at total mass balance in the system – reservoir storage, inflow, and water use – to help clarify how much water the Basin actually has to work with if next year’s snowmelt runoff is similar to 2025, and the risks if we do not take near term action to reduce our use. The findings are stark.

Read the analysis now

Document Authors:

  1. Jack Schmidt, Director, Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, former Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
  2. Anne Castle, Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment, University of Colorado Law School, former US Commissioner, Upper Colorado River Commission, former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, US Dept. of the Interior
  3. John Fleck, Writer in Residence, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico
  4. Eric Kuhn, Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District
  5. Kathryn Sorensen, Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University, former Director, Phoenix Water Services
  6. Katherine Tara, Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico

#New Mexico delegation renews push to fund tribal water settlements — Patrick Lohman (SourceNM.com)

Click the link to read the article on the Source NM website (Patrick Lohman):

September 9, 2025

Members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation are urging Republican leaders to prioritize the funding of tribal water settlements, even as President Donald Trump is proposing little to no funding to honor the nation’s longstanding treaty obligations.

In a letter to House and Senate leaders last week, New Mexico’s delegation — all Democrats — and their Republican colleagues in Montana called on House and Senate leadership to prioritize the passage of 10 water settlements, six of which are in New Mexico.

“Completion of these settlements will save taxpayers millions of dollars, provide water access and certainty to Tribal and non-Tribal water users across the West, avoid years of protracted and costly litigation, and support the United States’ trust responsibility to Tribes,” the members of Congress wrote in the Sept. 4 letter.

The letter notes that the settlements have “robust support” and have passed a Senate Committee and received a hearing in a House committee. But Congress has otherwise taken little action on them since members introduced the settlements in February, according to a congressional bill tracker.

New Mexico entered into five settlement agreements in 2022 with the Pueblos of Acoma, Laguna, Jemez and Zia, the Navajo Nation, Zuni Tribe and Ohkay Owingeh. 

The New Mexico delegation subsequently introduced legislation to approve the deals, including approximately $3 billion to establish funds and build infrastructure. The settlements, which have required years and sometimes decades of costly negotiations, would settle tribal rights for the San José, Jemez, Chama and Zuni rivers.

Two other bills would correct technical errors in established Tribal water settlements and add an extension of both time and money to complete the long-delayed Navajo-Gallup water project. Federal funding granted the project a short reprieve, but it faces an upcoming deadline only Congress can delay.

The Navajo-Gallup project is the most expensive of the projects, with additional pending costs that Congress will need to approve. 

However, President Donald Trump’s budget proposal does not include the roughly $175 million needed for the Navajo-Gallup project. U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján recently chastised a federal Interior Department official over the lack of funding, saying failure to pay for the pipeline would be the nation’s first-ever violation of a tribal water treaty.

The Interior Department’s budget request for the fiscal year beginning in October seeks Congressional approval of just $4 million for the Navajo-Gallup project, and it’s one of only two tribal water rights settlements to get any proposed funding, according to the budget request. 

The letter calls on House and Senate leaders to extend the use of Customs User Fees, which the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol collects from international arrivals, to fund the settlements. Congress in 2010 funded four tribal settlements with the use of those fees, the letter notes, adding, “We urge you to consider prior precedent to offset the cost of these proposed settlements and appreciate your consideration.”

Native land loss 1776 to 1930. Credit: Alvin Chang/Ranjani Chakraborty