A two-part storm stretching from Friday night into Monday afternoon could create snowy conditions for Thanksgiving weekend skiers and travelers, but it won’t do much for Colorado’s record-low snowpack
It’s been a lackluster start to the winter season as Colorado’s snowpack hit its lowest level in three decades, but a warmer-than-usual Thanksgiving and subsequent weekend storm could bring some much-awaited snow to Colorado’s northern and central mountains. Colorado’s snowpack is currently at the 0th percentile, meaning the snow water equivalent is the lowest on record for Nov. 26 since 1987. Several basins in Northwest Colorado are at 23% of normal, while snowpack levels along the I-70 corridor are closer to 24% of normal, according to National Weather Service Forecaster David Byers. The state’s end-of-month forecast doesn’t promise much in terms of notable changes to the snowpack…next is a two-part weekend storm expected to bring up to 8 inches of snow to Colorado’s northern and central mountains, according to a Wednesday report by OpenSnow. The first part is set to begin Friday night with 3-6 inches of snow to the northern mountains and 0-4 inches in the central mountains.
Turkeys in Waterton Canyon. Photo credit: Denver Water
Happy Thanksgiving Day to you! Thanks for coming by Coyote Gulch.
I am so grateful for all the readers. When I’m up early in the morning looking for water news it is great to know that the blog is reaching so many folks.
Also, a huge thank you to family and friends that have helped keep me focused on the future, while not forgetting those 50 years of marriage, after Mrs. Gulch passed in 2023. I love you all.
Coyote Gulch at the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge March 10, 2018 during the Monte Vista Crane Festival. Photo credit: Mrs. Gulch
This U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM) week saw improvement in drought-related conditions across areas of the West, Lower Midwest, Northeast, and the South. On the map, widespread improvements were made in drought-affected areas across Arizona as well as in other areas of the Desert Southwest including western New Mexico and southern Utah. In California, storms during the past few weeks, in addition to an overall wetter pattern in recent months, have continued to help improve conditions leading to removal of areas of drought in Southern California. Since October 1st, numerous locations in California, southern Nevada, and Arizona have received record to near-record precipitation accumulations including Santa Barbara, California (+8.2-inch departure from normal), Ontario, California (+4.11 inches), Las Vegas, Nevada (+2.08 inches), and Flagstaff, Arizona (+5.71 inches). In the Pacific Northwest, drier-than-normal conditions have prevailed (past 30-days) across areas of the region including central and eastern Oregon, southern Idaho, and southwestern Montana. Moreover, snowpack conditions across the Pacific Northwest continued to lag behind normal levels. In the Lower Midwest (Missouri) and areas of the South (Texas), widespread improvements were made in response to rainfall events during the past week. In areas of the Upper Midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin), exceptionally dry conditions have prevailed during the past 60-day period with numerous locations observing record to near-record dryness. In the Southeast, warm and dry conditions continued leading to expansion and intensification of drought conditions in the Florida Panhandle, southern Alabama, and southern Georgia. In the Northeast, recent rains led to reduction of areas of drought in West Virginia, while isolated areas of New England saw minor improvements.
In terms of reservoir storage in areas of the West, California’s reservoirs continue to be at or above historical averages for the date (November 24), with the state’s two largest reservoirs (Lake Shasta and Lake Oroville) at 110% and 100% of their averages, respectively. In the Southwest, Lake Powell is currently 29% full and Lake Mead is 32% full, with the total Colorado River system contents at 37% of capacity on November 23 (compared to 42% of capacity at the same time last year), according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In Arizona, the Salt River Project is reporting that the Salt River system reservoirs are 54% full, the Verde River system is 68% full, and the total reservoir system is 56% full (compared to 73% full a year ago). In New Mexico, the state’s largest reservoir, Elephant Butte, along the Rio Grande River is currently 5% full (12% of average). In the Pacific Northwest, Washington’s Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake is 94% full (105% of average for the date), Idaho’s American Falls Reservoir on the Snake River is 25% full (64% of average), and Hungry Horse Reservoir in northwestern Montana is 88% full (107% of average)…
On this week’s map, only minor changes were made in the region, including changes in eastern Kansas, Nebraska, and southwestern South Dakota. For the week, precipitation across the region was generally light and primarily restricted to eastern and central portions of Kansas as well as in eastern and central South Dakota. In terms of average temperatures, warmer-than-normal temperatures (5 to 15+ degrees F above normal) were observed across the region with the greatest anomalies observed in the Dakotas. According to NWS NOHRSC, the current regional snowpack spatial extent is limited to areas of central and northern North Dakota…
Colorado Drought Monitor one week change map ending November 25, 2025.
Out West, recent storms have delivered much-needed precipitation to drought-affected areas of California, central and southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, southern Colorado, and western New Mexico. On this week’s map, widespread improvements were made in Arizona, across the southern-third of California, and in isolated areas of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. Moreover, the recent storm activity in the southern extent of the region has boosted snowpack conditions in the southern and central Sierra Nevada, Spring Mountains (southern Nevada), San Francisco Peaks (northern Arizona), Mogollon Rim (central Arizona), ranges of southwestern Utah, and Nacimiento Mountains (northern New Mexico). Elsewhere, snowpack conditions were poor across most of the Intermountain West and Pacific Northwest. In other parts of the region, some minor degradations were made on the map in northern Colorado and north-central Montana…
Across much of the region, generally dry conditions prevailed this week, especially in the far southern and western portions of the region, with little or no precipitation observed. In contrast, light to moderate rainfall (2 to 4+ inches) was observed along a swath extending from central Texas to southwestern Arkansas. The beneficial rainfall led to one-category improvements in areas of Moderate (D1) to Extreme Drought (D3) with most of the improvements focused on areas of central and northeastern Texas. Elsewhere, minor improvements were made on the map in southeastern Oklahoma, southwestern Arkansas, and northern Mississippi. In Louisiana, short-term precipitation deficits (past 90-day period) and declining soil moisture levels led to expansion of areas of Moderate Drought (D1) and Severe Drought (D2). For the week, average temperatures were well above normal across the region with anomalies ranging from 4 to 16 degrees F above normal. Looking at reservoir conditions in Texas, Water for Texas (November 25) was reporting statewide reservoirs at 74% full, with many reservoirs in the eastern part of the state in very good condition, while numerous reservoirs in the western portion of the state were experiencing continued below-normal levels…
Looking Ahead
The NWS Weather Prediction Center 7-Day Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) calls for moderate precipitation accumulations ranging from 2 to 4+ inches (liquid) across areas of the South and areas of the Southeast. Likewise, a significant winter storm is expected to impact the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes regions. In the West, dry conditions are expected to prevail across California and the Great Basin, while some lighter accumulations are expected across the Intermountain West. In the Pacific Northwest, moderate accumulations are expected across western Washington and some lesser accumulations across areas of the Northern Rockies of Idaho and northwestern Montana. The Climate Prediction Center 6-to-10-day Outlook calls for a moderate-to-high probability of below-normal temperatures across the eastern half of the West, Plains, South, Midwest, and Northeast. Above-normal temperatures are expected across the Southeast and along the Pacific Coast from Northern California to Washington. In terms of precipitation, there is a low-to-moderate probability of above-normal precipitation across most of the conterminous U.S. except for northern California and western Oregon where below-normal precipitation is favored.
US Drought Monitor one week change map ending November 25, 2025.
A new study in the journal Science suggests rivers in the arid American West may be doing something unexpected: absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The finding could reshape how scientists model climate change.
For decades, researchers believed most rivers were net carbon emitters. That’s because leaves, wood, and other organic material wash into the water, decompose, and release carbon dioxide, a process especially common in shaded, forested landscapes. Most of the data scientists had come from those kinds of environments, particularly in the eastern United States. But the West’s desert and shrubland rivers have been far less studied. Taylor Maavara, an aquatic biogeochemist and one of the study’s lead authors, wanted to change that. Her team gathered data from thousands of river monitoring sites across the continental U.S. and used machine learning to estimate whether each reach of river tends to release carbon or take it up.
Their results point to a stark geographic split: Western rivers — from Nevada to Arizona to parts of New Mexico — are much more likely to act as carbon sinks. Maavara says the region’s open landscapes play a key role. With less tree cover, more sunlight reaches the water, boosting photosynthesis. And with fewer leaves and organic material falling in, there’s less decomposition, a process that releases carbon dioxide back into the air. The findings, she says, “shed some light on the value of these desert ecosystems, which we tend to think of having a bit less life. We show that there’s just as much life, they’re just doing different stuff.” While the U.S. as a whole still emits more carbon from its rivers than it absorbs, this study suggests that the “carbon gap” may be smaller than once believed.And because arid and semi-arid regions make up a large part of the world’s land surface, Maavara says these findings could have global implications
Created by Imgur user Fejetlenfej , a geographer and GIS analyst with a ‘lifelong passion for beautiful maps.’ It highlights the massive expanse of river basins across the country.
I’m heading out to celebrate Thanksgiving with Hellchild and her husband. The Kia Niro is a rental from Avis. I had a bit of time to drive it around yesterday and I approve. DC Fast Charging with a CCCS1 adapter.
Much of the region received above average October precipitation, except for eastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming where below average precipitation fell. October temperatures were near to above normal throughout the region. Regional snow-water equivalent (SWE) was variable, with statewide SWE levels at 0.3 inches in Colorado, 0.3 inches in Utah, and 0.9 inches in Wyoming as of November 1. By the end of October, regional drought coverage was 51%, a 10% improvement since the end of September. Streamflow conditions were generally near normal in Colorado and Wyoming, and below normal in Utah, with the highest streamflow conditions seen in southwestern Colorado. La Niña conditions continued during October and will likely shift to ENSO-neutral conditions by late winter. The NOAA seasonal outlook for November-January suggests an increased probability of above average precipitation for northern Wyoming, and above average temperatures in Colorado, Utah, and southern Wyoming.
Utah, most of Wyoming, and western Colorado received above to much above average precipitation during October. Large areas of the region received 150-200% of normal precipitation, with some locations in northern Utah, southeastern Utah, northern Wyoming, and southwestern Colorado receiving 200-400% of normal precipitation. One pocket of 400-800% of normal precipitation was observed in Big Horn County in northern Wyoming. A rainfall event in Salt Lake City, UT on October 4 nearly broke the all-time daily rainfall record of 2.64” when 2.47” fell. In contrast, the majority of eastern Colorado experienced 25-50% of normal precipitation, with a swath of 5-25% of normal precipitation along the Front Range and eastern slope, from Weld County in the north to Las Animas County in the south. One pocket of 2% or less of normal precipitation occurred in Pueblo County in southern Colorado.
Regional temperatures were near to above normal in October. Temperatures were 2-4°F above normal throughout most of Colorado, Wyoming, and eastern Utah, with scattered pockets of 4-6°F above normal temperatures throughout. A swath of 4-6°F above normal temperatures occurred in southeastern Colorado, with a pocket of 6-8°F above normal temperatures in Cheyenne and Kiowa Counties. The majority of western Utah experienced near normal temperatures.
As of November 1, snow-water equivalent (SWE) was variable across the region. SWE was much below normal for Colorado, from 46% of normal SWE in the Upper Colorado-Dolores basin to as low as 24% of normal SWE in the Upper San Juan basin. SWE was much above normal in the Cheyenne (167%) and Belle Fourche (167%) basins in Wyoming. Basins with above normal SWE include the Powder (132%) in Wyoming, and the Lower Colorado-Lake Mead (127%) and Lower Bear (121%) in Utah. Basins with below normal SWE include the Tongue (63%) and North Platte (51%) in Wyoming, and the Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake (69%) and Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil (50%) in Utah. Statewide SWE levels are 0.3 inches in Colorado, 0.3 inches in Utah, and 0.9 inches in Wyoming.
Note: Current SWE as a percent of normal maps are often skewed at this time of year due to the very low average SWE this early in the season.
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map November 23, 2025.
Regional drought conditions significantly improved during October. By October 28, regional drought coverage was 51%, a 10% improvement since the end of September. Moderate (D1) drought coverage decreased by 16% in Colorado, 6% in Utah, and 6% in Wyoming. Severe (D2) drought coverage decreased by 22% in Colorado, 32% in Utah, and 5% in Wyoming. Extreme (D3) drought coverage decreased by 13% in Colorado, 10% in Utah, and 8% in Wyoming. The most significant improvement in drought conditions occurred in southwestern Colorado, with a 2 to 3 class improvement.
Regional streamflow conditions were generally near normal in Colorado and Wyoming, and below normal in Utah. Much below normal streamflow conditions occurred in the North Fork Gunnison River basin in western Colorado, the Hamlin-Snake Valleys River basin in western Utah, and the Madison River basin in northwestern Wyoming. However, some regional basins experienced above to much above normal streamflow conditions, particularly in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah. Much above normal streamflow conditions occurred in the San Miguel, Animas, and Upper San Juan River basins in southwestern Colorado, the Lower San Juan-Four Corners River basin in southeastern Utah and Raft River basin in northern Utah, and the Angostura Reservoir region of the Cheyenne River basin in eastern Wyoming. The Piedra River basin in southwestern Colorado experienced streamflow conditions in the highest percentile.
La Niña conditions continued in October and are expected to persist through early winter, followed by a 55% probability of returning to ENSO-neutral conditions by late winter. The NOAA Monthly Precipitation Outlook suggests an increased probability of below average precipitation for Colorado, Utah, and southern Wyoming in November. The NOAA Monthly Temperature Outlook suggests an increased probability of above average temperatures for the entire region in November. The NOAA Seasonal Precipitation Outlook for November-January suggests an increased probability of above average precipitation in northern Wyoming and part of northern Utah, and below average precipitation in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah. The NOAA Seasonal Temperature Outlook for November-January suggests an increased probability of above average temperatures in Colorado, Utah, and southern Wyoming.
Significant weather event: Flooding in southwestern Colorado. WWA produced a rapid assessment of the flooding in southwestern Colorado from October 10th-14th to serve as a scientific resource for understanding the drivers and impacts of the flooding events. The report is designed to support local resilience-building efforts and hazard planning for communities in the region. It provides the long-term and recent historical context for the flooding, hydrologic characteristics of the flood event, and an assessment of the local probability of an event of this magnitude.
Key Findings:
The October 10th-14th, 2025 floods were the 3rd largest on record for Pagosa Springs, CO, with river levels reaching a maximum gauge height of 12.82 feet and peak flow rates of 8,570 cubic feet per second.
A total of 12.5 inches of precipitation fell at a high-elevation observation site in the watershed over 5 days, saturating the watershed and driving the river to reach Major Flood stage twice in that period.
Flood frequency analysis based on historical observations of runoff in Pagosa Springs suggests this flood has a return period of 25 to 40 years, meaning that there is a 2.5-4% likelihood of a flood of similar magnitude occurring in any given year.
Early reports following the flooding suggest that hundreds of residents and households were evacuated in Pagosa Springs and surrounding rural communities and many structures were damaged or destroyed by the floods including homes, bridges, and roadways.
Nearly two decades of exposure to drought conditions, increasing wildfire activity, and now the recent flooding collectively highlight the geographically unique and increasingly frequent natural hazard risks that rural mountain communities face in southwest Colorado.
Comanche 3 in 2010. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
November 21, 2025
Comanche 3, the trouble-plagued coal-fired power plant in Pueblo, went down on Aug. 12. Xcel Energy, the unit’s operator and primary owner, says it can’t be restored to service until June 2026.
This will be the third extended outage since 2020 for the coal plant, Colorado’s largest and newest unit.
Might the best thing for Xcel’s customers be if the plant remained dormant? Don’t try to repair it, whatever is wrong this time. Instead, save the money and just continue operating the much older and more reliable — but soon to be retired — Comanche 2?
Several environmental groups have advanced that idea in response to a proposal by Xcel and three state agencies to keep Comanche 2 operating for a full year beyond its current planned retirement at the end of December.
That plan on the table would leave both coal-burning units operating in the second half of 2026, point out the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council. They would provide more power than needed and will also generate pollution at levels greater than acceptable.
Western Resource Advocates, the City of Boulder and others have similar things to say. They also embrace an alternative plan. That plan would have the state’s Public Utilities Commission give Comanche 3 a hard look in coming months instead of waiting until next summer.
“The question must be asked whether any further reliance on Comanche at this juncture is prudent,” says Boulder in its filing with the PUC yesterday. “Ratepayers continue to bear the consequences of (Xcel subsidiary) Public Service’s failings when it comes to Comanche 3. At some point, the bleeding must stop.”
In asking to keep the plant open, Xcel insists that it is vulnerable to having too little generating capacity. It is at risk of having resource inadequacy. The basics of any utility are to keep the lights on, with only rare outages. The environmental groups do not disagree, but they do question whether Xcel — in concert with a trio of state agencies — have over-stated the case.
Western Resource Advocates also questions what is causing the “resource adequacy” about which Xcel has been fretting.
“The proposed extension to the retirement of Comanche 2 and the unplanned, extended outage of Comanche 3 represent extreme circumstances that may result in tens of millions of dollars in unexpected cost and increased emissions above levels previously expected,” the Boulder-based WRA says in a filing with the PUC.
“Further, the proposed variance calls into question whether the company has strained its resource capacity position — at the expense of all existing customers — by soliciting and accepting new large-load interconnections.”
Large loads are commonly understood to consist mostly of data centers.
Pueblo County, along with the city and economic development group there, take a contrary point of view. They want to see the coal plants operating without question. They insist that the coal-fired power production from both units will be needed to power the steel mill in Pueblo. The plant is formally called Rocky Mountain Steel.
That’s partly accurate. However, the steel plant in 2023 went on-line with the Bighorn Solar Project, which has a capacity of 300 megawatts and can, on a net-basis, deliver almost all the electricity needed at the steel plant. The steel plant also operates when the sun does not shine, of course.
As part of their long-standing complaint, the Pueblo interests say that they badly need the coal jobs at Comanche. “Approximately one out of every four residents receive SNAP benefits compared to the state average of one in 10,” says Pueblo.
In 2018, Xcel and other parties at the negotiating table agreed that Comanche 2 would be retired by the end of 2025. The PUC commissioners stamped their approval on the agreement. That agreement assumed more or less steady operations of Comanche 3. The assumption was misguided.
Comanche 3 was down for an average 91 days each year during its first decade. Then came 2020, an outage that extended about a year and into 2021. Another outage soon followed. A 2021 PUC staff report found that the actual cost of energy from Comanche 3 had been nearly 50% higher than expected when the unit was proposed almost 20 years before.
The proposal has the backing of the Polis administration, including the Colorado Energy Office, the Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate, and the PUC trial staff. The petition with the PUC was filed Nov. 10 by Attorney General Phil Weiser.
The petitioners said that keeping Comanche 2 operating for a year was the “most cost-effective approach to providing needed electricity for the system” as identified by Xcel.
Given the outage of Comanche 3, say the environmental groups, they do not object to Comanche 2 remaining open for a year longer. They do, however, see problems with the proposal by Xcel.
First, the solution is “far broader than the problem it tries to solve,” says the Sierra Club and NRDC. If both Comanche 2 and 3 are operating, they will produce more power — and pollution — than had been planned.
They also point to a “glaring contraction” in the petition by Xcel and the state agencies. They see an imminent need to justify continued operation of Comanche 2 yet propose to delay starting a litigated proceeding at the PUC until next June to investigate all options for dealing with a near-term need.
This is getting the cart before the horse, they say. “Given the long history of forced outages at Comanche 3, its repeated cost overruns, and the fact that it is already slated to retire by 2031,” the PUC commissioners should weigh in before Xcel decides whether to repair Comanche 3.
The alternative plan advocated by the environmental community would keep Comanche 2 operating for a full year — but place limits on the operations of the unit coupled with that of Comanche 3, whenever it returns to service. “This allows the same total amount of generation from the two units as if Comanche 3 were available for all of 2026.”
Comanche Generating Station. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
University of Utah graduate student Joey Bail works to remove snow from the mid-mountain instruments operated by Storm Peak Laboratory in February 2025 at Steamboat Resort. The station measures dust on snow, which can increase snow melt rates. Storm Peak Laboratory/Courtesy photo
Changing snowpack trends in the West are bringing more variability to snow conditions and more moisture to the snowpack, threatening the future number of light and fluffy powder days. Increasing variability was the predominant message from a panel of snow experts during the presentation “Stories of a Changing Snowpack” hosted by nonprofit Yampatika on Nov. 13 in Steamboat. The panel, including representatives from the Storm Peak Laboratory and Airborne Snow Observatories, presented in-depth data and answered audience questions about how changing weather and climate conditions are affecting snowfall and snowpack impact to recreation and water supplies in northwest Colorado.
“We are seeing earlier snowmelts, heavier snow, more variability,” said Atmospheric Science Professor Gannet Hallar, Ph.D., who directs the Storm Peak Lab which sits atop the Steamboat Resort.
Hallar said across the Western states, scientists are confirming decreases in snow-water equivalent, according to measurements taken April 1, increasing spring temperatures and dust — factors that cause snow to melt. She explained the snowflake formation science behind how even small increases in winter temperatures can make a large difference in snow quality…Earlier spring runoff, hydrograph changes and increased variability of snowpack creates challenges for everything from sufficient river flows for endangered fish species to the timing of reservoir releases to agricultural irrigation, Burchenal said. Hallar said dust on snow measurements and understanding how dust on snow impacts melt timing is important because some scientists have documented that a large dust storm may lead to a 10- to 14-day earlier snow melt off…Allen and Hallar discussed the value of snowmaking additives such as Snomax, made from a protein derived from a naturally occurring microbe, used to provide nuclei for artificial snow making.
“This allows more significant volumes of snow to be produced at lower temperatures, with less water and energy.” according to the website for Snomax International. “This substantially increases the efficiency of the snow-making system, while at the same time delivering a consistent snow quality even during the most extreme temperature fluctuations.”
Westwide SNOTEL basin-filled map November 23, 2025.
The convention center in Belem, Brazil, where COP30, the United Nations annual climate talks, took place over the past 12 days. Credit: Bob Berwyn/Inside Climate News
November 22, 2025
BELÉM, Brazil—After negotiators at COP30 retreated from meaningful climate action by failing to specifically mention the need to stop using fossil fuels in the final conference documents published Saturday, the disappointment inside the COP30 conference center was as pervasive as the diesel fumes from the generators outside the tent.
This year’s United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was billed as the “COP of Truth” by host country Brazil, but it could go down in history “as the deadliest talk show ever,” said Harjeet Singh, founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation in India and strategic advisor to the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.
COP30 was yet another “theater of delay” with endless discussions, and the creation of yet more administrative duties, “solely to avoid the actions that matter—committing to a just transition away from fossil fuels and putting money on the table,” he said.
A draft text released Nov. 18 clearly spelled out the need to transition away from fossil fuels, but in the final version, the language was watered down, merely acknowledging that “the global transition towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible and the trend of the future.”
After setting out ambitious targets ahead of the climate talks, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago, the secretary for climate, energy and environment in Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acknowledged the disappointment.
“We know some of you had greater ambitions for some of the issues at hand. I know the youth civil society will demand us to do more to fight climate change,” he said during the opening of the final plenary.
Do Lago pledged to press for more action during his upcoming year as the COP president.
“I, as president of COP30, will therefore create two roadmaps, one on halting and reversing deforestation and another on transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly, and equitable manner,” he said.
That was not enough for some leading climate scientists.
“Implementation requires concrete roadmaps to accelerate the phase out of fossil fuels, and we got neither,” said Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
Indigenous climate activists marched on Friday through the conference hall at COP30 in Belem, Brazil, to protest continued fossil fuel exploitation on Indigenous lands. Credit: Bob Berwyn/Inside Climate News
During the closing plenary, a representative from Colombia said that her country refused to accept parts of the decision as written. “Denying the best available science not only puts the climate regime at risk, but also our own existence. Which message are we sending the world, Mr. President?”
In a post on X, Colombian President Gustavo Petro elaborated, saying, “I do not accept that in the COP 30 declaration. It is not clearly stated, as science says, that the cause of the climate crisis is the fossil fuels used by capital. If that is not said, everything else is hypocrisy.”
He noted that life on the planet is only possible “if we separate from oil, coal, and natural gas as a source of energy … Colombia opposes a COP 30 declaration that does not tell the scientific truth to the world.”
After several similar objections, do Lago suspended the plenary to consult with the UNFCCC secretariat about how to proceed, since the entire process is built on consensus. And while consensus isn’t the same as unanimity, the U.N.’s climate body has faced repeated criticism in recent years for ignoring the pleas of smaller countries amid the rush to finalize COP agreements.
But apparently there was enough consensus to proceed.
Looking for bright spots, former Irish President Mary Robinson, now a member of The Elders, a group of global leaders that works to address issues, including climate change, said the deal is far from perfect, but it shows that countries can still work together “at a time when multilateralism is being tested.”
Robinson said the COP30 outcome includes concrete steps toward establishing a mechanism to ensure no countries are left behind in the transition away from fossil fuels.
“We opened this COP noting the absence of the United States administration,” she said. “But no one country, present or absent, could dampen the ‘mutirao’ spirit,” or collective effort.
Given the recent rise of global political tensions, she said Belém “revealed the limits of the possible, but also the power of the determined. We must follow where that determination leads.”
In another of the final documents, COP30 emphasized “the inherent connection between pursuing efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 °C and pursuing just transition pathways,” and that such a pathway leads to “more robust and equitable mitigation and adaptation outcomes.”
The conference’s adoption of a just transition mechanism was hailed as a huge win by the Climate Action Network International, an umbrella group that represents hundreds of local, regional and national grassroots organizations working on climate justice. In a statement, the group called it “one of the strongest rights-based outcomes in the history of the UN climate negotiations.”
The outcome could have been even better with stronger leadership from the European Union, which publicly advocated for more ambition, but opposed key provisions in closed-door negotiations, several observers said.
“With the U.S. absent, the European Union had a chance to lead; instead, they stepped into the vacuum as the primary obstructionist,” said Singh, including opposition to language on fossil fuel phaseout timetables.
He said the European Union member countries were “playing a cynical blame game while the planet burns.” Decisions made at this and previous COPs provided the tools needed to address the crisis, but the political will and the money to implement them are still lacking.
San Luis Valley farm. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):
November 20, 2025
In November 2023, I stopped by the office of Cleave Simpson, then (and still now, at least for a brief time more), the general manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservancy District.
There, in Alamosa, he shared with me his observation that the Rio Grande during the 21st century has had water declines parallel to those of the Colorado River.
Both rivers originate in Colorado, and neither river has been able to deliver the water assumed by any number of diversion projects. Problems began in the 20th century but have intensified greatly in the 21st century because of drought but also rising temperatures.
The Rio Grande has had 17% reduced flows since 2000. The Colorado River flows have declined 20%.
Of the two rivers, the Rio Grande is longer, at 1,900 miles but carries less water, 9.1 million acre-feet/year. The Colorado flows 1,450 miles and has been carrying an average 15.4 million acre-feet. Neither river has delivered water into oceans with any reliability in decades.
Sandhill cranes and a few mallard ducks roost at sunset on a sandbar of the Rio Grande in Albuquerque during January. Photo(and copyright)/WWF-us, Diana Cervantes. Top: The San Luis Valley near Del Norte. Photo/Brian Richter
Despite these parallels, the Colorado has received far more attention, as is pointed out in a new report by Brian Richter of the World Wildlife Fund and nine others from academic institutions in Arizona, California, and other states.
Why is that? The Colorado provides drinking water for about 40 million people compared to 15 million for the Rio Grande. In irrigated agriculture, it’s a similar story: 22,300 square kilometers in the Colorado River Basin vs. 7,800 square kilometers in the Rio Grande.
“However, the water crisis facing the Rio Grande Basin is arguably more severe and urgent than the Colorado River Basin,” Richter and his colleagues contend. They argue for some rethinking and institutional alignments to help ratchet water use down to sustainable levels.
The study is the first full accounting of how water is consumed across the entire Rio Grande Basin. Mexico calls it the Rio Bravo.
Doesn’t Colorado also have a strong accounting system, as necessary to meet requirements of the 1938 compact among states that share the Rio Grande?
Yes, says Richter. However, he adds a “but.” He reports difficulty in getting estimates of how much water is being consumed by each sector and by each crop. He believes he has succeeded.
“To my knowledge, nobody has laid out the numbers at the level of clarity and accuracy that we were able to accomplish,” he said.
Another major contribution of the paper is the estimation of the degree to which water consumption is unsustainable, he said.
“We estimate that 11% of water consumption in Colorado is unsustainable. Natural replenishment from snowmelt runoff, precipitation, and groundwater recharge supplies only 89% of the water being consumed; the remainder (deficit) is being met by depleting groundwater.”
“The Rio Grande basin is at a tipping point, and everyone needs to be part of the solution,” said Enrique Prunes, a co-author and the World Wildlife Fund Rio Grande manager. “These findings will help us rethink how we manage water to secure a future for everyone.”
For the second time in the 21st century, this segment of the Rio Grande in Albuquerque went dry, leaving this image of cracked sediment on a blistering afternoon on Aug. 7, 2025. Photo(and copyright)/WWF-us, Diana Cervantes
Dry cracked sediment from the Rio Grande on a blistering afternoon on Aug. 7, 2025 in Albuquerque, N.M. For the second time in the 21st century the Rio Grande has gone dry in the Albuquerque stretch. (TC) (EDITOR’S NOTE: T/C, to fact check).
Agriculture uses 99.9% of the water in Colorado’s San Luis Valley and 87% in the basin altogether.
Dramatic declines in reservoir storage illustrate the scope of problem. Altogether, 12% of reservoir storage has been lost in the 21st century. The decline is most severe in New Mexico, where 71% less water was stored at the end of 2024 compared to 2002.
Groundwater depletion has been even more drastic. Roughly 15 times more groundwater has declined compared to surface storage. The two are coupled. As surface water supplies decline, groundwater mining grows.
“In the San Luis Valley of Colorado, diminished river flows and aquifer recharge have led to continued over-pumping, causing aquifers levels to decline,” Richter and his team write. “The Colorado state engineer has threatened to shut off hundreds of groundwater wells if the aquifer supporting irrigated farms cannot be stabilized.”
The San Luis Valley is famous for its potatoes as well as the barley to make Coors beer, but potatoes use just 7% of the water and barley 9%. The vast majority of water in the valley produces feedstocks for livestock: 47% for alfalfa, 27% for other hay, and 6% for pasture lands.
The study finds that groundwater in the San Luis Valley has been depleted at a rate of 89,179 acre-feet/year, equivalent to 11% of the annual average of direct water consumption in the valley.
What can be done? Large cities have done more with less. Albuquerque’s population grew 40% while its water use declined by 17%. However, municipal and commercial water consumption account for only 7% of all direct consumption in the three-state and two-country basin.
Strategies for reducing consumption in irrigated agriculture have been proven but must be rapidly deployed at sufficient scale and financially sustained by governments, companies, and credit institutions to rebalance the basin’s water budgets, state, and binational levels.
At the same time, water shortages have contributed to the loss of 18% of farmland in the river’s headwaters in Colorado, 36% in New Mexico, and 49% in the Pecos River tributary in New Mexico and Texas.
Strategies being embraced to curb groundwater drafting in the closed basin of the San Luis Valley have been controversial. A key case is likely to go before the Colorado Supreme Court. In Mexico, cutbacks have led to violence. One protestor died.
The study points to several strategies that could reshape how water is used in the basins. These include restoring river habitats, adjusting dam operations to better support seasonal flows, improving water-sharing agreements, and helping farmers switch to crops that require less water.
That effort to encourage crop-switching has been underway in the San Luis Valley, but with successes only at the margins.
Rio Grande and Pecos River basins. Map credit: By Kmusser – Own work, Elevation data from SRTM, drainage basin from GTOPO [1], U.S. stream from the National Atlas [2], all other features from Vector Map., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11218868
A high-severity burn in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. Wildfires are altering the snowpack, a crucial source of water in the West. Photo by Arielle Koshkin.
Click the link to read the article on the Water Desk website (Mitch Tobin):
November 13, 2025
As the American West warms due to climate change, wildfires are increasingly burning in higher-elevation mountains, charring the watersheds where the region’s vital snowpack accumulates.
A new study has found that in the immediate aftermath of fires across the region, the snowpack disappears earlier in burned areas. This change can threaten forest health and affect the downstream farms, cities and species that rely on the snowpack for their water, according to other research.
Scientists who study the effects of wildfires on the snowpack and streamflows are finding that the story is complex and nuanced. The impacts can vary greatly across the West’s diverse ecosystems and topography. Plus, each wildfire burns differently, so the severity of the blaze is another critical factor.
While streamflow volume typically increases after a wildfire, the peak flows come earlier in the season, and the water may be clogged with sediment that can harm wildlife and water infrastructure.
The new study, published in the September 17 issue of Science Advances, used satellite data to track when the snowpack disappeared each season and examined how that timing changed after a fire burned through forests. The research also concluded that warming temperatures due to climate change will further accelerate post-fire melting.
In the first year after a fire, the researchers found that under average winter conditions, snow melts earlier in 99% of the snow zone. “Postfire snow cover loss is more extreme in relatively low-elevation, warm environments compared to that in high-elevation, cold regions,” wrote the researchers from the Colorado School of Mines and the University of Colorado Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research.
The loss of the forest canopy due to a fire can actually increase snow accumulation on the ground below because scorched trees that are missing branches and needles intercept fewer falling snowflakes. But opening up the canopy changes the flow of energy in the forest by exposing the underlying snowpack to more solar radiation that can melt the snow.
Wildfires also cause soot and darkened debris to fall on the snowpack, which reduces its reflectivity, allows more heat to be absorbed and leads to quicker melting. Burned forests are also more susceptible to wind, which can further erode the snowpack.
“It’s basically just a big energy balance puzzle, but it seems like that increase in sunlight and decrease in the reflectivity of the snow are both leading to (an) earlier snow disappearance date,” said lead author Arielle Koshkin, a doctoral candidate in hydrologic science and engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. “Even if we do see more snowfall in the forest, it’s not overriding those energy balance changes.”
The study notes that previous research has found that the acreage of Western forests burned in the seasonal snow zone increased by up to 9% annually between 1984 and 2017, with the biggest rise in burned area occurring above an elevation of 2,500 meters (8,202 feet).
“Fire is burning higher and higher in elevation, which increases this overlap between where burned forests are and where it snows,” Koshkin said.
Stephanie Kampf, a professor of watershed science at Colorado State University who wasn’t involved in the study, said the findings are “pretty consistent with prior research” showing that snow disappears earlier after a fire and that lower-elevation locations with more “transitional” snowpacks are more vulnerable. “This study shows it really nicely with a big dataset,” Kampf said.
Climate change speeds up melting
Looking ahead, the authors project that post-fire melting will accelerate further as the West gets hotter due to rising atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. If warming increases by 2 degrees Celsius—something that’s possible by the middle of the 21st century under some emissions scenarios—“73% of the snow zone would experience more extreme earlier postfire snowmelt compared to historically average conditions,” according to the paper.
“Under two degrees (Celsius) warming, the areas that already showed large changes are going to show even larger changes,” Koshkin said. “That warming is going to really have (an) impact on those warmer snow climates. So think maritime, Cascades, Sierras, comparative to the higher, colder, Rocky Mountain West.”
Previous research has also looked at what happens to the snowpack after a fire and found that the snow disappearance date moves up four to 23 days. Some of those studies have used ground-based observations, but the papers typically focused on one to three fires. Other research has examined snowpack readings from the automated SNOTEL network, but those snow sensors are usually placed in gaps in the forest canopy and may not capture the diversity of the West’s landscapes.
This new study relies on images captured by the MODIS instruments aboard two satellites to provide a Westwide look at wildfire’s effects. Currently, satellites cannot measure the water content of the snowpack, known as the snow water equivalent. But repeated satellite imagery can detect whether snow is present on the ground, allowing researchers to measure when the snowpack disappears during the year.
“I was really interested in seeing if we could leverage remote sensing to look at it on a pixel-by-pixel scale across the whole Western United States to really try to understand, are we seeing the same responses in the Pacific Northwest as in Colorado?” Koshkin said.
Each pixel in the MODIS satellite imagery represents a square on the ground with 500-meter (1,640-foot) edges. That’s a somewhat coarse resolution for measuring the snowpack, which can vary dramatically over very short distances, but the satellites provide daily or near-daily coverage.
While satellite data offers broad coverage of the region, it has significant limitations.
“The satellites can’t really peek underneath the forest canopy,” said Anne Nolin, a professor in the geography department at the University of Nevada, Reno, who wasn’t involved in the study. (Koshkin is a former student of Nolin’s.) “The other issue is that the satellite data can’t measure snow at times when there’s rain occurring or anytime there’s cloudiness. And so if you have a rain-on-snow event that’s changing your snowpack, which we’re having more and more, and which we would anticipate to occur more frequently, then you’re probably missing short-term changes in snowpack.”
Nolin said that the satellite-based estimates of the snowpack were “likely to be inaccurate in places where you have remaining forest, and especially in low-elevation snow zones and under warmer winter conditions.” That’s because previous studies have found that in warmer forests, the snow melts off under the canopy early, but it’s retained in the gaps between the trees, so the algorithm used to process the satellite imagery can overestimate the amount of snow in the pixel. “There’s less snow there than you think,” Nolin said.
Stark regional differences
Elevation, temperature, burn severity, vegetation type and the amount of incoming solar radiation are among the drivers explaining when the snow disappears. The variability of these factors across the West may help explain why previous studies have found such a wide range in the timing of the snow disappearance date.
“Everywhere we looked was disappearing earlier, but there were these kind of hotspots that disappeared way earlier,” Koshkin said. “I think the disruption in streamflow from these earlier melting-out pixels will be much more significant in Oregon, Washington and California.”
Wildfires had the biggest effect on the snowpack during the first five years after the blaze. In the first year after a fire, the snow disappearance date advanced by an average of 3.3 days. That might not sound like much, but the figure is just an average for the entire West—in some parts of Northern California and Oregon, the snow disappeared up to two weeks earlier.
Over time, the effects of fire declined. Ten winters after a blaze, for example, the average snow disappearance date moved up by less than a day.
While the advance of the snow disappearance date was most pronounced at lower elevations, the snowpack actually persisted slightly longer in some burned areas in Colorado and Utah, where the colder temperatures at higher elevations can insulate the snowpack from changes.
The finding that some higher elevation locations had a later snow disappearance date “would definitely be something to explore because everything that we know so far suggests that snow disappearance should be earlier after a fire,” Kampf said.
Higher elevations may be less vulnerable to an early disappearance of the snowpack due to late-season storms. “Here in Colorado,” Kampf said, “we get a fair amount of spring snow, and so that’s one of the reasons why we’re not as sensitive because sometimes that snow just comes in May and it resets everything and you don’t see the big change in snow disappearance date.”
Another factor in explaining the regional differences is the West’s diversity of vegetation. “The forests are different in places that are colder, so you have different tree species and different densities of forest and different ecosystems in general,” Nolin said. “The northern tier of states and the high country—that’s where you would be probably seeing the least amount of change. It doesn’t mean, though, that you have the least amount of fire because some of these places, especially in places like Idaho and Washington state, have significant amount of fire, and there’s some interesting studies that have shown earlier snowmelt in those locations as well.”
A large burn scar in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Post-fire changes to the snowpack vary significantly across the West’s diverse landscapes. Photo by Arielle Koshkin.
How wildfires change streamflow
Previous research has found that wildfires can significantly alter the timing and magnitude of runoff in burned watersheds, but scientists are still unraveling the details.
“If you burn down the forest, you don’t have as many trees that are using that water,” Nolin said. “You probably expect the streamflow to be earlier because the snow’s melting off earlier.”
Fires can not only kill trees and ground cover that would absorb water—they can also eliminate organic material in the soil, which causes the ground to become more water repellent and makes the snowmelt more likely to run off into streams.
A 2022 study that examined 72 forested basins that burned across the West found that average streamflow was significantly higher after a wildfire for an average of six years. The increase in streamflow was greater in areas where the extent of wildfire was larger. That study also found that the annual acreage burned by wildfires in the West skyrocketed by more than 1,100% from 1984 to 2020.
Kampf said more research is needed to understand how streamflow changes after a fire. “We don’t have all those interactions figured out yet, but there have been some studies that have shown that streamflow actually decreases after fire,” Kampf said. “We certainly know it will affect streamflow timing, but the amount of streamflow we’re less sure.”
Fire intensity is one key determinant of subsequent streamflow.
“If the forest is totally torched, then the increased solar radiation that’s coming into the snowpack is going to have a much bigger effect than if the trees still have live branches on them,” Kampf said. “Similarly, when you get down to the soil, if the soil is totally burned to a crisp, then its infiltration impacts will be much greater than if a lot of the litter and other stuff in the soil is still there.”
Nolin said she would have liked to see the authors distinguish between areas of high, moderate and low burn intensity.
“When you see photographs of burned areas, we tend to show the photos that are most dramatic with just charred trunks that have (been) left behind, but in fact, most fires are mainly low to moderate burn severity that maintain the forest canopy,” Nolin said. “To not distinguish between different burn severities and to indicate that it’s all about the canopy being burned off and all of this carbon shedding on the snow—I think that stretches the results.”
The speed of vegetation recovery also shapes how the snowpack and streamflows respond to wildfire over time.
“If it’s a forest type where the vegetation can respond quickly and come back, that’s going to be a really different response than if the vegetation is slow to grow,” Kampf said. “Here in Colorado, we have some fires where it’s not coming back as forest at all, and where there are just no seedlings, and so we would expect the fire effect on snow to persist for a long time because we just don’t have trees coming back.”
The post-fire effects on streamflow tend to be localized, so it can be difficult to detect their effects on major river basins.
“Even though the fires we’ve been experiencing have been really large, they’re still not huge compared to the size of the watershed as a whole,” Kampf said. “If you looked at something like the Colorado River Basin, it might be hard to detect the fire effect on the flow because there’s such a huge area that’s contributing to that flow. So in terms of how water is managed in forecasting and dam operations, I don’t think we’re there yet in terms of knowing how to account for fire.”
A major worry for water managers is the threat of high-intensity fires burning through dense stands of forest in the watersheds above their systems.
“Those are places that water managers are concerned about because if the forest burns, then they experience problems with post-fire erosion and sedimentation and harms to water infrastructure, so it’s kind of a different side of the water management issue,” Kampf said.
Impacts on ecosystems
Besides posing challenges for water managers, wildfires can have profound effects on wildlife and forest health.
For aquatic ecosystems, “having a shift in the timing of when flow is coming in could also have an impact,” Kampf said, but “probably the greater impact is when that flow is bringing in with it a lot of sediments that are changing the habitat more profoundly.”
More rapid melting of the snowpack after a fire can also lead to a longer dry season for forests.
“If the snow disappears earlier, plants will start greening up sooner,” Kampf said. “If they’re not getting a lot of summer rain, they may find drier conditions later in the growing season that can stress plants.”
In addition to snow disappearing earlier due to fires, Nolin said the weather in November is getting drier. “If you have an earlier snow disappearance date and a later snowfall date, that dry season’s really getting quite a bit longer, and so it means that you have a decline in forest health and you also have an increase in the potential” for a longer fire season, Nolin said.
How burned ecosystems will respond to fire remains an open question as the climate continues to warm. In many parts of the West, decades have passed since flames swept through a forest, but trees have yet to return.
The burned trees may be centuries old, “and the climate was different than when those little seedlings sprouted and became the big trees that ultimately were involved in the fire,” Nolin said. “They grew initially under a different climate, and we don’t have that climate anymore, so we might see a lot more shrubs.”
Nolin said the paper “used a very simplistic approach to looking at future impacts on snow” by only examining what will happen under 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Climate change will also alter such factors as relative humidity and precipitation, so including these other effects “would’ve been more nuanced and perhaps a little more supportable,” Nolin said. She would have liked to see the results for various temperature increases up to 4 degrees Celsius, noting that mountains are warming faster due to climate change, and a key question is whether rain or snow will fall under warmer conditions.
“Just having a single temperature change to look at helps us understand the impacts of temperature, and that’s great, but there is a lot more to be done in this area,” Nolin said.
This story was produced and distributed by The Water Desk at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Center for Environmental Journalism.
Chart showing water use trends in US and Mexico. Credit: Overconsumption gravely threatens water security in the binational Rio Grande-Bravo basin. Map via Springer Nature.
major new study on the nearly 1,900-mile long Rio Grande Basin — from the San Luis Valley into the Gulf of Mexico — shows a “severe water crisis emerging” with total reservoir storage in decline at around 4.24 million acre-feet or 26 percent of capacity.
The study brings together detailed water consumption estimates of surface and ground water use throughout the basin and concludes “a likely outcome will be continued loss of farmland due to financial insolvency from lowered crop production and other factors including the aging of farmers and lack of affordable farm labor,” without urgent action.
“Climate scientists have reframed the long-running drought as the onset of long-term aridification and are forecasting additional river flow diminishment of 16-28% in coming decades as the climate continues to warm,” the study notes.
The authors’ analysis shows that during 2000–2019, Colorado lost 18 percent of its farmland in the Upper Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico lost 28 percent along its Rio Grande sub-basins, and the Pecos River sub-basin lost 49 percent.
Further drying puts farmers and cities who rely on the Rio Grande in an “existential water crisis.”
Brian Richter, one of the authors of the study, says San Luis Valley farmers are central to the development and implementation of solutions for the rapidly drying Rio Grande given that “the vast majority of the direct human consumption of water in the SLV takes place on irrigated farms.”
Researchers estimate that the present level of over-consumption of both surface and groundwater in the Valley is approximately 11 percent. “That means that water consumption needs to be reduced by that percentage,” Richter said.
Richter is president of Sustainable Waters and senior freshwater fellow for the World Wildlife Fund. The two organizations teamed with researchers to provide a full accounting of the consumptive uses as well as evaporation and other losses within the Rio Grande Basin.
The Rio Grande stretches nearly from the San Luis Valley through New Mexico, El Paso, Texas, and empties into the Gulf of Mexico. It provides drinking water for more than 4 million in Colorado, New Mexico and Texas, and 11 million people in Mexico, the study notes. More than 1.9 million acres of irrigated farmland is tied to the Rio Grande.
The study, “Overconsumption gravely threatens water security in the binational Rio Grande-Bravo basin,” relies on data from annual runoff volumes, municipal and commercial consumptive use estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey, and reservoir storage levels, among other data sets.
Snowmelt runoff has decreased 17 percent over the past 25 years, according to the report. At the same time, total direct water consumption has been increasing since 2000, largely due to increasing water usage by farmers in Mexico.
When comparing challenges of Colorado River users to the Rio Grande, researchers say the “water crisis facing the RGB is arguably more severe and urgent than the CRB,” given the fact groundwater in the San Luis Valley has been depleted at a rate of 89,000 acre-feet per year; New Mexico has a water debt to Texas; and Mexico has a mounting water debt to the U.S. under a 1944 treaty that is causing political tension between the two countries.
The Upper Rio Grande here at the end of 2025 is benefitting from heavy October rainsthat materialized across the southwest and provided a stopgap to what were some of the worst summer river flows ever recorded on the river.
Management of the Upper Rio Grande Basin will be back in the spotlight come January 2026 when Colorado Water Court Division Three takes up the Fourth Amended Plan of Water Management for Subdistrict 1 of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. The new strategy calls for a groundwater overpumping fee of $500 per acre-foot any time an irrigator in Subdistrict 1 exceeds the amount of natural surface water tied to the property of their operation. The rule punishes farmers who do not have natural surface water coming into their fields but instead rely solely on groundwater pumping for their crops.
The whole point of the plan for the agricultural-rich area of the San Luis Valley is to let Mother Nature dictate the pattern of how irrigators in Subdistrict 1 restore the unconfined aquifer and build a sustainable model for farming in the future.
Richter credits Colorado and irrigators in the Valley for taking steps to address the Rio Grande. The proposed $500 fee for overpumping in Subdistrict 1, he says, “is going to set off a lot of change in the Valley, because many/most farmers won’t be able to continue producing the same crops they’ve been growing in recent years.”
“Colorado has definitely taken some important steps, and manages its water resources far better than New Mexico or Texas,” Richter says. “But Colorado still has not been able to reduce pumping to anywhere near the needed degree, so it’s no surprise the aquifer continues to decline.”
The study looks at crops grown along the Rio Grande and how agricultural fields account for 87 percent of direct water consumption.“Overall, agricultural consumption is nearly seven times the volume of all other direct uses combined.”
Alfalfa and grass hay – water-intensive crops that dominate the landscape in the Valley and in Northern and the Middle Rio Grande of New Mexico – account for nearly 45 percent of the irrigation water consumed along the Rio Grande Basin. A shift to less-intensive crops, as the Rye Resurgence Project advocates, and a moratorium on new wells in over-drafted areas of basin in New Mexico and Texas, are necessary first steps to addressing the Rio Grande’s challenges, according to researchers of the study.
“Potatoes might be one of the few crops that remain sufficiently profitable to persist in the Valley,” says Richter. “If those transitions to other crops or to permanent farmland retirement lead to reduced water consumption to the level needed (11 percent), there is hope that the (unconfined) aquifer can be rebalanced with natural replenishment. However, it will require a greater level of pumping reductions to enable the aquifer to recover to the level required by the state engineer.”
San Luis Valley center pivot August 14, 2022. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Click the link to read the report on the NOAA website. Here’s an excerpt:
1.2.2 Water Year 2025 Snowpack Accumulation and Water Supply Forecast Evolution
Early season snowpack accumulation through the first week of January throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin and Great Basin ranged from near to slightly above normal throughout much of central Colorado and the headwaters of the Green River Basin and much of far northwestern Utah. Snowpack accumulation values were below normal in the San Juan and Dolores River Basins. In the Lower Colorado River Basin, early season snowpack accumulation was essentially non-existent, with the highest snowpack amounts observed in the northern portion of the Virgin River Basin at 10% of average. Other areas were at, or very close to, 0% of normal (Figure 4).
Snowpack is a dominant driver of seasonal water supply forecasts. As a result of relatively near normal snowpack conditions throughout much of the Upper Colorado River Basin and Great Basin regions and generally dry soil moisture conditions, official January Forecasts ranged from near average throughout much of the wetter portions of Colorado to approximately 70% of average throughout much of Utah and the San Juan River Basin (Figure 5).
Generally dry conditions continued through February, with numerous NRCS SNOTEL stations located in the southern portion of the Upper Colorado River Basin and Great Basin regions their lowest precipitation accumulation on record for the December through February period. These record setting conditions corresponded with generally well below average water year precipitation values from October through February (Figure 6).
It is important to note that while some areas saw beneficial It is important to note that while some areas saw beneficial precipitation, particularly in the Green River Basin, warmer than normal temperatures at the end of January and into early February resulted in snowmelt at lower elevation zones (Figure 7).
These generally dry conditions resulted in below normal water supply forecasts throughout the CBRFC’s area of responsibility. Snowpack accumulation over the Colorado River Basin and Great Basin region typically peaks near April 1st. Snowpack conditions varied throughout the Colorado River and Great Basin regions, but were generally near to slightly above average in the northern portions of the Green and Yampa River Basins, and Colorado River headwaters. Drier conditions were apparent throughout much of the Gunnison and San Juan River Basins, as well as central and southern Utah. Lower Colorado River Basin snowpack conditions remained essentially at zero. Many NRCS SNOTEL locations indicated snow water equivalent (SWE) amounts that were near average (Figure 8).
However, while peak SWE values at NRCS SNOTEL locations generally located at higher elevations indicated near normal peak snowpack conditions, CBRFC modeled SWE at lower and middle elevation zones over major contributing areas showed below to well below normal SWE conditions (Figure 9).
As a result of generally below normal SWE conditions and dry soil moisture conditions, April official forecasts ranged from near normal in portions of the Colorado River Headwaters, to approximately 50% of normal in the Dolores and San Juan River Basin. The official April forecast for Lake Powell was 67% of normal.
Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism
The states that share the Colorado River have failed to agree on how to protect it, leaving 35 million people without a clear path forward. We still have a chance to protect the river – but we must act now. Our communities need a plan that responds to climate change, proactively prepares for water shortages, promotes conservation across the Basin, and protects river health.
One in 10 Americans depend on a healthy Colorado River. For the last two years, their future has been hotly debated behind closed doors.
The states that share the river have failed to agree on how to protect it, missing a critical deadline to provide a plan for managing the river – leaving our communities high and dry.
It’s time to put the river before politics. Our communities need results and a plan that saves water across the West.
One in 10 Americans, along with countless fish and wildlife, depend on a healthy Colorado River. For years, our future has been hotly debated by a handful of state officials behind closed doors. The river has faced escalating threats from climate change and unsustainable water demands. River flows are declining, and our two major reservoirs are less than one-third full. That is why it was so disappointing when officials finally emerged from two years of negotiations empty-handed.
The guidelines for managing the Colorado River expire in 2026, and the Bureau of Reclamation has been working with the Basin states, Tribes, and stakeholders on a new plan for the dry years ahead. Reclamation gave the states until Nov. 11 to outline their framework for the new guidelines with the details due Feb. 14.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
What is the hold up? The Colorado River Basin states are divided into two camps — the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) and the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming). The two Basins are at odds over a variety of fundamental issues, including who should take water shortages, how much these should be, and whether shortages are mandatory or voluntary. The Lower Basin has agreed to take the majority of the shortages in most years, but there is significant disagreement over who bears responsibility for the remaining shortages. Both Basins argue that the other is responsible. The threat of interstate litigation over the river looms large. These court battles would take decades to resolve, cost millions of dollars, and plunge the region into a state of uncertainty — all while the river system continues to crash.
The states held numerous confidential meetings in an attempt to reach an agreement while communities throughout the West anxiously awaited the outcome. On Nov. 11, the states released a joint statement that offered a commitment to continue negotiating, but little else.
The Colorado River is not going to wait for process or politics. Drought and climate change are reshaping the West. The window to secure the river’s future is closing fast.
Decision makers need to start making real progress. If we have another dry year like this one, water demands could exceed the river’s natural flow by 3.6 million acre-feet, which is enough water to sustain over 7 million families for an entire year. Such a shortfall could mean water levels in Lake Powell drop so low that Glen Canyon Dam can no longer produce hydropower and it raises serious concerns about whether the dam can safely operate at all.
This problem is too big for one state or sector to solve on its own. Everyone in the Basin must do more to save water and protect the river. Every drop matters.
Decision makers are trying to solve a complex problem with difficult trade-offs, but the challenges will only grow with each passing day. We simply can’t do our best work if we wait until the last minute. A plan that is hastily put forward at the eleventh hour leaves little room for public input or creative solutions. Instead, it risks perpetuating a status quo that hasn’t been working for anyone.
We must allow time to incorporate input from the 30 Basin Tribes, many of whom have long been excluded from key negotiations and lack access to clean water. We also need to leave room to build in solutions that protect the health of the river that sustains the West.
The future of our region — from families in Denver to raft guides in Moab to communities on the Navajo Nation to farmers in Yuma — depend on a healthy river.
We need a plan for the dry years ahead, and we need it now. While state negotiations remain important, the Bureau of Reclamation cannot let the ongoing impasse stand in the way of meaningful solutions. Reclamation must press on and work with Tribes and stakeholders across the West to develop robust and equitable guidelines that protect the river we all depend on.
At WRA we are continuing to advocate for policies that:
Base management decisions on the best available science, including how much water is actually flowing in the river
Expand water conservation efforts across the Basin and create flexible water storage accounts so that we can store water to protect river health and meet our needs in dry years
Ensure Tribes have meaningful opportunitiesto shape decisions on the river and can access their fair share of the river’s water
Invest in projects to maintain the river’s infrastructure, incentivize water conservation, build water security, and restore irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat
Enable ongoing collaboration across the region
Adopt policies that prioritize the health of the river so that future generations can build a life in the West
Photo credit: Lighthawk
The next few months will determine the future of the river for years to come. By the end of this year, Reclamation is expected to publish a draft environmental impact statement analyzing alternatives for managing the river. This will be followed by a public comment period where you can make your voice heard. Reclamation’s final record of decision is expected late next summer.
We are up against hard deadlines enforced by the federal government and Mother Nature. The clock is ticking. We still have a chance to protect the river — but we must act now.
This historical photo shows the penstocks of the Shoshone power plant above the Colorado River. A coalition led by the Colorado River District is seeking to purchase the water rights associated with the plant. Credit: Library of Congress photo
The acceptance of the Shoshone water rights marks a landmark partnership between the State of Colorado and the western slope.
Today, Wednesday, November 19, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) voted unanimously to accept the joint offer by the Colorado River District and Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) of a perpetual interest in the use of the Shoshone Water Rights for instream flow purposes.
Once confirmed by water court, this acquisition will create the largest environmental water right in the state’s history and permanently protect the historic flow of the Colorado River.
“The importance of today’s vote cannot be overstated as a legacy decision for Colorado water and the western slope. It secures an essential foundation for the health of the Colorado River and the communities it sustains,” said Andy Mueller, General Manager of the Colorado River District. “We continue to be impressed by, and thankful for, the broad coalition of voices that have come together in support of protecting the Shoshone Water Rights. Without them, we would not have been able to meet this historic milestone.”
“Today, the CWCB demonstrated its deep commitment to Colorado’s water security by taking bold, permanent action to protect our namesake river. We are proud to stand with the State and with our many partners across the West Slope in securing these flows for the benefit of all Coloradans,” said Sen. Marc Catlin, president of the Colorado River District Board of Directors. “This agreement strengthens water security for hundreds of communities within our state and represents a proactive, durable solution for the 40 million people who rely on the Colorado River downstream. The Shoshone Water Rights Preservation Project keeps the river as whole as possible, keeping water in its natural basin and safeguarding this lifeline for generations to come.”
The board’s decision today was the final step in the instream flow acquisition process that began with the formal offer in May 2025. Following a contested hearing in September – requested by four Front Range water entities – the Colorado River District and PSCo granted the CWCB additional time to continue deliberations and fully consider the historic proposal and partnership at their November meeting.
35 entities filed for party status in support of the Shoshone Water Rights ISF proposal. These include West Slope towns and counties, water districts, as well as local and regional non-profits. Over 400 positive public comments were also submitted over the summer.
“Today’s decision by the CWCB is a tremendous step forward for the health of the Colorado River and the communities that rely on it,” said Senator Dylan Roberts. “The Shoshone Permanency effort reflects years of collaboration and a shared commitment to protecting our headwaters, and I’m grateful to all the partners who brought us to this point. There is still important work ahead, but this vote positions Colorado to take advantage of the years of effort and protects these flows for generations to come.”
“The Shoshone water rights are a lifeline for western Colorado,” said Mesa County Commissioner Bobbie Daniel. “Our farmers, ranchers, recreation enthusiasts, and energy producers depend on this water, and we are proud to see the CWCB support this project. These flows are the future of our families and communities, and now, more than ever, it is critical that we are doing everything we can to protect them.”
Xcel Energy provided the following statement: “Xcel Energy recognizes the significant collaboration and effort that brought us to today’s decision by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. We appreciate the engagement from all parties throughout this process and look forward to continuing the work ahead. This agreement represents an important step in ensuring reliable, clean energy for the communities we serve while supporting responsible stewardship of Colorado’s water resources.”
In December 2023, the Colorado River District and Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, entered into a $99 million Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) to acquire the historic Shoshone Water Rights, senior (1902) and junior (1929) non-consumptive rights that stabilize flows on the upper Colorado River. The PSA is the product of decades of work by the statewide Shoshone Water Right Preservation Coalition.
To close the transaction, the PSA requires four conditions: execution of an Instream Flow Agreement with the CWCB (approved today), receipt of a water court decree approving the change of water rights, securing commitment of full project funding ($99 million), and approval from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. So far, the Shoshone Water Rights Coalition has secured commitments of over $57 million from West Slope entities, the State of Colorado, and the Colorado River District’s Community Funding Partnership. The Bureau of Reclamation awarded the project $40 million through the Inflation Reduction Act Funds in January 2025 – those funds remain under review by the current administration.
Today’s CWCB decision fulfills that critical Instream Flow Agreement requirement, moving the project significantly closer to final completion and the permanent protection of the Shoshone flows. The River District, PSCo, and the CWCB will be initiating the water court process to add instream flow use to the Shoshone water rights. The River District and its full coalition of supporters will also be turning their focus on fully securing the previously awarded federal funds.
Colorado River Basin in Colorado via the Colorado Geological Survey
River District General Manager Andy Mueller speaks to the Colorado Water Conservation Board in front of a packed house Wednesday. The board voted unanimously to accept water rights tied to the Shoshone hydropower plant to benefit the environment. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
In a historic move Wednesday evening, the state water board voted unanimously to accept water rights tied to the Shoshone hydropower plant, a major step toward securing those flows in perpetuity for the Western Slope.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board said the Shoshone water rights, which are some of the oldest and most powerful on the mainstem of the Colorado River, can be used to benefit the environment.
“The Shoshone acquisition makes a lot of sense to me, and I’m very proud to be a part of the work that everybody’s put into it,” said Mike Camblin, who represents the Yampa, White and Green river basins on the CWCB. “I hope that our children and our grandchildren look back and realize we made the right decision on this.”
The Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District plans to purchase the Shoshone water rights for $99 million from Xcel Energy, but the district first needed the approval of the CWCB, which is the only entity in the state allowed to hold instream-flow water rights to benefit the environment. Because the water is returned to the river after it runs through the hydroplant’s turbines, downstream cities, irrigators, recreators and the environment all benefit.
River District General Manager Andy Mueller called it a fantastic day in Colorado history.
“I think that was the right decision for the Colorado River and the right decision for our whole state,” Mueller said. “I think the state for generations to come, centuries in the future will benefit from having that water in the Colorado River.”
Importantly, the instream-flow agreement approved by the board says that the Western Slope, along with the CWCB, will retain some control over exercising the rights. The River District and its constituents drew a hard line in the sand regarding this point and said they would walk away from the deal if they had to cede control solely to the CWCB.
Though not totally unprecedented, co-management is a departure from the norm, as the CWCB has never shared management of an instream-flow water right this large or this powerful with another entity.
In attendance at Wednesday’s CWCB meeting in Golden were representatives of ditch companies, elected officials and water managers from across the River District’s 15-county area. Some of the attendees said during their public comments that if the River District didn’t retain some control over the water rights, they would pull their funding and withdraw their support from the Shoshone campaign.
Mesa County Commissioner Bobbie Daniel said the joint-management proposal is a safeguard that ensures that Western Slope interests are not pushed aside. Mesa County has committed $1 million toward the purchase of the water rights.
“The Shoshone call is one of the great stabilizing forces on the river, a heartbeat that has kept our valley farms alive, our communities whole and our economy steady, even in lean years,” Daniel said. “If a joint management is not adopted, Mesa County will withdraw its support for this acquisition. It’s not out of anger or politics, but because anything less would fail the people that we serve.”
The Shoshone hydropower plant in Glenwood Canyon has some of the oldest and most powerful nonconsumptive water rights on the Colorado River. A broad coalition of Western Slope entities support the River District purchasing the rights. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Blow to the Front Range
The CWCB’s decision was a blow to Front Range water providers, who objected to the River District’s having a say over how to manage the water rights, even though they supported the overall goal of protecting flows for the environment. Denver Water, Northern Water, Aurora Water and Colorado Springs Utilities argued that the CWCB has exclusive authority over the rights, according to state statute.
Critically, because the Shoshone plant’s water rights — one that dates to 1902 for 1,250 cubic feet per second and another that dates to 1929 for 158 cfs — are senior to many other water users, they have the ability to command the flows of the Colorado River and its tributaries upstream all the way to the headwaters. This means that the owners of the rights can “call out” junior Front Range water providers with younger water rights that take water across the Continental Divide via transmountain diversions and force them to cut back.
The fact that Front Range water providers take about 500,000 acre-feet annually from the headwaters of the Colorado River is a sore spot for many on the Western Slope, who feel the growth of Front Range cities has come at their expense. These transmountain diversions can leave Western Slope streams depleted.
The Shoshone call pulls water west much of the time. But the Front Range parties wanted assurances that during extreme droughts or emergency situations, the call would be “relaxed,” allowing them to take more water to their cities’ millions of customers.
Alex Davis, assistant general manager with Aurora Water, said the CWCB should retain the ability to relax the call as a “backstop” under extremely rare circumstances.
“It is asking that in those emergency situations, the board has the ability to step in and say: We’re going to do what we think is best for the state of Colorado,” Davis said.
The agreement approved by the board lays out a collaborative process to consider a call relaxation, with a stakeholder panel of water managers from both sides of the divide. The specific wording of this agreement was hashed out during Wednesday’s meeting, with lawyers representing the CWCB and River District conferencing to tweak language and make edits.
Colorado Water Conservation Board member representing the Arkansas River basin Greg Felt, left, talks with River District General Manager Andy Mueller Wednesday after the board voted to accept the Shoshone water rights for instream flow purposes. The move represents a major step toward securing those rights in perpetuity for the Western Slope. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
The CWCB had been set to decide on the Shoshone rights at its meeting in September, but the River District granted an eleventh-hour 60-day extension so they could address issues raised by the board and try to negotiate a consensus with the Front Range parties.
Despite all the detailed arguments laid out by the parties, thousands of pages of technical and legal documents, and hours of testimony and public comment over the September and November CWCB meetings, the board’s scope of decisionmaking remained narrow: Should the CWCB accept a perpetual interest in the Shoshone water rights and will these rights preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree?
In the end, the board decided yes, and also determined that it did, in fact, have the authority to allow the River District to co-manage the Shoshone water rights alongside it.
“I really think it’s pretty incredible that there’s no objection to the environmental aspects of this flow and the purpose of this water right for environmental purposes,” said CWCB Director Taylor Hawes, who represents the mainstem of the Colorado River where the Shoshone plant is located. “(The River District is) donating that water right. It seems like they should have a say. And while I realize this case is unique, I don’t see anything in the statute or the rules that prohibits us from doing this.”
But the fight to keep Shoshone flowing west is not over for the River District. The CWCB, River District and the water rights’ current owner, Xcel, now plan to file a joint application in water court to make the deal official by adding the instream-flow use to the water rights.
The water court process will decide another contentious issue that is sure to again highlight disagreement between the Western Slope and Front Range as they compete for the state’s dwindling water resources: precisely how much water is associated with the water rights, a number based on the plant’s past use.
“I also very much understand the concerns of both sides of the divide in not wanting the other side to have a windfall,” Hawes said. “That has been kind of the heart of all of this. And I hope we can all trust that the water court’s process will give us a result where we don’t have to worry about that. Everyone’s concerns will be addressed in that process.”
View of Shoshone Hydroelectric Plant construction in Glenwood Canyon (Garfield County) Colorado; shows the Colorado River, the dam, sheds, a footbridge, and the workmen’s camp. Creator: McClure, Louis Charles, 1867-1957. Credit: Denver Public Library Digital Collections
In a momentous decision for the Western Slope, state water officials unanimously approved a controversial proposal to use two coveted Colorado River water rights to help the river itself.
Members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board voted to accept water rights tied to Shoshone Power Plant into its Instream Flow Program, which aims to keep water in streams to help the environment.
The decision Wednesday is a historic step forward in western Colorado’s yearslong effort to secure the $99 million rights permanently. But some Front Range water providers pushed back during the hearings, worried that the deal could hamper their ability to manage the water supply for millions of Colorado customers.
For the state, the two water rights will be a crown jewel in its five-decade environmental effort to help river ecosystems. It’s one of several steps in the agreement process, and it could take years before the river feels that environmental benefit.
“The Shoshone acquisition makes a lot of sense to me, and I’m very proud of the work that everybody’s put into it,” said Mike Camblin, who represents the Yampa and White river basins on the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “I hope that our children and our grandchildren look back at this and realize we made the right decision.”
Over 100 Colorado water professionals and community members gathered in Golden for a six-hour hearing about the environmental proposal, brought forward by the Colorado River District, which represents 15 counties on the Western Slope.
The small hydropower plant off Interstate 70 near Glenwood Springs has used Colorado River water to generate electricity for over a century. But the aging facility has a history of maintenance issues, and Western Slope water watchers have long worried about what happens to the rights if it were to shut down for good.
The Colorado River District wants to add the environmental use as part of a larger plan to maintain the “status quo” flow of water past the power plant, regardless of how long it remains in operation.
Western Slope communities, farms, ranches, endangered species programs and recreational industries have become dependent on those flows over the decades and broadly supported the district’s proposal.
From left, Hollie Velasquez Horvath, Kathy Chandler-Henry, and Andy Mueller, general manager of the River District, at the kickoff event Tuesday [December 19, 2023] for the Shoshone Water Right Preservation Campaign in Glenwood Springs. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
“I’m good. I’m much more relaxed now,” Andy Mueller, the district’s general manager, said after the vote Wednesday. “The reality is, we have set up our state, through this instream flow agreement, for success for centuries on the Colorado River.”
Some powerhouses in Colorado water support the general permanency effort but oppose parts of the agreement. Northern Water, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water and Aurora Water said the proposal would give the Colorado River District too much sway in decisions that would impact them.
These water managers and providers are responsible for delivering reliable water to millions of people, businesses, farms and ranches across the Front Range. Any change to Shoshone’s water rights could have ripple effects that would affect over 10,000 upstream water rights, including some held by Front Range water groups.
The negotiations over the agreement continued throughout the meeting. Board members had about 24 hours to review a stack of documents marked with tweaked phrasing and proposed edits.
Both sides are concerned that the other could get a water windfall through the agreement, said Taylor Hawes, who represents the Colorado River on the board. Those concerns can be addressed in the next step of the process: Water Court.
“That has been the heart of all of this,” Hawes said. “I hope we can all trust that the water court’s process will give us a result where we don’t have to worry about that.”
Who will control the flow of water?
The Colorado Water Conservation Board was supposed to make its final ruling on the environmental use proposal in September. Then Public Service Company of Colorado, the Xcel subsidiary that owns the rights, and the Colorado River District filed an 11th-hour extension to delay until the meeting Wednesday.
That’s, in part, because they needed more time to address a central conflict in the agreement: Who makes the final decisions when managing the powerful rights?
Shoshone uses two rights to access the Colorado River: one for 1,250 cubic feet per second that dates back to 1905, and a right to 158 cubic feet per second that dates back to 1940.
They amount to a big chunk of water. Plus, these rights can be used year-round, and they supersede more recent, junior rights like several held by Front Range water providers.
Under the agreement, the water rights will be co-managed by the Colorado River District and the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
Western Slope parties were adamant about this. Several speakers said they would pull their funding, and there would be no agreement if the River District did not have a say in how the water rights would be used.
“If joint management is not adopted, Mesa County will withdraw its support for this acquisition,” Bobbie Daniel, Mesa County Commissioner, said. “It’s not out of anger or politics, but because anything less would fail the people that we serve.”
The Front Range groups said the state should make the final decision if Colorado River District staff and CWCB staff disagreed over how to manage the water rights. They argued the board has exclusive authority under state law.
Alex Davis with Aurora Water said her team was pushing for a “hammer” — an entity, preferably the state, that could force water providers on either side of the Continental Divide to come to the negotiating table or that could make the final decision, especially in times of crisis.
Aurora pulls about 25,000 acre-feet of water from the Western Slope, through mountain tunnels and into its water system each year, she said. (An acre-foot of water is about what two to three households use in a year.) But when Shoshone is using its 1905 water right to its fullest, nearly all of Aurora’s transmountain diversions are turned down or turned off.
The city might want to ask Shoshone to use less water to provide some relief in an emergency. The agreement seems to give the Colorado River District a veto, Davis said.
“By the River District having that decision-making power, it may lead to less incentive on the West Slope side in those emergency situations,” Davis said in an interview with The Sun. “That’s what we were worried about.”
Colorado Water Conservation Board members decided to continue with the co-management approach, saying they were not giving up authority or working outside of state statute by doing so.
Mueller said the agreement is a win for the river and the entire state. It will protect endangered fish and a critical 15-mile stretch of habitat near Grand Junction. It includes exceptions that will protect cities during multi-year droughts and emergency situations, he said.
“The CWCB and the River District can act together for the best interest of the state,” Mueller said in an interview. “We’ll have to earn some trust in that realm over the years, but I’m quite convinced we can do it.”
About that $99 million bill…
The Colorado River District has entered into a $99 million agreement with Xcel Energy to buy the Shoshone water rights.
The state’s decision to accept Shoshone’s water rights into its environmental program met one of four key closing conditions of that purchase agreement, Amy Moyer, chief of strategy for the Colorado River District, said.
The deal still needs approval by Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission. It’ll be weighed in Water Court, where Western Slope and Front Range representatives will wade through another thorny issue: What has Shoshone’s “status quo” water use been over the last century?
The Colorado River District and its Western Slope supporters need to pay up. Although they’ve pulled together over half the asking price, they’re still waiting to hear about whether a request for federal funding will be approved.
If the deal passes those hurdles, then the resulting purchase and instream flow agreement will go on indefinitely. It will provide more predictability for water users across the state, and it will continue to factor into how Colorado communities grow, officials said Wednesday. “We’re making some very far-reaching decisions here,” Nathan Coombs, the board’s Rio Grande Basin representative, said. “I still think this is the right choice right now with the information we have.”
November 19, 2025, Golden, CO – This evening, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) voted to approve the long-anticipated Shoshone water rights acquisition, to secure two water rights associated with the Shoshone Power Plant, including one of the state’s most significant Colorado River water rights, for permanent instream flow protection. The vote launches the next phase of the process, including water court, and begins the work of preserving and improving the 2.4-mile reach of the Colorado River between the Shoshone Power Plant Diversion Dam and Tunnel and the Shoshone Power Plant Discharge Outlets.
“Securing one of the state’s most significant Colorado River water rights for permanent instream flow protection is a momentous achievement,” said Lauren Ris, CWCB Director. “This outcome reflects a tremendous amount of work, from extensive technical analysis and stakeholder engagement to thorough regulatory review and legal preparation. This careful evaluation ensures our investment delivers long-term benefits for the river and for Coloradans.”
The agreement passed on a unanimous vote, with two directors recused. The decision follows the Colorado River District’s authorization of an extension from the September hearing to the November Board meeting, allowing additional time for review of the information presented and continued efforts to achieve a negotiated resolution of contested issues.
“I want to thank all the people who have worked so hard to inform this decision for the Board and the diverse range of stakeholders who earnestly engaged,” said Dan Gibbs, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources. “Acquiring the Shoshone water rights for instream flow use is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to preserve and improve the natural environment of the Colorado River. But I also want to stress that the state is committed to ensuring that the historical use of the water rights is maintained at the status quo and we are committed to participating in any process to settle and resolve these issues for all water users. I am confident in our ability as a state and as a water community to come together in a way that is beneficial to all.”
Over the last two months, the CWCB and the Colorado River District met with Front Range entities and other interested parties to work toward resolving the issues raised at the September hearing. The next step in the process is the filing of an application in water court, for approval of the change of water rights to include instream flow use in a way that will not cause injury to decreed water rights.
This milestone follows significant commitments from the Colorado River District, local partners, and the CWCB, including the State’s $20 million Projects Bill contribution, to secure the long-term future of the Shoshone water rights.
This map shows the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River near Grand Junction, home to four species of endangered fish. Map credit: CWCB
Dry weather covered most of the central and eastern U.S. this week, with a few localized areas of heavier precipitation falling in the Northeast and parts of eastern South Dakota. In the West, heavy rain and snow was widespread, especially in parts of southern Nevada, southern and coastal California, the Sierra Nevada, the Pacific Northwest and northwest Montana. Temperatures west of the Mississippi River were mostly warmer than normal, especially in Montana and Wyoming, where temperatures of 12 or more degrees above normal were common. East of the Mississippi River, near- or below-normal temperatures were widespread, especially in southern Georgia and Florida, where temperatures were 6-12 degrees colder than normal. Given the wetter weather recently, improvements continued in parts of the Northeast, where streamflow and soil moisture continued to recover and precipitation deficits lessened. Improvements were also widespread in California and Washington, where recent precipitation has cut into or erased precipitation deficits and boosted soil moisture and streamflow. Degradations were common in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina, where short-term precipitation deficits grew. Widespread degradation also occurred in parts of Nebraska, central and northeast Montana and the western Great Lakes area, as primarily short-term dryness intensified in each of these areas. Recent pockets of drier- or wetter-than-normal weather led to a few small changes in areas of abnormal dryness in Puerto Rico. Wetter weather in the windward sides of Hawaii led to local improvements on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island, where streamflows have responded well to increased precipitation…
Primarily dry and warmer-than-normal weather occurred in the High Plains region this week, with the exceptions of east-central South Dakota and some high-elevation areas of Colorado and Wyoming. Temperatures in Wyoming and parts of eastern Colorado were 12 or more degrees above normal this week, while eastern parts of the Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas were mostly 3-9 degrees warmer than normal. Short-term precipitation deficits and decreasing soil moisture in some areas led to expansions and development of abnormal dryness and moderate drought in parts of eastern and central Nebraska. In western Nebraska, abnormal dryness and moderate drought expanded under similar conditions, while severe drought also developed where more substantial longer-term precipitation deficits were taking place. In and near the Kansas City area, moderate and severe drought locally expanded where soil moisture levels decreased and short-term precipitation shortfalls grew. Abnormal dryness expanded across the southeast Colorado plains where short-term precipitation deficits grew, while moderate drought filled in in northwest Colorado where short-term dryness aligned with long-term precipitation deficits…
Drought Monitor one week change map ending November 18, 2025.
Widespread heavy precipitation fell this week in California, southern Nevada, the Pacific Northwest and northern Idaho and northwest Montana. Locally over 5 inches of precipitation fell in northwest Washington, spots in northwest Montana and northern Idaho, and across scattered parts of California, especially in some coastal regions and the Sierra Nevada. Soil moisture levels increased across California amid the heavy precipitation. Precipitation deficits lessened in many areas or were entirely removed, leading to widespread 1-category improvements in California and localized 2-category improvements near Los Angeles. As the impact of this precipitation on the water cycle in California and Nevada is evaluated in the coming weeks, further improvements may occur. Conditions also improved after recent precipitation cut into precipitation deficits and locally improved soil moisture, groundwater and streamflow in northwest Washington, central and eastern Washington, northern Idaho and northwest Montana, southwest Arizona, and southwest Utah and along a portion of the Utah-Nevada border. Despite the widespread precipitation, weekly temperature anomalies were warm across the entire West this week. Compared to normal, Montana and Idaho were generally the warmest, with parts of Montana and southern Idaho finishing the week 12 degrees or more warmer than normal. In the plains of central and northeast Montana, moderate and severe drought and abnormal dryness quickly worsened amid warmer-than-normal temperatures and drier weather. In these areas, streamflow locally decreased amid growing soil moisture and short-term precipitation deficits…
Dry weather occurred across nearly the entire South region this week, which led to widespread degradations in conditions in some states. Warmer-than-normal temperatures occurred in parts of Texas and Oklahoma and some locales in Arkansas, while near- or below-normal temperatures were more common elsewhere. In the Texas Panhandle and southwest parts of the Lone Star State, temperatures of at least 9 degrees above normal were common. South of Oklahoma City, extreme drought developed where ponds dried up amid large short-term precipitation deficits and above-normal evaporative demand. Degradations occurred across large parts of southern Oklahoma where short-term precipitation deficits continued amid above-normal temperatures. A mix of short- and long-term precipitation deficits and warm temperatures led to degradations in southern Texas, while conditions also degraded in parts of north Texas and the Texas Panhandle during recent dry and warm weather. Short-term precipitation deficits also grew in much of northeast Texas, Louisiana, southwest Arkansas and southern Mississippi, leading to degrading conditions. Streamflow and soil moisture levels also were low in some areas that worsened this week…
Looking Ahead
From the evening of Nov. 19 through Nov. 24, the National Weather Service Weather (NWS) Prediction Center is forecasting a large area to receive near or over 1 inch of precipitation from southern Ohio eastward to northeast Colorado and south to northwest Louisiana and much of Oklahoma and Texas (excluding the southwest). Precipitation amounts of at least 0.75 inches are also forecast in parts of southern California, southern Arizona and southeast two-thirds of New Mexico. Heavy precipitation, locally exceeding 3 inches, is forecast in parts of western Washington. Mostly dry weather is forecast across the northern Great Plains and from the Upper Midwest eastward to most of New York and northern New England. Dry weather is also likely to continue in much of the Southeast, especially in drought-stricken areas of southeast Louisiana, southern Georgia and Florida.
For Nov. 25-29, the NWS Climate Prediction Center forecast favors above-normal precipitation across parts of the northern, central and eastern U.S. The highest confidence areas for above-normal precipitation include the northern Great Plains and the Southeast. Drier-than-normal weather is favored in the Southwest U.S., especially in coastal California, southeast Arizona, southern New Mexico and southwest Texas. The forecast favors colder-than-normal temperatures from northern Washington east to Lake Superior and southward through the central Great Plains. In the West, warmer-than-normal temperatures are likelier from central Oregon southward along the Pacific Coast and eastward to near the Continental Divide. The forecast favors warmer-than-normal temperatures in areas from the Gulf Coast to the Mid-Atlantic, with the highest confidence for warmth centered over the Southeast.
In Hawaii, above-normal temperatures and precipitation are favored across the state. In Alaska, the forecast favors warmer-than-normal temperatures in central and western parts of the state, while southeast Alaska is more likely to be colder than normal. Above-normal precipitation is favored for the southwest part of Alaska, while the forecast leans towards below-normal precipitation in northern and southeast Alaska.
US Drought Monitor one week change map ending November 18, 2025.
I promised a while back to take a closer look at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s plan to “Fortify the American Beef Industry.” I did, and my conclusion is that it’s a bunch of bunk. Okay, maybe not all of it: There are some parts about enforcing “Product of USA” labeling, and about supporting small processors by reducing overtime and holiday inspection fees and so forth that could be helpful to your friendly, local meat processor.
Curiously, however, the plan’s main emphasis is on grazing on both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management public lands, even though this makes up only a tiny portion of the U.S. beef industry. It’s almost as if the plan was driven by an ideological agenda rather than a practical one. Oh, and look at that: The Public Lands Council is taking credit for essentially formulating the grazing section of the plan! (h/t to Western Watersheds Project)
The plan will “streamline and expand grazing on federal lands, elevate grazing as an administration priority, and provide direct relief and support to American ranchers.” The plan endeavors to return livestock to vacant grazing allotments and promises to ensure that the number of livestock grazing on public lands remains steady or increases. The plan also aims to diminish protections for wild predators — including endangered ones — and make it easier for ranchers to collect taxpayer subsidies when a wolf or bear is suspected of killing their cattle.
It’s difficult to imagine how public lands grazing can be made any easier. After all, the feds have charged a measly $1.35 per month for a cow-calf pair to graze on the public’s forage for years, which is the congressionally mandated minimum. And while the “Bureau of Livestock and Mining” might go back and forth on the “mining” part of the monicker, it has retained its livestock-friendly reputation through every administration, Republican or Democratic. The agency regularly bends over backwards to accommodate livestock operations, and it often has been unable or unwilling to remove livestock from cattle-trampled lands to allow them to recover — even in “protected” areas such as national monuments.
The administration is hoping to fill up the estimated 24 million acres of vacant grazing allotments and to bolster the number of cattle grazing on public lands, but it’s not clear how that would happen. It’s not like active allotments are bursting at the seams with too many cattle: In many cases, ranchers run far fewer cattle than authorized simply because they have fewer cattle to graze and because the industry is putting more cattle on feed. U.S. beef cattle inventories have declined by more than 30% since the 1970s (along with per capita consumption), but the number of beef cows in feedlots has ballooned.
Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Allotments may be vacant not because the BLM or Forest Service cancelled the lease, but because the forage is of marginal quality, due to drought or overgrazing or just not great grass growing conditions, or a conservation group bought out the lease from a willing seller.
Even if the plan did increase the number of cattle on public lands, it wouldn’t make a big difference to the industry as a whole, because public lands provide less than 2% of all of the forage consumed by the nation’s 27.9 million head of beef cattle.
Sending more cattle out into desert lands to eat what’s left of the native grasses and trample more sensitive places isn’t going to “fortify” the American beef industry. It will merely perpetuate the age-old and culturally embedded practice of giving grazing incredible leeway on public lands, while benefitting only a handful of chosen livestock operators.
I’m not an absolutist on the issue; I don’t believe that all public lands grazing should be outlawed. But it should be limited to appropriate places and at appropriate levels, and should be halted before it wrecks a particular landscape. Plus, ranchers should pay a reasonable amount for the thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ forage their cattle consume each month, along with a bit extra for the externalities, with which public lands grazing is rife. This sensible type of management simply is not occurring presently, as can be witnessed on just about any tract of active BLM “rangeland” in the Four Corners Country, where fragile desert streambeds are being sullied and valuable cryptobiotic crusts decimated by herds of thousand-pound beasts.
Jonathan P. Thompson photo.
***
If the administration was really interested in helping these ranchers, it would support a “just transition” away from public lands grazing, which is on the decline despite the government’s efforts to prop it up. That would include backing the Voluntary Grazing Permit Retirement Act, which was recently reintroduced in Congress by Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat.
The legislation would allow conservation groups to buy out federal grazing allotments from willing ranchers and livestock operators, after which the BLM or USFS would permanently retire the allotment.
While private entities can and do buy out leases currently, there is no guarantee that the leases will remain cattle-free, which is what would allow the administration to re-cow some of those vacant leases mentioned above. The proposed legislation would fix that, making the retirement permanent. The resulting certainty would encourage conservation groups to invest more in the buyouts, which would benefit the ranchers, who may be looking to get out of the business or out of a specific grazing allotment.
A cow in the desert. Jonathan P. Thompson photo
🤖 Data Center Watch 👾
Certain aspects of the film Eddington just keep jumping off the screen into real life. The movie, if you haven’t seen it, is about a small town in southern New Mexico where a gargantuan tech firm, SolidGoldMagiKarp, has chosen to site a data center during the height of the COVID epidemic. There’s also a conflict between a mask-denying sheriff and a slightly more high-falutin’, charismatic mayor (who supports the data center and its purported economic benefits). A lot of drama ensues — most of it not directly related to the data center — which leads into a bloody, over-the-top machine-gun battle, which, it turns out, does have ties to the data center (which ultimately gets built, because: big money).
So far data centers haven’t provoked warfare of the kind in the movie. But they are spurring a lot of conflict in the desert over their potential water and power use. There’s Project Blue in southern Arizona, which promises to add enough electricity from renewable sources to Tucson Electric Power’s grid to offset its projected enormous power use, but a lack of specifics invites skepticism. Project Jupiter, the gargantuan data center campus planned for Santa Teresa, New Mexico, says it will generate its own power, but hasn’t specified how — except that it’s not likely to use nuclear reactors because they couldn’t come online quickly enough.
Now there’s another proposal, this one for New Mexico’s Permian Basin. New Era Energy & Digital wants to build a hyperscale, AI-processing data center complex in Lea County. It, too, will build dedicated generation: A whopping 2,000 megawatts of capacity from gas, and 5,000 MW from nuclear, according to a Power magazine report. That’s an insanely huge amount of electricity. Palo Verde nuclear plant near Phoenix has a nameplate capacity of 3,937 MW and Diablo Canyon in California has 2,236 MW of capacity.
Take a moment to digest that: This proposed data center would gobble up more electricity than two of the West’s largest power plants combined could generate, which is enough to power some 2 million homes. These numbers are terrifying, but they also strain belief and reinforce the suspicion that the AI-data center boom is actually just a hype-inflated bubble that’s poised to burst before most of these facilities are ever built.
If New Era does advance its plan, it’s likely to encounter resistance (along with support) of the kind that could spark some cinematic conflict. A natural gas plant of that size could burn methane from oil wells that might otherwise have been flared off, but it will also emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants. And the nuclear reactors will produce radioactive waste, which likely would be stored onsite, something that even those accustomed to oilfield pollution might not be too enthusiastic about.
Meanwhile, the firm’s only disclosure about potential water use for cooling is that it chose the location in part for its “abundant water supply,” which is odd given the fact that the Ogallala aquifer on which the region depends is being depleted rapidly. The only kind of water that’s abundant in those parts is produced water, the briny, contaminated liquid waste that comes up from oil wells at a rate of at least four barrels of water to each barrel of oil.
⛏️ Mining Monitor ⛏️
Anfield Resources went ahead and broke ground on its Velvet-Wood uranium mine in the Lisbon Valley in southeastern Utah last week, and claims it will be producing ore by the middle of next year. That’s despite the fact the firm has yet to submit its plans for a water treatment plant to state regulators. Also, the state has not approved Anfield’s proposed reopening of its Shootaring mill near Ticaboo, Utah, which is where the ore would be processed. Anfield officials told the Moab Times-Independent that they are unlikely to send ore to the White Mesa Mill near Blanding.
***
Atomic Minerals says it has received Bureau of Land Management approval to drill more exploratory holes at its Harts Point Uranium Project just outside Bears Ears National Monument and adjacent to the Indian Creek climbing area and the Needles District of Canyonlands National Park. The new drill holes will be just over two miles from the Dugout Ranch and Canyonlands Research Center.
***
The Trump administration has added 10 new minerals to the U.S. Geological Survey’s critical minerals list, including copper, potash, and uranium. This doesn’t automatically mean a whole lot, but it will potentially give federal and state agencies and regulators yet another reason to fast-track mining proposals.
🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭
One of the reasons I like looking at old maps and including them in these dispatches is that they provide a snapshot of how people, or at least the mapmakers, saw the region. Usually I put maps here that are at least a century old, simply because the changes they reveal are so dramatic.
When someone posted this 1940 Rand McNally map of Utah on Facebook the other day, the most remarkable thing at first glance was that it included the proposed Escalante National Monument (which is why they posted it). But as I looked more closely, I realized that this map was made just as the West was about to go through a major transformation. Over the ensuing few decades the population of the region would explode as the post-war migration and uranium, coal mining, oil and gas, power plant building, and dam building booms swept across the West.
Roads were built, small communities virtually vanished, and the landscapes and cultures were altered — along with the maps. These outtakes from the old map gives a glimpse of what the place was. For best viewing, click on the image and it will take you to the website. Click again and it should show you a larger version.
On the top outtake, notice the proposed Escalante National Monument, which would have stretched from Moab down to what is now Page, Arizona. By this time the proposal had been whittled down from the original concept, which also would have included much of what is now Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments and Canyonlands and Capitol Reef National Parks. Also note what is absent. The town of Page didn’t yet exist, because it was created to house workers building Glen Canyon Dam (construction began in 1956). Highway 95 followed a different route over Comb Ridge and ended at Natural Bridges NM. And the Moki Dugway road wouldn’t be built until the 1950s.
In western Colorado, especially, there were a lot of communities (probably very small, but big enough to include on a map) that no longer exist, including: Renaraye, McElmo, Ruin Canyon, Spargo, Ackmen, and Gladel. Ackmen basically relocated to Pleasant View after highway 666 (now 491) bypassed the older town; and Gladel is now Slick Rock. Egnar, meanwhile, does not appear on the map.
On the bottom map, note that I-15 didn’t yet exist, and the major artery through southwestern Utah, Hwy 91, bypassed the Virgin River Gorge south of St. George. I have to say, I really wish they hadn’t built an interstate through that lovely canyon. Also notable: Hildale, Utah/Colorado City, Arizona was simply Short Creek back then, and was on the Arizona side of the line (possibly where “Old Colorado City” is now?).
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Oliver Skelly):
November 18, 2025
Colorado water transfers rarely come easily. State water law ensures that every last drop of water is accounted for, litigated, and litigated some more.
It is no surprise then that the attempted Shoshone purchase by the Colorado River Water Conservation District has snagged on a couple of thorny legal and policy issues. Whether those issues will prove fatal to the purchase will be taken up at a meeting tomorrow afternoon, Nov. 19, in Golden.
The Shoshone rights
The transferred water rights from Xcel Energy to the Glenwood Springs-based River District have huge implications. Xcel uses the water rights for hydroelectric production at the Shoshone plant in Glenwood Canyon. The hydro plant produces relatively little power. As in real estate, though, location matters entirely.
Xcel’s water rights of 1902 and 1929 are senior to most other water rights upstream of Glenwood Canyon. They are also high-volume water rights, at 1,250 and 158 cubic feet per second, respectively. Additionally, they are entirely non-consumptive, meaning that all water taken out of the river (to spin the turbines) soon returns to the river for downstream use. As such, they have tremendous power to influence flows along the entirety of the Colorado River through Colorado.
If Xcel were to cease making electricity there, junior users upstream could divert more water. Many of those users would be the state’s transmountain diversions, which extend from Rocky Mountain National Park to Independence Pass. They benefit farmers and now mostly cities from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs. Any water that is diverted to the Front Range, however, is water that does not flow westward.
Because of this, both the River District and the Front Range diverters have had their eyes on those water rights for decades. What happens at Shoshone matters greatly both on the Western Slope, where the river naturally flows, and on the Front Range, where some of the river is now diverted.
Will the River District get that water right? It plans to keep the senior, high-volume hydropower water rights but also add an environmental instream flow right to the original decree, a class of water right approved by state legislators in 1973.
The district has already inked a purchase-and-sale agreement with Xcel and has raised $57 million of the $99 million price. It has been promised an additional $40 million from the Bureau of Reclamation, although the Trump administration has now frozen that money.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), a state agency responsible for water policy and funding, plays several major roles. In addition to agreeing to contribute $20 million, the CWCB has the sole authority under state law to own instream flow rights. For this deal to work, the River District also needs the agency’s board approval. That approval would seem to be a given because of the board’s commitment of $20 million to the purchase. But there are complications.
Not so simple
You are likely not shocked that Front Range water providers have not been thrilled with this pending transfer. In June, they asked the CWCB to hold a hearing to express their concerns.
At a September 19th meeting held on the campus of Fort Lewis College in Durango, the two primary parties testifying fell along predictable geographical lines: the Front Range (water providers) and the Western Slope (River District). CWCB staff also presented findings.
The question before the CWCB was a simple one: Does the acquisition “preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree?” If the answer is yes, the water right is suitable as an instream flow right. By law, the board must consider 11 factors when making this determination. These factors are found in the instream flow law’s implementing regulations and range from whether this transfer will cause injury to other water users, the impact on interstate water compacts, and the cost of the transaction.
At the hearing, a host of messy realities surfaced. The first came after the CWCB staff presentation on the environmental importance of the 2.4-mile instream flow segment (i.e., whether the acquisition would in fact “preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree”) in Glenwood Canyon.
The Front Range and Western Slope parties then trumpeted the many but competing public benefits afforded by the Shoshone rights: rafting in Glenwood Canyon, orchard irrigation at Palisade, hospitals in Aurora.
Public interest…in Colorado?
Nearly all other Western states have incorporated some form of public interest requirement during water transfers. Although a difficult term to pin down, public interest reviews involve the consideration of public goods, such as healthy rivers or recreational amenities. The presiding bodies, when evaluating transactions, must weigh the private interests against the broader public benefits (or lack thereof).
Colorado has no requirement. In 1995, the Colorado Supreme Court found the public interest theory conflicts with the prior appropriation doctrine. Without any legislative developments or a judicial about-face, that is that.
So, if we don’t have a public interest review, why the parade of testimony?
The most obvious answer is politics. When seeking approval (or denial) from an administrative body, it’s not a bad bet to show pretty pictures and tell compelling stories. But “politics” in this context can also be seen as a sub-in for those public interest principles.
The eighth factor governing the CWCB’s deliberations requires consideration of the “effect of the proposed acquisition on the maximum utilization of the waters of the state.” Maximum utilization and the public interest, although not direct parallels, both share a principle of the “greatest good.”
This backdoor introduction of the public interest gave listeners a glimpse of what the judicially disapproved principle might look like in Colorado water transfers.
Whose right is it, anyway?
That introduction at the hearing spurred perhaps the trickiest legal and policy issue of the day: Who has authority to enforce the instream flow agreement? That is, who can make the legal call instructing other water users to forgo their diversion so that the instream flow right gets its full water allocation. Is that a Western Slope political entity, the River District, or the statewide agency, the CWCB?
And if it is the CWCB, does it have authority to grant its enforcement power to the River District? While the law appears to say yes, the River District can be granted authority, there is enough ambiguity in the 1973 law to perhaps send this to Colorado Supreme Court.
The policy question, however, quickly returned parties to the realm of the public interest.
The Front Range parties, arguably the most averse to any sniff of public interest requirements, ironically now found themselves supporting the idea that the broader public benefits should be under consideration.
They contended that the CWCB should preserve its discretion to use and operate the instream-flow right. That, they said, would be sound public policy. Or if you will, “in the public interest.”
Meanwhile, the River District, as the purchasing party and longstanding practitioners of Colorado water law, understandably wants to get what they are paying for: full control over exercising their water rights. Retaining enforcement powers under the agreement was, in fact, “the one sword that the West Slope” was prepared to fall on.
Filings from both parties on Monday suggest that there is ongoing disagreement on this issue, meaning the CWCB will have a big decision to make.
The Colorado River flows through Glenwood Springs, paralleled by Interstate 70 and the Union Pacific tracks, at sunset in March 2024. Photo credit: Allen Best
Can’t you just compromise?
The next display of messiness came when it was time for the Board to apply the 11 factors.
To those listening, it was quickly apparent that such a contested hearing had not been before these board members before. Few of the directors seemed to understand how each factor was to be applied to the proposal in front of them. Although no fault of the board members, the misalignment between their understanding of their roles and the consequences of the decision to be made felt almost incommensurate.
That unpreparedness may have resulted in the Board’s parting directive to the parties to “compromise”: surely a favorable idea aimed at inspiring creative strategies and good faith negotiating.
But in the adversarial world of Colorado water law, what might result from this directive?
Such directives are common enough in water disputes. Recently, in the case of the Gross Reservoir expansion, a federal court, the 10th Circuit, told Denver Water and Save the Colorado to do the same.
In matters of purely Colorado domain, however, such directives are normally reserved as an outcome of the water court process. Ordering it before litigation seemed premature, perhaps even subversive.
The parties’ reactions were revealing here. The Front Range interests will certainly see it as a tally in their favor because it suggests the River District needs to move away from its hardline position. Perhaps their aversion to the public interest doctrine is not so set in stone, after all.
For the River District, it is hard not to imagine some frustration. This was a contracted-for acquisition under Colorado’s longstanding, private property water rights regime. But here, too, the water is muddy. Recall that the CWCB is providing 20% of the purchase price. What kind of leverage, tacit or otherwise, does that commitment provide?
Nov. 19th hearing
These are all difficult questions, and they are being asked amidst a backdrop of high stakes, interstate Colorado River negotiations. Answering them will be no easy feat, and as the filings on Monday indicate, those questions remain unanswered. Whether it is indeed a “compromise” at the CWCB meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 19, or back to the drawing board for the River District is anyone’s guess. But the uncomfortable positions and contortions on display at the contested hearing gave an insightful glimpse into the messy realities of today and stress tests of the future for Colorado water law.
Oliver Skelly is a 2025 graduate of the University of Colorado Law School, a former river guide, and follower of Western water happenings. He has worked at various law practices around Colorado and is now clerking for a judge on the Western Slope.
Colorado transmountain diversions via the State Engineer’s office
Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website (Town of Silverthorne):
November 17, 2025
Starting Jan. 1, 2026, the metered water service rate for a normal rate building from $19.55 per equivalent residential unit per month to $22 per equivalent residential unit per month.
Also effective Jan. 1 2026, the town will increase its water system development fees by $276 per equivalent residential unit. This will bring the one-time fee to connect new development to the town’s water from $9,200 to $9,476.
“That’s really just to keep up with inflation,” Finance Director Laura Kennedy said. “Despite the fact that we are growing as a town, water usage really hasn’t grown as much as we’ve seen the number of units come on.”
Residential storm water management fee will also increase, taking the fee from $7.50 per month to $7.57 per month. The sewer opportunity fee — which is applicable to properties outside of town that receive sewer services from the town or will receive service because of a planned annexation — will increase in 2026 as well from $2,700 to $2,750.
This photo from the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association website shows some of its water infrastructure. The association is facing a lawsuit from some of its shareholders who say they aren’t getting a fair share of their irrigation water.
Some shareholders have sued the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, contending they aren’t receiving their fair share of irrigation water and their livelihoods are being harmed…The plaintiffs have been “deprived of consistent and proportional water deliveries during critical irrigation periods since 2022,” which is when new association management took over, the suit says. Over that period plaintiffs also have been deprived of water owed to them based on priority water rights, the suit says.
“These failures have occurred even in years with above-average snowpack and available water. Despite Plaintiffs’ repeated requests to the UVWUA to correct these deficiencies, Plaintiffs continued to receive disproportionate, inconsistent, and insufficient water deliveries during the 2025 irrigation season,” the suit says…The suit says the plaintiffs have experienced problems including weeks without delivery during planting and growing seasons. One plaintiff, Tom Gore, reported going 60 days last year without expected water deliveries. Another, Frank Gilmore, has been able to run only two irrigation pipes simultaneously instead of the normal five and has lost entire cuttings of hay. Delayed irrigation last year left a third of plaintiff Dan Varner’s newly reseeded 34-acre hayfield unproductive, requiring costly reseeding, the suit says. It says the impacts to shareholders have included things such as failed crop rotations, increased cattle feed costs, reduced soil health, and loss of profit from hay and sweet corn yields…
The plaintiffs are shareholders receiving water from the Ironstone Canal system, one of the project’s primary delivery systems. The suit says the association’s delivery practices have deprioritized the Ironstone system and intentionally favored the East Canal system instead. The suit says that last March, Pope admitted in a meeting that the association was intentionally and disproportionately routing water to the East Canal system before delivering to Ironstone System shareholders, contrary to historical practice. It says that in July, Pope also acknowledged that the delivery of 10 cubic feet per second of priority water rights had been mismanaged that irrigation season. Pope said that corrective action would be taken, but as of August, the association had failed to restore full delivery of that water, the suit says. The suit says the association also has failed to regularly maintain association ditches by burning or clearing debris.
The Uncompahgre River flows from Colorado’s San Juan mountains through the towns of Ouray and Ridgway and then into Ridgway Reservoir, which stores water for farms and households downstream. The river is beautiful, but also troubled; runoff from old mines carries heavy metals into the river, and it is pinched into an unnaturally straight and simple channel as it passes from mountain canyon headwaters into an agricultural valley.
As the river moves through the modified channel, it carves deeper into the valley floor and less frequently spills over its bank. As a result, the local water table has dropped, and riverside trees such as cottonwoods have died, impoverishing this important habitat. Water users on the Ward Ditch at the top of the valley were also struggling with broken-down infrastructure, making it difficult to access and manage water for irrigation. This confluence of challenges created a landscape of opportunity for the Uncompahgre Multi-Benefit Project, which addresses environmental problems along the river and water users’ needs, while also improving water quality and reducing flood risks downstream.
Uncompahgre River, Colorado | Hannah Holm
The Project, managed by American Rivers, took an integrated approach to restoring a one-mile stretch of the river, which included replacing and stabilizing the Ward Ditch diversion, notching a historic berm to reconnect the river to its floodplain, and placing rock structures in the river that both protect against bank erosion and improve fish habitat. Meanwhile, ditch and field improvements make it easier to spread water across the land for agriculture and re-establish native vegetation.
Photo credit: American Rivers
Photo credit: American Rivers
In addition to the direct benefits this project delivers for on-site habitat and landowners, the enhanced ability of the river to spread out on its floodplain, both through the ditch diversion and natural processes, also provides downstream benefits. As the water slows and spreads across the floodplain during high flows, its destructive power to erode banks and damage infrastructure downstream is diminished. The same dynamics enable pollutants and sediment from upstream abandoned mines or potential wildfires to settle out before the river flows into the downstream reservoir.
Uncompahgre River, Colorado | Hannah Holm
With construction wrapping up in November 2025, the transformation of this stretch of river and its adjacent floodplain is nearly complete. Fields of flowers and fresh willow plantings are replacing invasive species and dead cottonwoods, and new pools, sandbars, and riffles are providing instream habitat, complementing other organizations’ work to remediate old mines upstream. As a bonus, when the water level is right, the reach has become an inviting run for skilled whitewater boaters.
As Colorado’s ski resorts gear up for opening season, forecasters say the state’s snowpack is lagging behind seasonal averages, even as six resorts have already welcomed their first skiers and snowboarders. Three of those six resorts – Breckenridge, Copper Mountain and Loveland Ski Area – all opened their chairlifts last weekend despite one of the driest starts to the snowy season in almost a decade. Statewide, this year’s mountain snowpack ranks as the second lowest since the 1980s; the lowest was 2016. But ski resorts are staying hopeful…And to [Dustin] Schaeffer’s point, forecasters say there’s still plenty of time for conditions to turn around. November marks only the beginning of Colorado’s snowpack season, which typically builds from October through late April.
“Anytime you get off to a slow start to the winter, it’s always a little bit concerning to see,” said Zach Hiris, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service. “But importantly, we’re very early into the snowpack season across the mountains.”
Snowpack is more than just good news for skiers. It also acts as Colorado’s largest natural reservoir, feeding rivers that supply water to millions of people across the West. When snowfall lags early in the season, it can raise concerns about spring runoff, drought conditions and water levels in major basins like the Colorado River.
Because of the government shutdown, the Bureau of Reclamation cancels a high-volume water release from Glen Canyon Dam meant to rebuild Colorado River beaches.
Department of Energy research lab announces a funding opportunity to develop cheaper wastewater treatment for coal power plants.
Economic disaster declaration approved for an Illinois county where a harmful algal bloom in July resulted in a ‘do not drink’ water advisory.
The Bureau of Land Management is scheduled this week to publish a final environmental impact statement for a proposed groundwater pipeline in Utah.
Hydropower generation at federal dams in the western states was below average in fiscal year 2025.
And lastly, House Democrats from Illinois ask the EPA to release lead pipe replacement funds.
“Using federal funds as leverage against communities based on political considerations represents a dangerous abuse of power that undermines public trust and puts lives at risk. The longer we wait, the higher the long-term health, educational, and economic costs will climb, with costs being borne disproportionately by low-income and marginalized communities who have the least political power to demand faster action.” – Letter from seven Illinois representatives to Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, asking him to release federal funds for lead pipe replacements.
By the Numbers
River Mile 46.5: Estimated location, as of November 14, of the leading edge of the saltwater “wedge” in the Mississippi River in southern Louisiana. The wedge – salt water that pushed upriver due to weak water flow – has retreated 10 miles in the last three weeks.
88: Percent of average hydropower generation at federal dams overseen by the Western Area Power Administration in fiscal year 2025.
November 2012 High Flow Experiment via Protect the Flows
News Briefs
Glen Canyon Dam High-Flow Release Canceled Due to the government shutdown, the Bureau of Reclamation canceled a planned high-volume release of water from Glen Canyon Dam.
“This decision is based on the current lapse in appropriations, which has created uncertainty concerning necessary resources,” said Wayne Pullan, director of the Upper Colorado Basin Region, in a letter dated October 31.
High-flow releases are typically carried out when downstream sediment conditions are ripe for rebuilding Colorado River beaches. The last such release was in April 2023.
Pullan said that conditions in spring 2026 will probably be conducive to a high-flow release.
Illinois Harmful Algal Bloom The Small Business Administration approved an economic disaster declaration for Coles County, Illinois, for a harmful algal bloom in July that resulted in residents being told not to drink their tap water.
The disaster declaration allows small businesses that were hurt by the do-not-drink order to receive low-interest loans. Small businesses in six contiguous counties are also eligible.
Microcystin, a neurotoxin produced by the algae, was found in the treated water above safety limits in the town of Mattoon. The town issued two do-not-drink orders in a week. Businesses closed and residents bought bottled water.
Mattoon’s water comes from Lake Paradise, the source of the algae.
Studies and Reports
Keeping Coal Going The National Energy Technology Laboratory, a Department of Energy research arm, is offering $50 million in federal funding for projects to develop wastewater treatment systems for coal power plants.
It is the largest part of a $100 million funding announcement intended to improve the “efficiency, effectiveness, costs, emissions reductions, and environmental performance of coal and natural gas use.”
For wastewater treatment, the goal is to reduce discharges and generate useful, money-making byproducts.
Applications are due January 7, 2026.
On the Radar
Senate Hearings On November 19, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing on PFAS cleanup and disposal.
Also that day, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will discuss BLM land use planning.
Utah Rivers map via Geology.com
Utah Groundwater Supply Pipeline The BLM is due to release an environmental impact statement on November 21 for the Pine Valley Water Supply Project, a scheme to pump groundwater in southwest Utah’s Beaver County and move it to neighboring Iron County for municipal supply and irrigation water.
Proposed by the Central Iron County Water Conservancy District, the project includes 15 wells to supply 15,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year, 70 miles of pipeline, and a 200-acre solar field.
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.
Northern Water will further delay an initial partial filling of its new Chimney Hollow Reservoir into next year to allow time for expanded groundwater tests in the area to make sure unexpected uranium leaching inside the planned pool would not migrate to other supplies.
After spending years permitting and constructing the dam west of Loveland, Northern Water was surprised in June that routine water quality tests ahead of the filling go-ahead found natural uranium leaching out of rocks exposed from a quarry used for dam fill. Initial water fill-up was then delayed for testing, to see how long the leaching might last, and how the uranium would be diluted when water diverted under the Continental Divide by the Colorado-Big Thompson system eventually fills Chimney Hollow.
Now Northern Water says it needs more time to test groundwater outside the reservoir to provide background levels of naturally occurring uranium, and determine whether a filled reservoir would “influence” nearby groundwater with uranium-tainted water. A Northern Water spokesperson used “influence” rather than “leaking” to describe what engineers would be watching.
“Influence or mixing of surface and groundwater can vary greatly, depending on many factors, scenarios and even locations,” spokesperson Amy Parks said. “Without adequate baseline data, we are not able to assess those future conditions, so this short delay allows us to do that work.”
Map from Northern Water via the Fort Collins Coloradan.
Similar-sized Carter Lake Reservoir is just over a ridge that makes up the east edge of Chimney Hollow.
“At this time, due to the existing bedrock, we do not think that migration of water from Chimney to Carter is likely. However, additional monitoring will help us ensure that can be detected in the future,” Parks said.
Filling of a small portion of the reservoir had been planned for this month, but now is “expected in early 2026,” according to the agency.
The 12 Northern Water members that bought into the project, including the cities of Broomfield and Loveland, are already paying for construction bonds through their rates. The delay in filling the reservoir is not expected to affect their finances, the utility said.
Members were not scheduled to receive Chimney Hollow water for years. “This doesn’t affect water deliveries or anything that project participants have been expecting, so it’s a good time” to widen testing protocols, Parks said in an interview.
“It’s really just an abundance of caution and making sure we’re putting the health and safety of our public and neighbors into priority, and making sure we’re crossing our t’s and dotting our i’s before we take that step of adding water,” she said.
What mitigation is necessary remains unknown
Northern Water still does not know the scale of mitigation required to keep uranium in Chimney Hollow water at safe levels. The agency earlier this year said it believed uranium leaching would decrease over time as stored water stopped penetrating farther into the naturally occurring seams. Excavators have now capped some unused construction materials that will eventually be underwater with a clay layer that will prevent some leaching.
If uranium levels in the filled pool do not drop far enough, other mitigation measures could include a water treatment plant or system below the reservoir, Parks said. Northern Water does not yet have a cost estimate on how much the testing, delays or treatment will cost, until more testing is complete, she said.
Engineering and testing teams decided “it’s best to delay this for a few months to make sure that we have the groundwater samples from the reservoir, from around the reservoir, before that water goes in there,” Parks said. “We just want to make sure that any water that goes into the reservoir now doesn’t influence groundwater around it.”
Chimney Hollow was built to store 90,000 acre-feet of water for 11 northern Colorado communities and water agencies and the Platte River Power Authority. The project was meant to “firm” or store water rights Northern Water owns in the Windy Gap project near Granby, which collects and pumps Colorado River water into the Adams Tunnel for Front Range buyers. Windy Gap and Chimney Hollow allow the Front Range communities to take advantage of their water rights in wet years when Lake Granby is too full to contain their portion of the river. Northern Water has also suffered setbacks this year on its other major project, the proposed $2.7 billion twin-reservoir Northern Integrated Supply Project. Some members of NISP, a slightly different list than Chimney Hollow members, are warning they will pull out of the two-dam and pipeline construction plan after decades of permitting because costs have risen too high and delays raise uncertainty.
A Colorado Parks and Wildlife Aquatic Nuisance Species staff member looks for adult zebra mussels on a rock from the Colorado River on Oct. 29. That day, over 70 individuals from Parks and Wildlife and its partner agencies and groups searched Western Slope rivers for signs of zebra mussels. Colorado Parks and Wildlife/Courtesy Photo
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — On Oct. 29, over 70 people from multiple partner agencies and groups joined Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) for a one-day sampling effort on the Colorado River. From the headwaters in Grand County to Westwater, Utah, volunteers from nine agencies spent the day floating the river in search of adult zebra mussels.
Similar surveys were conducted on the Eagle and Roaring Fork rivers, as well as the tail end of the Gunnison River near the confluence of the Colorado River.
The rivers were divided into smaller sections to simplify the identification of potential zebra mussel habitat and maximize the amount of surveying that could be done in each section. Stopping at points along the way, teams conducted shoreline surveys by inspecting rocks and other hard surfaces where zebra mussels may attach.
Staff and volunteers sampled approximately 200 locations, covering over 200 miles between the four rivers.
Through this sampling effort, CPW confirmed a single adult zebra mussel in the Colorado River near Rifle. During surveys following the large-scale effort, CPW Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) staff discovered additional adult zebra mussels within Glenwood Canyon.
With these new findings, the Colorado River is now considered infested from the confluence of the Eagle River down to the Colorado-Utah border.
“Although it is disappointing to have found additional zebra mussels in the Colorado River,” said Robert Walters, CPW’s Invasive Species Program Manager, “this survey achieved its primary objective of gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the extent of the zebra mussel population in western Colorado.”
To date, no zebra mussels — adult or veliger — have been found in the Colorado River upstream of the confluence with the Eagle River.
Mudsnails next to a coin. Adult mudsnails are about the size of a grain of rice. Photo credit: City of Boulder
As a result of the one-day sampling effort, CPW also confirmed the presence of New Zealand mudsnails in the Roaring Fork River. While New Zealand mudsnails have previously been identified in the Colorado, Gunnison and Eagle rivers, this is the first time they have been detected in the Roaring Fork River.
“We could not have pulled off such a massive effort without our partners. These partnerships are instrumental in the continued protection of Colorado’s aquatic resources and infrastructure from invasive mussels,” said Walters.
CPW would like to thank the following agencies and groups who also participated in the one-day sampling effort, in addition to our federal partners at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation:
City of Grand Junction
Eagle County
Mesa County
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District
Roaring Fork Conservancy
Utah Department of Natural Resources
“It’s not just our federal, state and local partners that play a role in understanding the extent of zebra mussels in the Valley, but also the general public,” Walters continued. “That is why we are continuing to ask for the public’s 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 sample your body of water. You can request sampling of your body of water by CPW staff at Invasive.Species@state.co.us.
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.
CPW will continue sampling through Thanksgiving, focusing on smaller ponds in the Grand Valley.
Prevent the spread: Be a Pain in the ANS 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.
“As a people, we value water,” says Lorelei Cloud. “We know that water is sacred. We also know that water is alive. It has a spirit.” Photo Credit: Hans Hollenbeck
“If we take care of that water, we know that water is going to take care of us,” stated Lorelei Cloud, who has spent a lifetime advocating for water conservation and access. Cloud, a former vice chairman of the Southern Ute tribe, was also the first tribal member on record to serve on the Colorado Water Conservation Board. On Thursday, Nov. 6, The Arts Campus at Willits (TACAW) hosted Cloud and a fellow trustee of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Colorado, Johnny Le Coq, for a presentation on their respective backgrounds and water conservation work. The event, sponsored by Roaring Fork Conservancy and TNC, was a special installment of the Brooksher Watershed Institute. Lawyer Ramsey Kropf, who has decades of experience in representing Indian water rights cases in the Colorado and Klamath River basins, emceed.
After some brief introductions, Cloud opened the evening by sharing the history of her people. The Roaring Fork Valley is part of ancestral Ute territories. Though the Utes, who referred to themselves as “Nuche,” or “the people,” and called their home the “Shining Mountains,” were seasonally nomadic before the arrival of colonial miners, Cloud shared that her people do not have a traditional migration story as some Indigenous peoples do. What the Nuche have is a creation story that ties them intrinsically to the soaring peaks and waterways of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Cloud explained that the seasonal nomadic moves of the Nuche were not considered to be migration but normal shifts, demonstrating respect and care for the ecosystems…
“We believe that we are one and the same with nature,” Cloud said, elaborating that other species and even elements like water are akin to souls.
As generous and readily available as local land grants were, the Roaring Fork Valley was small potatoes compared with enormous public land grants that mark vast Western landscapes today and could foreshadow a similar trend if the political powers that be in Washington take on the directives and intentions of the current Trump administration.
“… a shady world of back-room deals, special interests and cronyism.”
— Erica Rosenberg, Western Lands Project
The future of federal public lands lies in the hands of the U.S. Congress as empowered by the American public. Whatever winds of influence and ideology blow through Washington also stir across vast acreages of American lands in the public domain of the commons.
In Aspen, Pitkin County and the greater Roaring Fork Valley, land giveaways have been many, although nothing near the scale of the decades preceding Aspen’s founding when, throughout the American West, land grants were excessive and often rife with fraud and scandal. By the time Aspen was settled in the 1880s, the outrages of earlier land grants had received pushback by a concerned public and were acted upon by congressional oversight that ended the most egregious giveaways.
Still, plenty of public land was doled out regionally to mining interests, homesteaders, railroads, schools, churches and others for what today seem like absurdly low valuations. An Aspen Journalism analysis conducted by Data Editor Laurine Lassalle of records available through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), General Land Office and Pitkin County turned up 1,175 patents issued in Pitkin County between 1880 and 1900. Information below is based on a further review of 97 of those patents.
For example, Roaring Fork Valley rancher Fred Light (1856-1931) filed for 160 acres of public lands in 1883 and, in 1886, paid $200 when the patent was approved. Light bought the land under a federal provision that invited homesteaders to file for patent under the 1820 Sale Cash Entry Act. The price was $1.25 per acre, about $40 per acre in today’s dollars.
Light’s “Box L Ranch,” in the Capitol Creek Valley, grew by additional acquisitions, including Light’s purchase of his wife’s family’s nearby ranch. A tribute written about Light as a civic leader recounted the profitability and size of his holdings. “Owning and operating with skill and success one of the finest ranches in Pitkin County, which is of ample size, comprising nine hundred and forty acres, and sufficiently fertile and productive to yield abundantly of cereals and hay and liberally support large numbers of cattle and horses. Frederick Light, of near Snow Mass, is so situated that he may laugh adversity to scorn and feel secure of an expanding and substantial prosperity during the remainder of his days.”
Light’s former homestead has, of course, escalated in value since his ownership. Today, the average value per acre in the Capitol Creek Valley is $69,000 for agricultural properties and $171,500 for agricultural/residential, according to an analysis of Pitkin County Assessor’s Office records.
Under a different federal land grant program, mining claims were granted to anyone who could prove that a property was economically viable, a stipulation of the Mining Law of 1872. Under this law, which is still on the books and widely considered antiquated, miners paid $5 per acre for both surface and mineral rights. Filers would often accrue multiple claims, as did a number of local partnerships from the early 1880s in Aspen’s first acquired mineral patents.
In 1884, a partnership of 10 individuals — including Josiah Deane, Aspen’s first lawyer and later patriarch of the T-Lazy-7 Ranch on Maroon Creek — was issued a patent on 4.49 acres for a mineral lode called “Mountain Ranger,” located near Little Annie Basin on the backside of Aspen Mountain. They paid $22.45 on the location claim first filed in 1881, the year the city of Aspen was incorporated with Deane’s legal guidance.
In 1884, a six-way partnership filed for a patent on a 5.85-acre mineral patent claim named “Grand Prize,” for which they paid $29.25. The partnership included David R.C. Brown and Henry “Grandpap” Cowenhoven, two of Aspen’s founding fathers who had arrived here in the summer of 1880 by wagons over Taylor Pass — the first wagons to enter the Roaring Fork Valley.
Brown is recorded in another partnership filed in 1887 with three others for the “Monongahila,” a mineral lode of 8.31 acres for which they paid $41.55. Brown and Cowenhoven partnered again in 1889 with four others on a claim called “Idlewild” of 13.04 acres for which they paid $65.20. Brown and Cowenhoven (sometimes in the name of Cowenhoven’s wife, Margaret, and Brown’s wife, Catherine, the daughter of the Cowenhovens’) appear in numerous entries, attributing to sound investments that made them Aspen’s first self-made millionaires.
Another Aspen namesake, Henry Tourtelotte, also appears in a number of entries, establishing patents on claims named “Tanner,” “Buckhorn,” “Castle” and “Silver Bell.” Many of these claim names are familiar today as mountain peaks, ski runs and campgrounds. Another local mining scion, Horace Augustus Warner (HAW) Tabor, shows up in many records associated with Montezuma Basin and the Montezuma claim, a mine he owned that remains visible today at a nosebleed altitude high above Castle Creek. Tabor, known as “The Silver King of Leadville,” brought his entrepreneurial reputation to Aspen along with an opera singer named Baby Doe with whom he had a notorious love affair.
One photograph contained in the Loushin Family photo (2010.052.0001) of the Montezuma Gravity Mill up Montezuma Basin, circa 1940. 2011.052.0029 is next to this image in the photo album.
Prominent founding Aspenites David Hyman and Jerome B. Wheeler are also listed in numerous patent entries as among the earliest investors in Aspen mining claims such as “Mose,” “Little Maggie,” “Dolly Dot,” “Morning Star,” “Little Nell,” “Alaska,” “Siberia” and “Durant.” Hyman and Wheeler represented Eastern capital, which was essential to Aspen’s development and which enabled the nascent city to sustain ore production years before the city’s two railroads ran tracks to Aspen and gave it economic viability. Hyman was a prominent lawyer from Cincinnati and was Aspen’s first major mining investor. Wheeler, for whom the Hotel Jerome and the Wheeler Opera House are named, was married into the Macy family wealth, owners of New York City’s first department store.
The Smuggler Mining Co., whose name still marks the mountain and open space playground bounding Aspen to the east, shows patents that provided access and ownership to one of Aspen’s richest silver mines. It was from the Smuggler Mine in 1893 that the largest-ever nugget of almost-pure silver, weighing more than 1,800 pounds, was broken into three pieces so it could be extracted and paraded on a horse-drawn wagon through the thriving city at the verge of the Silver Crash of 1893 when silver was demonetized and the U.S. currency shifted to the gold standard, abruptly and dramatically curtailing Aspen’s thriving mining industry.
Today, historic patented mining claims hold far-different valuations, not for industrial mining potential, but as real estate valued as high-end properties in Aspen’s resort economy. For what the records show as “mines” in Aspen, the valuation goes from an historic low of $4.50 per acre to $500,000 per acre today.
The Denver & Rio Grande Western (D&RGW) and the Colorado Midland built their tracks to Aspen from Leadville, surmounting the Continental Divide on trestles, through tunnels and around winding switchbacks, the construction of which required monumental physical labor. Those rights-of-way remain public thoroughfares today as the Rio Grande Trail (D&RGW) and Highway 82 (Colorado Midland).
The railroads were granted swaths of public lands as an incentive to build tracks and open the West to resource development. Roaring Fork commerce served silver mining and agriculture for which two competing railroads laid tracks over and through the mountains. Unlike earlier railroad ventures in the U.S. that brought commerce and trade to the nation and received vast land grants, Aspen’s two local railroads were granted only their rights-of-way, which still added up to considerable acreage, albeit linear and confined to specific corridors.
Koch patent.
Cashing out the commons
As generous and readily available as local land grants were, the Roaring Fork Valley was small potatoes compared with enormous public land grants that mark vast Western landscapes today and could foreshadow a similar trend if the political powers that be in Washington take on the directives and intentions of the current Trump administration.
In a comprehensive 2009 report published by the Western Lands Project, “Carving Up the Commons: Congress & Our Public Lands,” its author, Janine Blaeloch, lays out the history of public land divestitures and describes the many ways public lands can become privatized, something the Trump administration has been applying as a means of capitalizing on extractive national assets. This is not the first time a Republican administration has attempted to commoditize the commons.
“Ronald Reagan’s Interior Secretary, James Watt, famously proposed during Reagan’s presidency (1981-1989) that public lands be sold to pay down the federal deficit,” Blaeloch wrote. “The Bush administration’s (2001-2009) budget for 2007 called for the sale of $800 million worth of U.S. Forest Service lands over five years and $182 million in public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the same time period.
“These periodic high-profile, sweeping, ideologically driven land disposal schemes gain the public’s attention because they are so over the top. What the public is largely not aware of is the fact that smaller scale disposal schemes are being enacted every day — often by the same politicians who declaim their love for the environment and public land.”
Legislative initiatives are receiving strong encouragement from the current Trump administration to parcel and sell off, trade or otherwise divest national public lands and put them into private hands, severing existing protections, means of preservation and ultimately public access. Although such current directives may lead to a new precedent of commoditization, they are part of a long and controversial history.
On April 23, historian and blog phenomenon Heather Cox Richardson wrote in her daily “Letters From an American” a warning that the Department of Agriculture (which administers the U.S. Forest Service) and the Bureau of Land Management (which is under the Department of the Interior) have been gearing up for a wholesale liquidation of the American commons.
“Today,” wrote Cox Richardson, “the White House under President Donald J. Trump celebrated Earth Day by announcing that the White House champions ‘opening more federal lands and waters for oil, gas and critical mineral extraction.’”
Cox Richardson pointed out that, in fact, public lands already benefit the nation by generating billions of dollars a year for the United States through tourism.
“Since the 1970s,” she wrote, “the right wing has come to see the public ownership of lands as an affront to the idea that individuals should be able to use the resources they believe God has put there for them to use.
“Developers have encouraged that ideology, for privatization of America’s Western lands has always meant that they ended up in the hands of a few wealthy individuals.”
The conservative political agenda outlined in Project 2025, she noted, calls for a giveaway to oil and gas and mining interests by “opening up more of our federal land to energy development, rolling back protections on federal lands, and selling off more land to private developers.”
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum made it clear in his January confirmation hearings, Cox Richardson wrote, “that he sees selling the public lands as a source of revenue, referring to them as ‘America’s balance sheet.’”
“We’ve got $36 trillion in debt,” Burgum said, as quoted by Cox Richardson, “but we never talk about the assets, and the assets are the land and minerals. The Interior Department has got close to 500 million acres of surface, 700 million acres of subsurface, and over 2 billion acres of offshore. That’s the balance sheet of America. I believe we ought to have a deep inventory of all the assets in America. We ought to understand … what [is] our assets: $100 trillion, $200 trillion? We could be in great shape as a country.”
Secretary Scott Turner (L) with Secretary Doug Burgham (R).
Bipartisan support for public lands
The Trump-era initiative to monetize public lands hit a roadblock, however, after bipartisan support for public lands overwhelmed the direction Burgum and the Trump administration had fomented both as an ongoing policy directive and as described in the GOP’s Big Beautiful Bill, which was voted in by Congress and signed into law by the president July 4.
A draft version of that bill had called for selling 0.5% to 0.75% of U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands in 11 Western states and for selling 0.25% to 0.5% of BLM lands within 5 miles of the border of a U.S. population center.
“A proposal to sell federal public lands,” Caitlyn Kim on Colorado Public Radio News reported June 29, “has officially been taken out of the Republicans’ spending and tax bill after facing strong pushback from hunters, fishermen, outdoor recreation users and, most importantly, Republicans in the U.S. Senate and House.”
U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), the chief elected Republican advocate for the sell-off, announced the removal of the public lands divestiture from the bill, blaming the decision on the budget reconciliation process and explaining that he could not get a safeguard to guarantee that the land would be sold only to American families.
CPR News reported that Lee “said he continues to believe the federal government ‘owns far too much land’ that he said is mismanaged and that ‘massive swaths of the West are being locked away from the people who live there.’ He indicated that he wasn’t giving up altogether, adding that he would work with President Donald Trump to ‘put underutilized federal land to work for American families.’”
However, according to the CPR report, “the decision [to delete public-land sales] also came after other Senate Republicans from the West said they opposed the idea and would offer an amendment to get it taken out of the bill. Five House Republicans also said they would vote against the GOP’s Big Beautiful Bill if it remained in.”
Colorado lawmakers celebrated the removal of public-land sales from the GOP bill as a defining endorsement for the value most Americans feel toward protecting the American commons. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) wrote on social media: “The American people — and our public lands — have won!”
CPR News reported that Neguse and Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.) had issued a joint statement opposing public-land sales in an acknowledgment of unity for protecting a key American legacy that crosses the aisles of Congress. “Republican or Democrat — representing red, purple or blue districts — one sentiment continues to ring true: Public lands are not for sale.”
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) wrote on social media: “This is a huge victory for Colorado and the West. Thank you to everyone who made their voice heard and fought back against this dangerous provision. America’s public lands belong to all of us.”
“Protecting public lands is the most nonpartisan issue in the country,” Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited, said in a statement quoted by CPR News. “This is certainly not the first attempt to privatize or transfer our public lands, and it won’t be the last. We must stay vigilant and defend the places we love to fish, hike, hunt and explore.”
Taking a stand on the land
Despite this most recent halt of public land sales, the threat is far from over, warns Blaeloch, whose 20-year advocacy mission before the Western Lands Project ceded its role to Wild Earth Guardians in 2016 was to “scrutinize public land trades, sales, giveaways and any project that would cede public land, and their impacts on habitat and wildlife, natural resources, land use and communities. The goal of Western Lands Project is to keep public lands public.”
“We are about to return to the Golden Age of land acquisitions for private benefit,” Blaeloch said in an Aspen Journalism interview in April. In her focused role as public lands defender, Blaeloch said, “We realized that the Forest Service and BLM conduct hundreds of land deals every year, mostly without public involvement. I like clarity and transparency, and I thought it was unfair that deals were being made without the public interest.”
Erica Rosenberg, a former president of Western Lands Project, concludes in the introduction to Blaeloch’s report: “Congressional processes threaten to trade away, sell or give away our public land heritage — piece by piece — through a shady world of back-room deals, special interests and cronyism.”
So, Blaeloch, digging into her background as a career environmental planner, has pushed back with the goal of making federal land management agencies accountable by tracking land deals, educating the public at the grassroots, and also by educating Congress on what has long been a veiled aspect of American land use on the federal level.
Railroad and timber land grants by 1878.
Free land for railroad and lumber industries
Blaeloch’s report for the Western Lands Project stated that the most opportune era in U.S. history for collusion in acquiring public lands dirt cheap or at no cost at all took place from the mid-1800s up to the early 1900s through manipulative deals benefitting large railroad interests and the fast-growing lumber industry.
“Between 1850 and 1870,” writes Blaeloch, “the federal government granted 131 million acres of public land to railroad corporations as incentive for westward expansion. These railroad land grants comprised one of the largest categories of public land disposal in U.S. history, after cash sale, homestead grants to individuals, and grants to the states for education and other purposes.”
For example, Blaeloch reports, “the Northern Pacific Railroad, which was to construct its line from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Tacoma, Washington, was granted 38.9 million acres, including 9.6 million acres in Washington state. Several other land grants were added to what would more than a century later become the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad, for an additional total of more than 47 million acres.”
These generous railroad land grants were typically given in alternating square miles extending out from the railroad lines and forming a “checkerboard” land-ownership pattern of public/private land that is still visible on many maps and to anyone who chances to gaze out the window of an airplane while flying over the clear-cut forests of the Pacific Northwest.
Land giveaways to railroads were originally intended to encourage Western settlement as the American frontier expanded. It was assumed that land along the railroad lines would become desirable, enabling the railroads and federal government to capitalize by selling their alternating public/private parcels to settlers who would benefit from nearby rail service.
“In fact,” writes Blaeloch, “the railroads kept much of their grant land, and the federal government designated many of its checkerboards as national forest. Nearly all of the railroad land ‘grants’ were in fact intended to be temporary transfers of public land that the railroads were supposed to sell in turn to ‘actual settlers’ to raise money for railroad construction.”
Some railroad companies kept their land grants even though they failed to build, and some transferred former public lands and the wealth they generated to cronies, including elected officials.
“By 1870,” writes Blaeloch, “the public had grown disgusted with the scandals and waste flowing from the railroad land grants, and this particular brand of public land giveaway ceased. By this time, too, the public was increasingly concerned about having reached the limits of free land and resources, and there was great controversy around the rapid liquidation of the country’s forests.”
By the end of the 19th century, the debate between forest preservation and utilitarian wise use was at full pitch. Preservation was strongly advocated by Sierra Club founder John Muir and his disciples. Utilitarian wise use was advocated by Gifford Pinchot, the country’s first Forest Service chief under President Theodore Roosevelt. Timber and mining industries actively lobbied for Pinchot’s view of the land as commodity, countering Muir’s view of the natural landscape as a necessary and valid public benefit.
Despoiling the garden
In his 1982 book, “Westward in Eden: The Public Lands and the Conservation Movement,” author William K. Wyant, a former Washington correspondent for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, raises, as a popular conception, the idea of the land as ultimately exploitable: “The American has usually seen real estate as expendable,” he writes. “It is something of which there is assumed to be plenty more … somewhere else.”
When Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980, writes Wyant, the Republican mandate was to shrink government and its influences, and to cut regulations on industry. This afforded a propitious launch of the Sagebrush Rebellion, which advocated shifting federal lands in the West to the states. “The United States had at the outset an incomparable Garden of Eden to dress and keep, as the Old Testament phrases it,” wrote Wyant. “Its husbandry has been at sometimes profligate, greedy and short-sighted and at other times blessed with extraordinary vision.”
Wyant idealistically describes the continental United States as a vast and pristine wilderness, “a domain of incredible richness — virgin forests, great rivers, the prairies and high plains, the shining Rockies, the arid and sandy wastes and the golden Pacific shore. The early settlers found it majestic and unspoiled, and they plunged into it, defiant of restraints.”
But without restraints, the commons suffered immeasurable abuse and exploitation, as a statement from Pinchot made clear in the early 20th century: “Outside the tropics, American forests were the richest and most productive on Earth, and the best able to repay good management. But nobody had begun to manage any part of them with an eye to the future. On the contrary, the greatest, the swiftest, the most efficient and the most appalling wave of forest destruction in human history was then swelling to its climax in the United States; and the American people were glad of it.”
Rapacious companies such as logging giant Weyerhaeuser saw forested public lands not as cathedrals, as did Muir, but as wood lots. By 1974, cites Wyant, Weyerhaeuser owned outright more than 5.5 million acres, a holding bigger than the state of Massachusetts.
U.S. Sen. Gale McGee (1915-92) who served in Congress from 1959 to 1977 as one of the last Democrats to hail from Wyoming, in testimony in 1971, said, “Today, the once-great forests of our nation have been depleted to the point that would shame Paul
Bunyan. It is time to cease measuring the value of our public forests on the scale of board-feet of timber.”
Vast land giveaways were enabled by the 1862 Railroad Act, writes Wyant, when a number of private railroad companies were allocated $65 million in federal loans and handed a total 110 million acres of public domain. In 1864, an even more generous provision was made when the Northern Pacific Railroad, then building a 2,128-mile line from St. Paul to Tacoma received millions of acres of public lands, including about one-fourth of the state of North Dakota and 15% of Montana.
This largesse was coupled with political influence from railroad magnates who lobbied Congress for more land. Support for outrageous public behests also came from politicians who favored rail subsidies in exchange for locating lines in cities and towns that benefitted their constituents in blatant acts of patronage. Industry and business were in on the take at the expense of the commons.
“All in all,” writes Wyant, “Congress gave to the railroads an area nearly twice the size of Colorado and one-third as large as Alaska.” Another gift of the commons came to the railroads in the Forest Management Act of 1897, which allowed land-holders within newly designated and protected forest reserves to exchange, acre-for-acre, their holdings for lands that were outside the reserves.
Under this act, writes Wyant, rail barons were permitted to swap millions of acres of mountainous, desert, cutover or otherwise useless land for “in lieu” timber acreage of far greater value. The railroads then made deals with lumber companies by not only selling their holdings, but transporting for a profit the timber that was harvested from them. Loggers and railroads latched onto the mutual benefits of collusion in the exploitation of public lands, with no evident moral, ethical or ecological considerations.
After a hue and cry of protest from rising ranks of conservationists, the “in lieu” provision was repealed in 1905. However, eight years of rampant profiteering had already privatized huge chunks of the commons.
“In addition to the scars on the land,” writes Blaeloch, “the behavior pattern, too, was carried forward, and the companies established a paradigm that brought them enormous profits at the expense of the public interest, neatly disguised as ‘win-win’ deals. It is a pattern that shows itself time and again in land deals driven by politics, privilege and greed.”
A regional comparison is necessary to grasp the scale of land acquisitions by logging companies: The White River National Forest covers 2.3 million acres, one of the largest forests in the United States. The Emmerson family, which owns and operates Sierra Pacific Industries, a family legacy company since 1949 that logs usable lumber after forest fires and sells it to lumber retailers, owns 2.4 million acres in three Western states: California, Oregon and Washington. How did one family carve out of the American commons acreage greater than the largest national forest in Colorado? Timber.
Still, Wyant surmises, rising ranks of professional and educated conservationists have achieved national influence in the aftermath of public lands feeding frenzies. “An impressive machinery for the defense of the environment and public lands has been built,” he concludes. “Until it is more firmly in place and has the steady acceptance of the American people, we shall owe a heavy debt to the corporal’s guard of environmental lawyers and professional conservationists who man the ramparts while others sleep.”
Photo credit: Aspen Journalism
Congress, freewheeling land deals and FLPMA
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. — U.S. Constitution, Article IV, section 3, clause 2 (Property Clause)
As environmentalists and public land activists have become aware of the chipping away of public lands through land sales and exchanges, they realized that deals were being made through Congress with questionable legitimacy.
“Congress members,” writes Blaeloch, “were free to wheel, deal, carve up and give away public lands with no rules to hinder them.”
Although some deals were negotiated with bipartisan agreement, many were split down party lines. Geography has also played a role. Blaeloch reports that in the area of protecting public lands, “Republicans favor less of it than Democrats. As a party, Democrats have a far better record on public land protection, but the more consequential split is between Western and Eastern politicians, with easterners being more protective than westerners where public lands are in far greater supply.”
“However, it is by no means just ideology or geography that inspires congressional land deals,” writes Blaeloch. “Frequently, the bottom line is the direct, pragmatic opportunity to reward friends or curry political favor through the gift of public lands.”
In reaction to the gradual expansion of a national conservation ethic, Congress in 1976 passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which gave broad authority to the BLM and Forest Service to implement land transactions by ideally providing a more rational, consistent and transparent process.
“It was not until 1976,” writes Blaeloch, “with the passage of FLPMA, that Congress officially closed the frontier, declaring that ‘it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.’ FLPMA established procedures, primarily for the BLM, to identify areas that should be retained for conservation purposes.”
According to an artificial intelligence search, FLPMA “mandates a multiple-use and sustained-yield approach, balancing resource extraction and commercial activities with conservation of natural and cultural resources. The act requires the BLM to periodically inventory public lands and their resources to develop management plans that balance various uses. FLPMA also requires the BLM to coordinate with state and local governments and provide for meaningful citizen involvement in land use planning such as land exchanges that allow the BLM to trade federal land for other land of potentially greater public value. FLPMA also mandates the protection of scientific, scenic, historic, ecological, and other resources, and the management of areas like wilderness study areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).”
Such managerial responsibilities provide oversight, explains Blaeloch, making land transfers more transparent and, as a result of increased public and administrative input, more complex. Many transfers are undertaken to eliminate private inholdings within the public domain, thereby consolidating larger areas of contiguous public land for more effective management. Other benefits include protecting watersheds or other sensitive lands and to serve other genuine public interest purposes.
Regarding the giving away or selling of public lands, writes Blaeloch, federal land agencies have been limited in their authority and they are not allowed to give it away. “By contrast, members of Congress may approve sales or giveaways of any size or nature, limited only by what they believe they can justify.” She warns, however, that congressional exchanges are often subject to little scrutiny or public involvement, with vague language in the FLPMA establishing a guideline that land disposals must “serve the national interest.” Defining “national interest” is key to the future of public lands.
Regarding land transfers, Blaeloch writes: “Perhaps their most basic flaw is that most are designed to serve narrow special interests, even where they purport to serve a greater good. It is now well established that land exchanges and sales implemented by the public land agencies — that is, through the administrative process — can be ill-conceived, badly executed and damaging to the public interest.”
One safeguard is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which provides strict guidelines by requiring environmental analysis and disclosure, as well as opportunities for citizen input. FLPMA dictates that land exchanges must serve the public interest and yield equal value to both or multiple sides in the transaction.
The following protections are required under NEPA and FLPMA against specious land exchanges:
Public notification to ensure that the affected communities are aware of the proposal and its scope.
Environmental analysis of the trade’s impacts, including the impact on public lands that would be traded away.
Analysis of a range of alternatives for the exchange including “no action,” different exchange configurations, outright purchase of private lands, and development restrictions on land traded to the private party.
Analysis of the ecological and other values on lands that would come into public ownership.
Formal opportunities for the public to respond to and ask for changes in the proposal, including public hearings and comment periods. In addition, the agency is required to respond to substantive comments and incorporate legitimate concerns into the proposal.
A “public interest determination” compiled by the agency that outlines the reasons/justification for the trade.
The right to appeal the decision if it is not in the public interest and/or the right to challenge the adequacy of the NEPA analysis.
Public disclosure of appraisal information once the agency’s “preferred alternative” is identified and before the land deeds are transferred.
Blaeloch cautions that the administrative route to land sales and exchanges provides a clearly delineated, predictable process. By contrast, she lists the reasons why the congressional route guarantees none of the safeguards provided in statutes and regulations:
A member of Congress can put any kind of land deal he or she desires into a piece of legislation, and none of the provisions listed above need to be included.
Public notification is not required; citizens learn about a legislated land trade by luck; by the grace of the proponent or congressional sponsor; in the news; or by searching the congressional website.
Environmental analysis is occasionally required but is often truncated and far more often omitted altogether.
Opportunities for public input are available through contacting members of Congress or submitting written or oral testimony for congressional hearings.
There is no right to appeal a land bill. Citizens cannot file an appeal against or sue Congress. In rare cases, it is possible to sue the agency over its implementation of a legislated exchange if it does not comply with the legislation that directed it.
There is no requirement for the disclosure of appraisal information. A “summary” of appraisal data may be made available; otherwise, complete appraisal information for a congressional land trade is probably available only after deeds have changed hands — assuming appraisals were conducted in the first place.
“Custom-written bills can provide the proponents with special provisions and guarantees they would not be able to secure through the agencies,” writes Blaeloch. “Proponents can manipulate the appraisal standards, bypass environmental analysis, set an absolute deadline for the transfer of deeds, and add custom provisions that are beneficial to the private parties. This emphasizes why it is a civic duty for American citizens to become involved in any decisions regarding public lands, whether management or transactions.”
Key events in the historic transfer of public lands to private hands (from “Carving Up the Commons,” published in 2009 by the Western Lands Project).
The Land Act of 1796 authorized public auctions of federal land.
The General Land Office was created in 1812 to administer the disposal of public lands.
By 1820, Congress had passed 24 acts granting to settler-squatters the right of preemption, allowing them to buy land without competitive bidding.
A series of railroad land grants between 1850 and 1870 allowed several dozen private railroads to acquire and sell public lands in order to raise capital to build the nation’s railroad and telegraph systems.
The 1862 Homestead Act authorized settlers to claim 160 acres of any land subject to preemption, and later to any unsurveyed land. The homestead was granted free for a nominal filing fee, but title was not transferred until the land had been settled and cultivated for three years.
The General Mining Law of 1872 allowed anyone to file a mineral claim on public lands and receive a patent to the land for $5 per acre or less. Under this law, more than 3 million acres of federal land have been patented. The law is still on the books.
The Desert Lands Act, Timber Culture Act, and Timber and Stone Act — all of which were advanced in the 1870s — made more land available to settlers and industries.
By the early 20th century, the federal government had granted or sold more than 1 billion acres, or 70% of the continental United States.
Today, nearly a third of all countries worldwide have pledged to phase out their unabated coal-burning power plants in the coming years, including several countries you might not expect. Germany, Spain, Malaysia, the Czech Republic – all have substantial coal reserves and coal use today, yet they are among the more than 60 countries that have joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance and set phase-out deadlines between 2025 and 2040.
So, where do things stand for phasing out coal burning globally? The picture is mixed. For example:
The accelerating deployment of renewable energy, energy storage, electric vehicles and energy efficiency globally offer hope that global emissions are on their way to peaking. More than 90% of the new electricity capacity installed worldwide in 2024 came from clean energy sources. However, energy demand is also growing quickly, so new renewable power does not always replace older fossil fuel plants or prevent new ones, including coal.
China now burns more coal than the rest of the world combined, and it continues to build new coal plants. But China is also a driving force in the dramatic growth in solar and wind energy investments and electricity generation inside China and around the world. As the industry leader in renewable energy technology, it has a strong economic interest in solar and wind power’s success around the world.
To meet the 2015 Paris Agreement’s goals of limiting global warming to well under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times, research shows that the world will need to rapidly reduce nearly all fossil fuel burning and associated emissions – and it is not close to being on track.
Ensuring a just transition for coal communities
Many countries with coal mining operations worry about the transition for coal-dependent communities as mines shut down and jobs disappear.
No one wants a repeat of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s destruction of British coal communities in the 1980s in her effort to break the mineworkers union. Mines rapidly closed, and many coal communities and regions were left languishing in economic and social decline for decades.
Two men collect coal for cooking outside the Komati Power Station, where they used to work, in 2024, in Komati, South Africa. Both lost their jobs when Eskom closed the power plant in 2022 under international pressure to cut emissions. Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images
But as more countries phase out coal, they offer examples of how to ensure coal-dependent workers, communities, regions and entire countries benefit from a just transition to a coal-free system.
At local and national levels, research shows that careful planning, grid updates and reliable financing schemes, worker retraining, small-business development and public funding of coal worker pensions and community and infrastructure investments can help set coal communities on a path for prosperity.
A fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty?
At the global climate talks, several groups, including the Powering Past Coal Alliance and an affiliated Coal Transition Commission, have been pushing for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty. It would legally bind governments to a ban on new fossil fuel expansion and eventually eliminate fossil fuel use.
The world has affordable renewable energy technologies with which to replace coal-fired electricity generation – solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels in most places. There are still challenges with the transition, but also clear ways forward. Removing political and regulatory obstacles to building renewable energy generation and transmission lines, boosting production of renewable energy equipment, and helping low-income countries manage the upfront cost with more affordable financing can help expand those technologies more widely around the world.
Shifting to renewable energy also has added benefits: It’s much less harmful to the health of those who live and work nearby than mining and burning coal is.
So can the world quit coal? Yes, I believe we can. Or, as Brazilians say, “Sim, nós podemos.”
Rebecca Mitchell, John Entsminger, Estevan Lopez, Gene Shawcroft, JB Hamby, Tom Buschatzke at the Getches-Wilkinson Center/Water and Tribes Initiative Conference June 6, 2024. Photo credit: Rebecca Mitchell
Click the link to read the article on the Deseret News website (Carter Williams). Here’s an excerpt:
November 12, 2025
Utah and the six other Colorado River states reached a tentative agreement to continue working together on a plan to share the river’s water, but failed to secure a consensus plan ahead of an important Tuesday deadline. Utah, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming, all of which rely on the river for water, agreed to continue to meet until they have a “framework solution” by mid-February 2026, said Gene Shawcroft, chairman of the Colorado River Authority of Utah.
“We were able to have enough of a framework put together that the federal government agrees with us that the framework can be continued to be refined in order for us to have a deal by the middle of February,” he told reporters in a negotiations update briefing on Wednesday…
The basin states have had agreements in place on how Colorado River water has been allocated for over a century, and the post-2026 plan seeks to be the largest operational update since a 2007 plan to address how water is stored and pulled from Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the nation’s two largest reservoirs. Its users agree that prolonged drought and low reservoir conditions remain persistent challenges facing the river, but there’s still division on how to handle the discrepancy between water needs and what’s available in the system within one of the fastest-growing regions of the country. Lower Basin states have called for mandatory reductions during dry years. In a public letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Tuesday, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and other Arizona leaders called it “alarming” that Upper Basin states, including Utah, “have repeatedly refused to implement any volume of binding, verifiable water supply reductions.”
[…]
Upper Basin states don’t believe those types of cuts are necessary because they use less water than Lower Basin states, largely because of how water rights are allocated, favoring senior rights holders like California, Shawcroft said. These are the types of arguments still holding up a long-term deal.
“The major sticking point is there’s a whole lot less water in the system than we anticipated, or there’s historically been,” he said. “The question is, how do you divide a pie that’s significantly smaller than it has been, when everyone’s used to getting that big piece of the pie?”
The Colorado River Compact divided the basin into an upper and lower half, with each having the right to develop and use 7.5 million acre-feet of river water annually. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey via The Water Education Foundation)
Synopsis: La Niña is favored to continue into the Northern Hemisphere winter, with atransition to ENSO-neutral most likely in January-March 2026 (61% chance).
La Niña continued over the past month, as indicated by the strengthening of below-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. The latest weekly Niño indices were between -0.5°C and -0.7°C, with the exception of the easternmost Niño-1+2 index at -0.2°C. Negative subsurface temperature anomalies persisted (averaged from 180°-100°W; Fig. 3), with below-average temperatures prevailing from the surface to 200m depth in the eastern half of the equatorial Pacific. The atmosphere continued to reflect La Niña, with low-level easterly wind anomalies and upper-level westerly wind anomalies observed across most of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Enhanced convection persisted over Indonesia and was weakly suppressed near the Date Line. Both the traditional and equatorial Southern Oscillation indices were positive. Collectively, the coupled ocean-atmosphere system reflected La Niña.
The IRI multi-model predictions favor La Niña to continue through December-February (DJF) 2025-26. While also considering predictions from the North American Multi-Model Ensemble, the ENSO team believes uncertainty for the DJF season is high with La Niña (51% chance) slightly favored over ENSO-neutral (48% chance). La Niña is expected to remain weak (3-month average Niño-3.4 index value at or between -0.5°C and -0.9°C). A weak La Niña would be less likely to result in conventional winter impacts, though predictable signals could still influence the forecast guidance (e.g., CPC’s seasonal outlooks). In summary, La Niña is favored to continue into the Northern Hemisphere winter, with a transition to ENSO-neutral most likely in January-March 2026 (61% chance).
There’s still no plan for how the seven states that use water from the Colorado River will allocate the scarce resource after 2026. Tuesday, November 11, marked a deadline set by the federal government for the states to share a framework for new operating guidelines—another deadline that’s come and gone with no agreement. The river’s supply has drastically decreased since the original Colorado River Compactwas signed in 1922, due to climate change and overallocation of water. In 2007, the states agreed to interim operating guidelines, but those expire in 2026. Because Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the basin’s two biggest reservoirs, are federal projects managed by federal agencies, those agencies will need to do an environmental review and public comment period, as required by law. The federal government needs input from the states in a timely fashion to complete the review and public comment process, in order to have new rules in place by October 2026. On Tuesday night, the seven states, along with the Department of Interior and Bureau of Reclamation, issued a statement on the negotiations…
“A supply-based proposal is the only way to move forward,” [Becky Mitchell] told attendees at the Colorado River District’s Across Divides conference on October 3. “We all have to be responding to supply.”
That means that the new guidelines should be based on actual streamflows, rather than demand from water users.
“We need to set aside building an operations plan that meets the needs as they are currently,” she said. “We need to let go of that dream and be able to figure out how to respond, and I think that’s been a bit of a struggle.”
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
an Alamosa County Commissioners meeting on Wednesday.
NextEra Energy is planning a maximum 600 megawatt solar plant and 600 megawatts of solar storage off Lane 2N between County Road 104 and County Road 108 in the central part of unincorporated Alamosa County.
So massive is the project that Alamosa County Commissioners are hoping it will help to convince state officials about the importance of increasing transmission capacity to move power in and out of the Valley.
As it stands, Colorado’s power grid currently isn’t equipped to support this size of the proposed new plant, which NextEra Energy is calling its “Spud Valley” solar project. The company plans to connect its Alamosa County project to the existing Public Service Co. and Xcel Energy substation that is adjacent to the site.
A single megawatt can power around 160 homes, so 600 megawatts has the equivalent power for tens of thousands of homes. Plus, Spud Valley includes just as much solar storage.
The Spud Valley project would be located on four square miles with 10 different land owners either selling or leasing property to NextEra Energy. The project is located in Subdistrict 1 of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District and a section of Alamosa County that has been rapidly reducing its agricultural output due to water constraints from the declining unconfined aquifer.
NextEra Energy is hoping to begin construction by the middle of 2027 and have the plant operational in 2028, according to company officials as they gained approval from Alamosa County on waivers to certain regulations within the required 1041 permit that didn’t apply to the project. Final steps with Alamosa County will be taken in 2026 and notice given for a public hearing.
“This is substantially larger than anything now,” Alamosa County Land Use Director Richard Hubler told the county commissioners. He said he hopes the project positively impacts the discussion around increasing the San Luis Valley’s transmission capacity.
Xcel Energy actively manages the power grid. When demand for power is high across the state, power generated in the Valley is transmitted out to meet the state’s demand. Given the size of the Spud Valley project, the power grid would have to be further developed to be able to handle the amount of solar from the new Alamosa County operation.
“This is a massive project and so it changes the balance of power more or less,” Hubler said.
The Colorado State Land Board gave final approval Thursday to the three-way transfer of 45,950 acres that make up the La Jara Basin, which includes La Jara Reservoir in Conejos County.
The decision came with plenty of apprehension around the federal government and whether the Trump Administration is a reliable partner in the deal. In the end, state land board commissioners agreed to “roll the dice” and hope for the best.
In the end, Commissioner Josie Heath was the lone no vote.
The La Jara Basin land transfer will net the state land board $49.6 million, or $1,000 per acre for the land transferred to the U.S. Forest Service and BLM, and $2,500 per acre for the La Jara Reservoir area which will be managed by Colorado Parks & Wildlife.
The deal includes $43.5 million from the coveted Land and Water Conservation Fund, which sits with the U.S. Department of Interior and is used to “safeguard natural areas, water resources and cultural heritage.”
Pressure mounted on the state land board to approve the transfer as U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper urged final approval. Former U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar compared the transfer to the establishment of the Great Sand Dunes National Park.
“This is the project of the 21st Century for the San Luis Valley,” Salazar said.
State land board commissioners acknowledged their apprehension for giving final approval centered around mistrust for the Trump Administration and whether the current federal administration would abide by the deal. The commissioners hoped that even though the funds were appropriated that they would actually “materialize” in the future.
When Alamosa Citizen published this story on the state land board’s hesitation on a final deal, the state agency found itself under pressure to give final approval. The state land board spent more than three hours hearing support for the deal from San Luis Valley local officials and the federal agencies that will assume management of the public lands once the land transfer is completed.
The state land board had three options – approve the land transfer to the federal agencies and CPW; keep the property with the state land board; or approve the La Jara Reservoir transfer to Colorado Parks & Wildlife and keep the portion of the property that the U.S. Forest Service and BLM sought.
A trove of local officials and residents spoke in-person and over Zoom of their support for the approval of the land transfer. Alongside ranchers, farmers and recreationists, local officials provided their input, including Conejos County Commissioner Mitchel Jarvies and district manager for the San Luis Valley Water Conservation District Heather Dutton.
Representatives of the two federal agencies told state land board members that it was doubtful they could muster support in Congress to approve money for the acquisition again if the current deal wasn’t accepted.
With the deal finalized, the U.S. Forest Service will take over 21,821 acres and BLM will manage 21,704 acres of the La Jara Basin. Colorado Parks & Wildlife will take management of La Jara Reservoir.
The federal Office of Budget and Management still has to free up the money for the Bureau of Land Management’s portion of the sale, according to BLM officials.
Mostly dry weather occurred this week across the Great Plains, Minnesota and Wisconsin, the south-central U.S. and the Southwest. The northern half of California, western Oregon, western Washington, the northern Idaho Panhandle and northwest Montana received moderate to heavy precipitation amounts. From northern California northward into the Pacific Northwest, amounts this week were locally over 3 inches. Locally higher precipitation amounts fell in the Northeast and in portions of the Great Lakes region. This included heavy lake-effect snow in north-central and northwest Indiana. Spotty rainfall amounts of over half an inch fell across the Southeast, but most of the region experienced a dry week. Drier weather in parts of the Great Plains and south-central U.S. led to widespread degradations, especially in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. Heavy precipitation in Oregon and Idaho led to improvements in both states. Montana was split with improvement in the west and degradation in north-central areas, which continued a recent dry spell. Mostly drier weather in the Southeast led to degradations in Florida and southern Georgia and portions of Virginia. In northeast Illinois, northwest Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and much of New England, improvements occurred after recent precipitation…
Temperatures in the eastern edge of the High Plains area remained mostly within a couple degrees of normal, as a strong cold front moved into the central U.S. near the end of the period. Otherwise, most of the region was warmer than normal, especially western Nebraska and central and western portions of Colorado and Wyoming, where temperatures from 4-8 degrees above normal were common this week. Some precipitation, generally under a half inch liquid equivalent, fell from central South Dakota to northeast Nebraska. Precipitation exceeding a half inch also fell in northwest Wyoming in the vicinity of Yellowstone National Park and in a section of the Black Hills of South Dakota. Elsewhere, mostly dry weather was the rule across the region. Short-term precipitation deficits grew in parts of eastern Nebraska, where abnormal dryness expanded in coverage north and northwest of Lincoln. Portions of western Nebraska and adjacent southeast Wyoming and Colorado continued to dry as well, and abnormal dryness and some moderate drought grew in these areas. In south-central Colorado, localized degradations were also due in part to effects from longer-term precipitation deficits…
Drought Monitor one week change map ending November 11, 2025.
Temperatures were above normal across the region. Southeast California, Nevada, Utah and southern New Mexico were generally the warmest compared to normal, with many spots in these areas finishing the week 6-10 degrees above normal. Parts of the northwest U.S. saw moderate to heavy precipitation amounts this week, while most areas from central California southward and eastward were dry. Many parts of northwest Montana and northern Idaho received half an inch to 2 inches of precipitation this week. Eastern Washington mostly received over a half inch of precipitation, while western Washington, western Oregon and north-central and northwest California received heavier amounts ranging from 2 to locally over 5 inches of precipitation. Recent precipitation helped to improve streamflow and precipitation deficits across much of Idaho, leading to widespread improvements in drought conditions. Severe also improved across much of western Montana as a result of recent precipitation events. Severe drought was also removed in northwest Oregon after recent heavy precipitation improved streamflow levels and lessened short- and long-term precipitation deficits. In north-central Montana, drought conditions worsened as weather stayed mostly dry, leading to larger short-term precipitation deficits and low streamflow levels…
Warmer-than-normal temperatures occurred across most of the South this week. Temperatures in Texas and Oklahoma were especially warm, with many areas in these states finishing the week 4-8 degrees above normal. Parts of southwest Texas were even warmer, with some sites finishing the week more than 10 degrees above normal. Most of the South remained dry this week, though a few parts of central and eastern Tennessee received over a half inch of precipitation. Degradations to abnormal dryness and drought were widespread from the southern half of Oklahoma to southwest Arkansas, and from central and eastern Texas into parts of Louisiana. Short-term drought impacts were the big story in southern Oklahoma, where short-term precipitation deficits grew and soil moisture and pond levels dropped and vegetation struggled. Streamflow levels struggled in portions of central and southern Texas, while soil moisture levels also dropped in south Texas amid unusually high evaporative demand for the time of year. Short-term precipitation deficits also drove some degradation in areas of abnormal dryness and moderate and severe drought in Louisiana…
Looking Ahead
From the evening of Nov. 12 through Nov. 17, the National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Prediction Center is forecasting heavy precipitation to fall across parts of the western U.S. Precipitation amounts from 3-5 inches (locally higher) may fall across large portions of California, especially the southwest coastal areas and portions of the Sierra Nevada. Heavy precipitation amounts from 2-5 inches (locally higher) are also anticipated in parts of northwest Washington and the Olympic Peninsula. Over 0.75 inches of precipitation is also forecast in southeast California, southern Nevada, portions of western and central Arizona and southwest Utah. A few other locales may receive an inch or more of precipitation, including the San Juan Mountains in southwest Colorado and parts of the northern Idaho Panhandle and northwest Montana. Much drier weather is forecast across most of the rest of the Contiguous U.S. for this period, though some parts of New York and New England may receive over a half inch of precipitation.
For the period from Nov. 18-22, the NWS Climate Prediction Center forecast favors above-normal precipitation across much of the Contiguous U.S., especially from the Southwest northeastward to the Lower Ohio River Valley. Drier-than-normal weather is slightly favored in northeast parts of Maine, while near-normal precipitation amounts are most likely in the Florida Peninsula. Near-normal temperatures are favored for New England, while elsewhere, colder-than-normal temperatures are likelier west of the Continental Divide, while warmer-than-normal temperatures are favored to the east of the Continental Divide. Forecaster confidence in warmer-than-normal weather is highest from the Gulf Coast north to the Lower Midwest and southern Great Plains, and near and west of Lake Superior. Above-normal precipitation and temperatures are favored in Hawaii. In Alaska, above-normal precipitation is also favored, with the strongest chances being in the southwest part of the state. Above-normal temperatures are favored in most areas of Alaska, except for the far northwest, where near-normal temperatures are expected.
US Drought Monitor one week change map ending November 11, 2025.
Water managers from the seven states that share the Colorado River have blown a deadline given to them by the federal government to come up with a rough plan on how the drought-stricken river will be shared in the future.
The Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) still cannot find agreement with the Lower Basin (California, Arizona and Nevada) about how the nation’s two largest reservoirs — Lake Powell and Lake Mead — will be operated and how cuts will be shared in dry years.
In June, Scott Cameron, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s acting assistant secretary for water and science, said federal officials would need to know the broad outlines of a plan from the states by Nov. 11. Despite frequent meetings in recent months, negotiators were unable to hammer out a deal by Tuesday, leaving future management for the water supply for 40 million people in the Southwest cloaked in uncertainty.
Instead, the states, the Interior Department and the federal Bureau of Reclamation released a short joint statement Tuesday afternoon, noting that serious and ongoing challenges face the Colorado River.
“While more work needs to be done, collective progress has been made that warrants continued efforts to define and approve details for a finalized agreement,” the statement reads. “Through continued cooperation and coordinated action, there is a shared commitment to ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience of the Colorado River system.”
Wahweap Marina at Lake Powell when water levels were at near-historic lows in 2021. The seven states and the federal government must figure out how to share the Colorado River after the current guidelines expire in 2026. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Environmental groups disappointed
The failure to come up with a plan by the deadline has sparked criticism from the basin’s environmental groups.
“I’m really disappointed with how yesterday played out; the states did not have anything to meet the Nov. 11 deadline,” said John Berggren, a regional policy manager with Western Resource Advocates. “The fact that they didn’t have a basic framework for how to manage the system after 2026 is really unfortunate, and I think they missed a good chance to put forward something that we can all consider and examine as a basin.”
Representatives from the seven states have been in talks for two years about how to manage the river after the current guidelines expire. After a long standoff without much progress throughout 2024, state representatives in June offered a glimmer of hope for a way forward, floating a concept for sharing the river based on natural flows at Lee Ferry, the dividing line between the Upper and Lower basins, instead of water demand. But that hope evaporated like water off Lake Mead, with negotiators reportedly deadlocked again by the end of the summer.
A statement from environmental groups Great Basin Water Network and Living Rivers called the Nov. 11 deadline arbitrary and ineffectual, and said the inaction symbolizes the overall dysfunction on the river and in government. They chastised the states and federal government for the lack of transparency and lack of public participation surrounding negotiations.
“The states don’t deserve the kid-glove treatment any longer,” Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, said in a prepared statement. “They have a behavioral problem as much as they do a hydrology problem. Any entity that wants to increase use is unfit to manage our most precious resource.”
A group of influential environmental organizations, including American Rivers, National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited and Western Resource Advocates, released a joint statement Wednesday saying that they were deeply disappointed the states did not find consensus and that federal leadership will be essential.
The statement called for solutions that ground management decisions in the best available science, expand conservation programs, modernize infrastructure and ensure that Native American tribes — which have underutilized rights to a large share of the river’s water — play a meaningful role in shaping the river’s future.
“We understand the extraordinary complexity of this challenge and the difficult tradeoffs the states are working hard to navigate — but the river isn’t going to wait for process or for politics,” the statement said. “Drought, intensified by increasingly extreme conditions, is reshaping the basin, and the window to secure the river’s future and move beyond crisis-driven policymaking is closing fast.”
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Since the turn of the century, the Colorado River basin has been locked in the grip of a megadrought. Climate change has robbed Western rivers of their flows, with the basin seeing a 20% decline from the 20th century average, according to scientists. Those factors, as well as unrelenting water demands, have pushed Lake Powell and Lake Mead to record-low levels in recent years and thrown river management into crisis mode.
The current negotiations between the seven states are aimed at replacing the 2007 Interim Guidelines, which lay out how the reservoirs will be operated and shortages shared, and which expire at the end of 2026. New guidelines would need to be in place by the beginning of the next water year, Oct. 1, 2026, leaving little time to complete the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process.
The 2007 guidelines set annual Powell and Mead releases based on reservoir levels and do not go far enough to prevent them from being drawn down during consecutive dry years. In 2022, Lake Powell flirted with falling below a critical elevation to make hydropower, and may be headed there again next year if conditions don’t improve.
(Left to right) John McClow, Rebecca Mitchell, Gene Shawcroft, Tom Bucshatzke at the Colorado Water Congress 2022 Annual Summer Conference. Colorado representative Becky Mitchell, second from left, and Arizona representative Tom Buschatzke, farthest right, speak on a panel at Colorado Water Congress in 2022. The positions of the two states have emerged as one of the main sources of disagreement between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
Sticking points
Over the past few months, the positions of two of the states — Colorado and Arizona — have emerged as one of the main sources of disagreement. Water from the Colorado River has fueled the exponential growth in recent decades of Arizona’s cities, which are the economic and political powerhouse of the state, along with some of the most productive farmland in the basin. But Arizona’s reliance on the junior water rights of the Central Arizona Project means it is first on the chopping block for cuts.
Arizona representatives have said that the deepest cuts should be shared basinwide, including by the Upper Basin. Gov. Katie Hobbs and other state lawmakers said in a Nov. 11 letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum that Arizona’s Colorado River allocation is important to the nation’s growth and independence and that Colorado River reliability is a matter of national security. The letter highlighted how the state plays a critical role in manufacturing semiconductors and information-technology products.
“With such high stakes for Arizona and the nation, we find it alarming that the Upper Basin states have repeatedly refused to implement any volume of binding, verifiable water supply reductions,” the letter reads. “This extreme negotiating posture — four of the seven basin states refusing to participate in any sharing of water shortages — has led to a fundamental impasse that is preventing the successful development of a seven-state consensus plan for the management of the Colorado River.”
This shows that Colorado’s Western Slope is the biggest supplier of water to the Colorado River. Source: David F. Gold et al, Exploring the Spatially Compounding Multi‐Sectoral Drought Vulnerabilities in Colorado’s West Slope River Basins, Earth’s Future (2024). DOI: 10.1029/2024EF004841
Water managers from Colorado — which is the de facto leader of the Upper Basin with a 51.75% share of the water allocated to the four Upper Basin states — have pushed back on the notion that their states should contribute to cutbacks in water use since their water users already suffer shortages in dry years and the four states have never used their entire allocation of the river, while the Lower Basin overuses its share. Colorado representative Becky Mitchell has repeatedly said that any cuts the state makes must be voluntary, not mandatory.
However, the Upper Basin states have been experimenting for years with conservation programs that pay water users to cut back, most recently in 2023 and 2024 with the federally funded System Conservation Pilot Program. In a proposal submitted in March 2024, the Upper Basin states offered up a potential conservation pool in Lake Powell of up to 200,000 acre-feet a year, and most water users accept that some type of future conservation program for the Upper Basin is inevitable.
What happens now?
Federal officials had previously set a second deadline of Feb. 14, 2026, for the states to present details of a plan. They have repeatedly said that if the seven states fail to come up with an agreement, Reclamation will exercise its authority to protect critical reservoir levels. That could include releases from upstream reservoirs to prop up Powell and Mead, including releasing water from Colorado’s Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River.
Reclamation is moving forward with its NEPA process and said in early October that it plans to have a draft environmental impact statement by the end of the year. Representatives from the bureau were not available for comment Wednesday due to the government shutdown. Cameron has said that the alternatives analyzed in the EIS will be broad enough that they would capture any seven-state agreement, which they could then plug in as the preferred alternative — assuming the states come up with something.
“The basin states remain committed to collaboration grounded in the best available science and respect for all Colorado River water users,” Mitchell said in a prepared statement. “We are taking a meaningful step toward long-term sustainability and demonstrating a shared determination to find supply-driven solutions.”
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Utah and six other states along the Colorado River blew past their deadline Tuesday to reach a new deal on managing the dwindling river, but negotiations aren’t over.
“We will continue to engage with our partners across the Basin to develop a framework that protects water users and the system as a whole,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said Tuesday afternoon on the social media site X.
The river contributes 27% of Utah’s water supply, and provides water to 40 million people across the U.S. and Mexico. Drought, overuse and hotter temperatures tied to climate change have all combined to shrink its flow.
The federal government had said it would step in and make its own plan if states failed to reach broad consensus by Tuesday, but the states agree they don’t want that to happen, Cox said.
“While the Basin States did not finalize an agreement today on post-2026 Colorado River operations, our commitment to a state-led path remains,” the governor said.
The U.S. Department of the Interior did not respond to questions from Utah News Dispatch Tuesday evening about the timeline and whether it would intervene. The current agreement runs through late 2026.
The federal agency and Utah’s negotiator Gene Shawcroft issued the same prepared statement, saying the talks yielded “collective progress.” They did not give any details on sticking points.
The seven states, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages water in the West, all “recognize the serious and ongoing challenges facing the Colorado River,” their statement says. “Prolonged drought and low reservoir conditions have placed extraordinary pressure on this critical water resource that supports 40 million people, tribal nations, agriculture, and industry.”
They said the states and federal agencies share a commitment to ensuring the river’s long-term sustainability.
“While more work needs to be done, collective progress has been made that warrants continued efforts to define and approve details for a finalized agreement,” the statement says.
The four Upper Basin states — Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming — and the Lower Basin states of Nevada, Arizona and California presented competing plans to the federal government last year.
The Upper Basin states have sought to fend off mandatory cuts in dry years, saying they generally use much less than they’re allocated. The Lower Basin states have insisted that all seven absorb cuts in dry years.
In part to prepare for the possibility of mandatory cuts, Utah has been investing in measuring and monitoring water use in recent years.
In 2023, the Legislature set aside $1 million for a Colorado River measurement infrastructure project and $650,000 in ongoing yearly funding, according to the Utah Division of Water Rights.
Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Metropolitan General Manager Deven Upadhyay issues the following statement regarding the seven Colorado River Basin states continued efforts to reach consensus on post-2026 rules governing operation of the Colorado River:
“The only path to developing a sustainable Colorado River is through collaboration and consensus. We are grateful that the seven states that rely on the river remain at the table, along with the federal Department of Interior, but more work needs to be done, and quickly.
“The work ahead will require every state and water user to look beyond just their own needs and work toward the greater good of the Southwest. If reductions in water use are shared equitably across the Basin, no one state or sector will bear the burden alone.
“Metropolitan remains committed to forging such a consensus, and we look forward to the opportunity to participate in the ongoing discussions in a meaningful way. An agreement that includes tools allowing for smart water management, like flexible storage in Lake Mead and opportunities for shared investments across states, will minimize the pain of living with the new, lower flows of the Colorado River. If we focus on building solutions – rather than legal arguments – we can develop new guidelines that allow water users to have access to the water they need, when they need it most.”
“Metropolitan is preparing to live with less imported water in urban Southern California, building on decades of lower water use. But we cannot solve the problem alone. We cannot lose our access to the Colorado River entirely. Our region – home to half of the people and half of the economic activity in the Basin – relies on the river. And we are committed to its success.”
This section of the Colorado River at the boat launch near Corn Lake dipped to around 150 cfs in lake August 2025. Known as the 15-mile reach, this stretch of river should have at least 810 cfs to meet the needs of endangered fish. CREDIT: HEATHER SACKETT/ASPEN JOURNALISM
By Bob Berwyn
November 12, 2025
This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.
Frustration about slow progress at the United Nations climate talks boiled over this week. After hours under the equatorial sun at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, scores of protesters pushed past security guards Tuesday evening and briefly occupied parts of the negotiating area, calling for an end to mining and logging in the Amazon, among other demands.
The clash symbolized a deeper tension at the heart of the U.N. climate summits. The people demanding change are often outside the gates while those with power inside are bound by rules that slow progress to a crawl.
UNFCCC officials said two people suffered minor injuries and that parts of the venue were temporarily closed for cleanup and security checks. The U.N. and local police are investigating the protests and the talks resumed on schedule Wednesday morning.
On Instagram, a group calling itself Juventude Kokama OJIK posted a video of the Blue Zone occupation and called it an act against exclusion.
“They created an ‘exclusive’ space within a territory that has ALWAYS been Indigenous, and this violates our dignity,” the group wrote. “The demonstration is to say that we will not accept being separated, limited, or prevented from circulating in our own land. The territory is ancestral, and the right to occupy this space is non-negotiable.”
The Tuesday tumult was a stark contrast to normal proceedings at the annual conference, where delegates with swinging lanyards and beeping phones usually file meekly through the metal detectors and past the espresso kiosks as if they’re heading to an office supply expo rather than negotiations to avert catastrophic climate collapse.
Somehow, that urgency rarely crept inside, partly because the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change runs the annual meetings like a corporate conference, said Danielle Falzon, a sociologist at Rutgers University whose research on the climate talks draws on dozens of interviews with negotiators and other participants from both developed and developing countries at most COPs since 2016.
In the UNFCCC setting, she said, success is measured by how long you stay in the room, how polished your presentation is, how fluent you are in bureaucratic English—and how well you can pretend that the world isn’t burning outside.
“I’d like to go to the negotiations and see people taking seriously the urgency and the undeniability of the massive changes we’re seeing,” she said. “I’d like to see them break through the sterilized, shallow, diplomatic language and talk about climate change for what it actually is.”
For all its talk of unity, the climate summit has struggled to deliver because the talks mirror the global inequalities they are meant to fix, Falzon said. Based on her research, COP hasn’t made much progress because it still fails to serve the countries that have contributed least to the problem but are suffering the most from it.
The negotiations, she said, are dominated by well-staffed teams from wealthy, developed nations that can afford to be everywhere at once. Smaller delegations from less-developed countries often can’t even attend the dozens of overlapping meetings.
“Everyone is exhausted but people from smaller delegations are just trying to keep up,” she said. That exhaustion, she added, shapes the talks themselves: those with the most capacity set the pace and define the terms, while the rest simply try not to fall behind.
“You can’t just pretend that all countries are equal in the negotiating space,” she said.
The imbalance is built into the institution, she said. The U.N. climate process was designed to keep everyone at the table, not to shake it. That makes it resilient, but also resistant to change, and she said her multiyear study of the talks shows the system values consensus and procedure over outcomes and the appearance of progress over actual results.
“Much of what’s called success at COP now is the creation of new texts, new work programs, rather than real climate action,” she said. After 30 years of meetings, the pattern delivers new agendas, new acronyms and new promises that keep the gears grinding but rarely move the needle on emissions, she added.
Most people involved in the climate talks see the need for change, but Falzon said that institutions are built to preserve themselves.
How (Not) to Talk About Climate
Part of the paralysis Falzon describes stems from a reluctance to speak plainly about the emergency it exists to address, said Max Boykoff, a climate communications researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder.
“The problems associated with climate change were first framed as scientific issues all the way back in the 1980s, and that has become the dominant way we understand a changing climate,” Boykoff said. “But that has crowded out other ways of knowing; emotional, experiential, aesthetic, or even just visceral ways of understanding that something’s not right.”
The experts at COP “tend to focus on what can be measured and reported, on outputs and deliverables, which shapes the negotiations themselves,” he said. “The cadence of those encounters becomes ritualized to their detriment.”
A quick look at some of the daily notifications from COP30 displays what Boykoff describes, with invitations to a “High-Level Ministerial on Multilevel Governance” or “The Launch of the Plan to Accelerate Multilevel Governance and the Operationalization of the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships.”
Such language, he said, reflects a culture that prizes precision and hierarchy over connection and clarity. It’s a diplomatic shorthand that signals professionalism while numbing urgency, and it narrows the space for creativity, emotion, or reflection, he added.
Boykoff said the only way to move beyond the rituals of repetition may be to break them.
“What we really need,” he said, “is to shake it up, to create spaces that let people reflect, feel, and engage in new ways. Because if we keep doing the same thing year after year, we shouldn’t expect different results.”
Falzon said the technocratic UNFCCC language reflects the dominance at the talks of an “old world hierarchy in which rich countries set the agenda, poor countries fight to be heard, and the system keeps reproducing the conditions it’s supposed to fix.
“It’s not just the negotiations that are unequal,” she said. “The whole thing mirrors the inequalities of the world it’s meant to change.”
Click the link to read the article on the AZCentral website (Debra Utacia Krol). Here’s an excerpt:
November 10, 2025
The Colorado River Indian Tribes have formally accorded personhood status to the Colorado River, creating a powerful new mechanism to protect the eponymous river that makes life possible in their arid homelands. The resolution was approved by the CRIT Tribal Council on Nov. 6 in Parker. The nearly 4,300-member tribe has long been alarmed at the state of its life-giving waterway, CRIT Chairwoman Amelia Flores wrote in a statement shared with The Arizona Republic.
“The Colorado River is in jeopardy,” she said. The tribe, which holds the largest quantity of senior water rights in the state, regards the river as a living being, so the resolution codifies that belief and the tribe’s commitment to protecting its needs and ability to provide water for future generations.
See an update on the West’s snowpack and an explanation of how Milankovitch cycles shape the Earth’s climate from journalist @mitchtobin.bsky.social (co-director of WaterDesk.org at CU Boulder) at http://www.snow.news/p/early-seas…
sUdall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
The clock is ticking down to a federal deadline Tuesday for California and six other Western states to reach the broad strokes of a deal portioning out supplies from the parched Colorado River.
Officials at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the federal stewards for the river under the Department of the Interior, have threatened to impose their own plan if the states can’t agree how to manage the river after 2026, when the river’s current rulebook expires.
Dire projections that another dry year could send the basin’s major reservoirs plummeting to alarmingly low levels have ramped up the urgency, and the tensions.
But, after two years of fraught negotiations, the states remain at an impasse. Those in the river’s lower basin — California, Arizona, and Nevada — are clashing with Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico upstream. A key point of contention is how much each basin must scale back their use of the overtapped river as climate change further squeezes supplies.
“We’ve been in a holding pattern, and we need to land this plane by Tuesday,” J.B. Hamby, California’s chief negotiator as chairman of the Colorado River Board of California, told CalMatters.
California’s dependence on the Colorado River raises the stakes. The state takes more than half of the power generated at Lake Mead’s Hoover Dam, and more water from the main stem than any other in the basin. Half a million acres of alfalfa, winter vegetables and other crops in the Imperial Valley all rely on the Colorado River, which also supplies urban Southern California via the Metropolitan Water District.
But California has also been relatively impervious to shortages on the river, with senior water rights long seen as bulletproof. Now, the questions hanging over the last days of negotiations are — how real is the threat of missing the deadline? And what exactly would the consequences be for California?
Blown deadlines on the Colorado River
For decades, federal officials have threatened to intervene if states in the Colorado River basin fail to reach agreement. The threat — and the inevitable lawsuits water suppliers fear would follow — have motivated major deals that now govern the river’s operations.
Actual federal intervention is far rarer — though the U.S. government has stepped in in the past, on a smaller scale.
In the early 2000s, Southern California was forced to stop using surplus Colorado River water when other states began clamoring for their fair share. The Interior Department set a deadline of December 31st, 2002 for California’s water agencies to cut a deal weaning themselves off the surplus water, or face immediate cutbacks.
The Imperial Irrigation District — by far the biggest user of Colorado River water in California — balked. So the Interior Secretary cut California’s supplies, leading to court battles and, ten months later, a deal.
But deadlines and threats seem to have lost their teeth in recent years, when states in the Colorado River basin have blown deadline after deadline, with little federal response.
Last week, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs urged the Trump administration to be more assertive. “As we approach critical deadlines, we need the Trump administration to step in, exert leadership and broker a deal,” she said in remarks prepared for a water conference.
Elizabeth Koebele, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, said negotiations may have become too contentious for deadlines to matter. She attributed it to fracturing relationships between the basin states as devastatingly dry conditions on the river ratchet up the stakes.
“We have less water, and it’s caused more rippling problems,” Koebele said. “You’re cutting a smaller pie, for more people.”
A strike against storage
The Veteran’s Day deadline isn’t the final deadline; it’s an interim milestone as federal officials race to lock in a plan before the current rulebook expires.
Scott Cameron, now acting head of the Bureau of Reclamation, said at a conference in June that in the absence of a deal, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum was prepared to take charge as water master. The position gives him the power to declare the river in shortage and call for cutbacks in the lower basin.
But the Trump administration declined to specify what exactly it might do. “At this stage, all parties should remain focused on the difficult but necessary work required to reach a seven-state agreement,” an unidentified Interior Department spokesperson said, in an emailed statement.
If there is still no plan by late 2026, the rulebook could revert to one from the 1970s, according to an analysis by Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy.
That worries Metropolitan Water District’s Bill Hasencamp, because it would upend Metropolitan’s ability to continue banking water in the Colorado River basin’s Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the country, for dry spells.
The water giant imports water from Northern California and from the Colorado River to supply 19 million people in six Southern California counties.
Right now, Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River resources at Metropolitan, says that the district has socked away about 1.5 million acre-feet of water in the reservoir over the last 20 years. It’s enough to supply 4.5 million households for a year.
Metropolitan saves Colorado River water in Lake Mead when water from Northern California reservoirs is abundant, and draws on these stores when state supplies dry up. But, under the 1970s-era rules, suppliers would no longer be able to add water to this savings account. Metropolitan would need to use its banked stores over the next ten years, or risk losing the water.
Hasencamp estimates that banked water could disappear more quickly if California faces greater cuts.
“Under a new regime, the feds — if things get dry enough — could cut us back,” Hasencamp said. “We could access that storage, but we might need it to offset cuts on the river that could come to us. So it’s a very undesirable situation.”
Ultimately, experts agree that the most undesirable situations, and the greatest risks to the basin states, will likely come from nature itself.
The Colorado River is in the grips of a megadrought; Brad Udall, a senior water and climate research scientist at Colorado State University’s Colorado Water Institute, called August’s projections for reservoirs Lake Powell and Mead “beyond awful.”
Udall said the latest projections for the reservoirs remain dire. One scenario shows “both Powell and Mead entering uncharted territory by (the) end of Water Year 2026,” Udall said in an email.
“That’s the new reality,” Cameron, the acting head of Reclamation, said at a meeting in Arizona over the summer. “There are real risks to both the lower basin states and the upper basin states if we don’t collectively do something differently than we’ve done in the past.”
People at Lake Powell May 25, 2022. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots
Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (James Eklund):
November 11, 2025
If the seven basin states can’t lead, Washington and the courts will. The West deserves better than to surrender its future out of inertia and pride.
The River at a Crossroads
Today, November 11, the seven states that share the Colorado River face a deadline they’re unlikely to meet. The Department of the Interior has asked them to agree on the bones of a post-2026 management plan — the rules that will decide who gets cut, when, and by how much as the river keeps shrinking.
If they fail, Washington will write the rules for them. And if Washington falters, unelected judges will. Either way, the West loses control of its own destiny. That’s not leadership; that’s abdication.
The Lower Basin is braced for federal action. The Upper Basin is bracing for blame. Both are right to be worried — and both are missing the point. The river doesn’t care about politics or priority dates. It only responds to snow, sun, and science.
Udall/Overpeck 4-panel Figure Colorado River temperature/precipitation/natural flows with trend. Lake Mead and Lake Powell storage. Updated through Water Year 2025. Note the tiny points on the annual data so that you can flyspeck the individual years. Credit: Brad Udall
Hydrology Has Changed; Leadership Hasn’t
We built the Colorado River system for a climate that no longer exists. Reservoirs that once promised endless growth now sit half-empty — Lake Powell at roughly 29%, Lake Mead near 31%. The math is unforgiving: less water is coming in than going out.
Yet our governance still pretends otherwise. The Law of the River — that tangled mix of compacts, decrees, and deals — assumes a river of at least 16.5 million acre-feet. Nature is now giving us perhaps 12, maybe less. We’re overdrawn every year, and the overdraft is accelerating.
This isn’t a failure of hydrology; it’s a failure of adaptation. The West has always been proud of its self-reliance, but we’re behaving like a bureaucracy waiting for someone else to make the hard call. We need leaders, not hall monitors.
And if you want to know what failure of adaptation looks like, glance halfway around the world. Tehran, Iran, a city of more than eight million, is on the brink of evacuation. Its reservoirs are nearly dry, some below 10% capacity. Rainfall has fallen 40% below average. Iran’s president recently warned that if the skies don’t open, the capital may have to be moved. Moved. Imagine Washington, D.C. abandoned because the Potomac went dry. That’s not science fiction — that’s what happens when water governance waits too long to face reality. The Colorado River isn’t there yet, but the trajectory rhymes. Tehran is a mirror we should study before it shows our reflection.
The Blame Game vs. Shared Responsibility
At Arizona State University’s recent Law of the Colorado River: The View from the Lower Basin conference, one thing was clear: the Lower Basin has its legal arguments loaded and ready. So does the Upper Basin. Both are preparing for a fight neither side can win.
Arizona’s governor calls the Upper Basin’s stance extreme; the Upper Basin counters that it can’t conserve water that isn’t there. California points to its billions in saved water and asks why others won’t match it. Colorado replies that it’s already living within its snowpack. Every argument is technically correct — and collectively disastrous.
Finger-pointing won’t refill a reservoir. The real crisis isn’t between the basins; it’s between the past and the future. The river is shrinking faster than our imagination.
The Case for State-Led Solutions
We know how to do this. We’ve done it before. In 2019, when both Lakes Mead and Powell were circling the drain, the Basin States pulled together the Drought Contingency Plan. It wasn’t perfect, but it kept the system alive long enough for the recent recovery years to matter. That’s proof we can still ride together when it counts.
Utah and Wyoming are finally taking first steps toward real demand-management programs — voluntary, compensated conservation that could bank water in Powell. They’re six years too late, but they’re at least facing forward. The Lower Basin, to its credit, has cut deeply — usage there is down to about 5.9 million acre-feet, the lowest since 1983. The economies of Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles didn’t collapse. They adapted. That’s the model.
A state-led deal is the only way to keep Western hands on the reins. Federal control would be blunt; court control, brutal. Every day we delay, we invite both. The West should never outsource its destiny to Washington or to a judge in black robes who’s never stood in an irrigation ditch with a shovel.
The Call of the Saddle
This river built the modern West. It carved our canyons, powered our farms and ranches, lit our cities, and defined our sense of possibility. But it can’t survive our paralysis.
The next agreement — whatever we call it — won’t be about dividing abundance. It will be about managing scarcity with grace and intelligence. That means each state giving up a little sovereignty to save the system that sustains us all. It means governors and commissioners finding the courage to sign something imperfect but real.
Our basin remembers how to ride — hell, we practically invented it. The horse is saddled. The trail is narrow. And the storm is moving in fast.
Either we climb back on together, or we’ll watch someone else take the reins.
L to R, Anne Castle, Don Coram, James Eklund, and Jim Pokrandt
James Eklund is a Colorado water lawyer, rancher, former director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and formerly Colorado’s Colorado River principal. He advises public and private clients across the West on water, land, and natural-resources issues at Taft/ Sherman & Howard.
