Federal officials released a range of scenarios Wednesday that could be used to manage the overallocated and shrinking Colorado River as time for the seven basin states to reach an agreement grows short.
The Bureau of Reclamation’s four proposed plans are not set in stone, but for the first time offer insight into how federal leaders are planning for the future of a river that is depended upon by 40 million people across the Southwest. A new long-term operating plan must be created before the expiration of current management guidelines at the end of 2026.
“These alternatives represent a responsible range from which to build the best and most robust path forward for the basin,” Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton said in a statement. “I have confidence in our partners and the Reclamation team in continuing this work to meet the needs of the river for the future.”
The Colorado River provides water for 40 million people, irrigates millions of acres of agricultural land that feeds the country, generates electric power, fuels recreation-based economies and provides important habitat for thousands of species. But the amount of water in the river — overestimated from the beginning of a multi-state agreement — is shrinking because of drought and aridification intensified by climate change.
The federal proposals come as negotiations over future river management between the seven states have stalled. The Lower Basin states — California, Arizona and Nevada — published a plan for post-2026 operations of the river’s two major reservoirs as have the Upper Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah. Both basins presented their separate plans in the spring and negotiators from the two basins have not made any public indication that the sides are close to an agreement.
Federal officials have repeatedly said that a consensus plan from the states would be preferred to the Bureau of Reclamation enacting a plan unilaterally. Such federal action could prompt litigation that would tie up river operations for years.
“These proposed alternatives underscore how serious a situation we’re facing on the Colorado River,” Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colorado, said in a statement. “The only path forward is a collaborative, seven-state plan to solve the Colorado River crisis without taking this to court. Otherwise, we’ll watch the river run dry while we sue each other.”
The proposals presented Wednesday could stir further negotiation between the states as well as the 30 tribal nations with rights to the river’s water, said Rhett Larson, a water law professor at Arizona State University.
“It seems likely to me that instead of making everyone happy, they’ll make everyone mad,” Larson said of the proposals.
But that might be a good thing, he said.
“If it’s something that’s distasteful to both basins, it might unite both basins,” he added.
The “bathtub ring” around Lake Mead is seen near the Nevada intake tower at the Hoover Dam near Boulder City, Nevada, on June 25, 2024. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)
The proposed plans
The four alternatives range from doing nothing to major changes to how the river’s two major reservoirs — Lake Powell and Lake Mead — are operated.
The alternatives present different variations of who should take water cuts, how those water cuts are decided and what factors should determine releases from Mead and Powell. The Upper Basin states send water downstream to fill the reservoirs, which the Lower Basin states rely on for their water supply.
The option to do nothing is also presented in the proposal as a formality, since that is required by federal law.
Here’s how the four major proposals differ:
Alternative 1 would be similar to the most recent management plan, though smaller federally managed reservoirs on the Colorado River — like Colorado’s Blue Mesa Reservoir — could be forced to send water downstream should water levels at Lake Powell fall too low. The amount of water released from Lake Powell would depend on the reservoir’s water levels and Lower Basin states could absorb up to 3.5 million acre feet of cuts if the combined water levels at Powell and Mead fall too low.
Alternative 2 was created by combining federal agencies’ and tribal nations’ input. It states that releases from Powell would depend on water levels at Mead and Powell, average hydrology from the past 10 years, and how much water is being used in the Lower Basin. Both the Upper and Lower basins would be expected to conserve water and cuts would be determined by the amount of water stored in the seven federally managed reservoirs in the basin.
Alternative 3 is derived from plans submitted by conservation organizations. Under this plan, the amount of water released from Powell would be determined by how much water is stored in the Upper Basin and recent hydrology. The Lower Basin would take up to 4 million acre-feet of cuts and both the Upper and Lower basins would voluntarily reduce water use.
Alternative 4 is a combination of the two proposals submitted by the Lower and Upper basins and also includes input from tribes. It states releases from Powell would be determined by water levels in the reservoir as well as sometimes incorporating water levels at Mead. Cuts would be determined by the combined water stored across the seven federally managed reservoirs in the basin and both the Upper and Lower basins would be required to conserve water.
Several of the plans call for mandatory conservation in the Upper Basin, which negotiators from those states have opposed.
The proposal to determine releases based on water storage in all seven federally managed reservoirs in the basin would be one of the major changes if enacted, Larson said. But it is difficult to judge exactly how the alternatives would work from the short summaries presented by the bureau on Wednesday, he said.
Upper Basin states, including Colorado, have opposed the idea of incorporating the other reservoirs into operation guidelines. Mead and Powell, combined, make up 90% of the system’s storage. The Upper Basin states have also opposed being forced to cut water usage, arguing they use less than the amount they are obligated. Already, negotiators said, the Upper Basin must cut water usage based on how much water is available because there are no massive reservoirs upstream to prop up water use in dry times.
A farm worker prunes fruit trees in an orchard in Palisade on May 21, 2024. The Colorado River is the primary source of water for agricultural irrigation in Palisade. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)
Becky Mitchell, who is negotiating the future operation of the river for Colorado, said in a statement that she could not speak to the Bureau of Reclamation’s alternatives at this time.
Related Articles
Battle over clean water in Southern California pits inland against the coast
$35 million PCB water contamination settlement between Monsanto and city of LA
Environmental permit you never heard of could clean, or foul, local waters
US drought monitor paints unsettling picture for California
Thanks to cleanup of groundwater and new systems, San Fernando celebrates its ‘water independence’
“Colorado continues to stand firmly behind the Upper Division States’ Alternative, which performs best according to Reclamation’s own modeling and directly meets the purpose and need of this federal action,” she said. “The Upper Division States’ Alternative is supply-driven and is designed to help rebuild storage at our nation’s two largest reservoirs.”
She said she remained committed to working with the other Colorado River states, the federal government and tribal nations to find consensus.
What’s next?
The proposals released Wednesday are the beginning of a federal process that must be completed by August 2026.
Federal authorities will now analyze the potential impact to environmental and human health as well as create projects of how each plan could impact reservoir elevations and water cuts. They will take more input on the proposals before publishing those analyses in a document called a draft environmental impact statement.
The Bureau of Reclamation will seek public comment on the draft environmental impact statement before releasing a final environmental impact statement and making a decision on future operations in 2026.
Water from the Colorado River Basin irrigates a field of alfalfa growing in Beaver, Utah on June 29, 2024. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)
Time is running out for the basin states to present a unified plan to federal officials, Larson said. Representatives from all of the states will attend the Colorado River Water Users Association’s annual conference in December, he said, which could provide an opportunity for the states to come to an agreement.
“The next month is going to be very telling,” he said.