A guest post by Friend of Inkstain Michael Cohen….

By Michael Cohen, Senior Fellow, Pacific Institute

December 15, 2025

Key Takeaways

• The consensus-based effort to develop new rules to manage the Colorado River system hasn’t worked – it’s time for a new approach
• Federal leadership and the credible threat of managing reservoirs to protect the system is that new approach

Missing Deadlines

Way back at the end of the last century, at the annual Colorado River conference in Vegas, Marc Reisner repeated the Margaret Thatcher quote that consensus is the absence of leadership. On Veterans Day, the seven Colorado River basin states missed yet another deadline to reach consensus on a conceptual plan for managing the shrinking Colorado River after the current rules expire in 2026. Valentine’s Day marks the next holiday deadline, this time for a detailed plan, but multiple missed deadlines give no indication that the states will reach consensus then, either.

The basin states can’t agree on the substance of a new agreement. They also disagree on the process to get there. While Arizona has called for the federal government to break the negotiation logjam, Colorado opposes federal intervention and continues to call for consensus. Each basin-state negotiator acts to protect their state’s interests, often at the expense of the short and long-term resilience of the Colorado River system as a whole and the 35 million people who rely on it. The continued failure to negotiate a plan challenges the efforts of irrigators, cities, businesses, and river runners throughout the basin to plan for 2027 and beyond.

Meanwhile, river runoff and reservoir storage get lower and lower and snowpack lags well below average. This is not a zero-sum game, with winners and losers. The more appropriate metaphor here is a shrinking pie, with smaller and smaller pieces.

Leadership

The basin state negotiators have met for years behind closed doors, without success. It’s time for a new approach. Aggressive federal intervention and the credible threat of a federally-imposed Colorado River management plan would offer political cover – or a political imperative – for the negotiators. The credible threat of a federal plan would give the negotiators the space to compromise without having to do so unilaterally and then being accused of not protecting their state’s interests.

But federal leadership alone is not enough – it must be coupled with a plausible federal plan that compels the states to act and can meet the magnitude of the ongoing crisis. As the Department of the Interior announced in its 6/15/2023 press release, the purpose of and need for the post-2026 guidelines is “to develop future operating guidelines and strategies to protect the stability and sustainability of the Colorado River.” To date, the development of the post-2026 guidelines has prioritized routine operations of Glen Canyon and Hoover dams over the system as a whole, a focus inconsistent with the magnitude and urgency of the problem. Prioritizing routine dam operations and hydropower generation over water delivery and environmental protection elevates the tool over the task. Seeking to preserve routine operations of the dams while imposing draconian cuts on water users is not a path to resilience and precludes alternatives that would help stabilize the system.

The Plan

Instead, by early next year, the Secretary should announce that Interior will implement a federal plan incorporating the following elements:

1. Grant Tribal Nations the legal certainty and the ability to access, develop, or lease their water.
2. Make accessible (“recover”) the roughly 5.6 million acre-feet (MAF) of water stored in Lake Powell below the minimum power pool elevation and avoid the additional ~0.25 MAF of annual evaporative losses from Powell by storing such water in Lake Mead and using Powell as auxiliary storage.
3. As a condition precedent, the Lower Basin states agree not to place a “compact call” for the duration of the agreement.
4. Implement annual Lower Basin water use reductions for the following calendar year based on total system contents on August 1:
   • 75% – 60%: cuts to Lower Basin water uses increasing from 0 to 1.5 MAF<60% – 38%: static cut to Lower Basin water uses of 1.5 MAF<38% – 23%: increasing cuts to Lower Basin water uses of up to 3.0 MAF total
   • below 23% of total system contents – cut Lower Basin water uses to the minimum required to protect human health and safety and satisfy present perfected rights
5. If the Lower Basin states do not satisfy the condition precedent in #3 above, Reclamation limits Lower Basin deliveries to the minimum required to satisfy present perfected rights when total system contents are <75%.
6. Recover water stored in federal Upper Basin reservoirs unless the Upper Basin states reduce annual water use based on total system contents:
   • <34% – 23%: Assuming the first 0.25 MAF “reduction” would be contributed by the elimination of Powell’s evaporative losses and gains from Glen Canyon bank storage, reduce Upper Basin water uses up to 0.65 MAF
   • below 23% of total system contents – limit total Upper Basin water uses to 3.56 MAF (the minimum volume reported this century)
7. Expand the pool of parties eligible to create Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) beyond existing Colorado River contractors, to include water agencies and other entities with agreements to use Colorado River water.
8. Eliminate the existing limits on the total quantity of Extraordinary Conservation ICS and DCP ICS that may be accumulated in ICS and DCP ICS accounts, while maintaining existing limits on delivery of such water.
9. Fully mitigate the on-stream and off-stream community and environmental impacts of the water use reductions identified above.
10. After a three-year phase-in period, condition Colorado River diversions on a clear “reasonable and beneficial use” standard predicated on existing best practices for water efficiency, including but not limited to the examples listed below (state(s) that already have such standards):

• Require removal of non-functional turf grass (California, Nevada)
• Incentivize landscape conversion and turf removal statewide (California, Colorado, Utah)
• Adopt stronger efficiency standards for plumbing and equipment (Colorado, California, and Nevada)
• Require urban utilities to report distribution system leakage, and to meet standards for reducing water losses (California)
• Require all new urban landscapes to be water-efficient (California)
• Require metering of landscape irrigation turnouts (Utah)
• Ensure that existing buildings are water-efficient when they are sold or leased (Los Angeles, San Diego)
• Require agricultural water deliveries to be metered and priced at least in part by volume (California)

Many of the elements listed above raise important questions about federal authorities, accounting and data challenges, the roles and obligations of state water officials to implement coordinated actions in-state, water access for disadvantaged communities, environmental compliance, and potential economic and social costs, among others. For each item listed, many details will need to be refined. Similarly, the plan’s duration will need to be determined. But as temperatures again climb into the high 40s in the Rockies near the Colorado River’s headwaters (in mid-December!), drying soils and reducing next year’s runoff, and the National Weather Service issues red flag fire warnings for Colorado’s Front Range, the need for bold action is clear.

The Dominy Bypass

Recovering water stored in Lake Powell will require the construction of new bypass tunnels around Glen Canyon Dam. Former Reclamation Commissioner Floyd Dominy sketched the design of such tunnels almost thirty years ago (see image). Such tunnels would enable the recovery of about 5.6 MAF of water stored below the minimum power pool elevation – more water than the Upper Basin states consume each year. Current operating rules and the scope of the current planning process effectively treat this massive volume of water as “dead storage” – a luxury the system can no longer afford. After Reclamation constructs the bypass tunnels, water recovery should be timed to maximize environmental and recreational benefits in the Grand Canyon.

Avoiding a Worse Outcome

Last year’s Colorado River conference featured a panel on the risks of litigation. Unfortunately, the continued failure to reach a deal, growing litigation funds, and the preference for repeating the same action that’s led to the continuing impasse suggest that some believe litigation could generate a better outcome (for them). Both sides have attorneys who assure their clients of victory. Yet, as Arizona learned in 1968, winning in the Supreme Court doesn’t ensure a better outcome and certainly won’t increase Colorado River flows. Placing faith in Congress could entangle this basin with challenges in other basins and other political considerations.

Running the River

Almost 160 years ago, John Wesley Powell – the reservoir’s namesake – demonstrated bold leadership, going where no (white) man had gone before. With leadership and a clear goal, he charted a route through the Colorado River’s iconic canyons. Now is the time for more bold leadership, a clear goal, and a plan to get there.

Ten years after I handed in the manuscript for my book Water is For Fighting Over, about the governance past, present, and future of the Colorado River, my Utton Center colleague Rin Tara and I took a look back at the book on our Water Matters podcast. Writing it changed my life, reading it changed Rin’s, and we now spend a good chunk of our time in the office we share working together on Colorado River issues.

What of my optimism (because it was nothing if not an optimistic book) has held up? What do the current failures in Colorado River management tell us about the function of the basin’s governance network? Does my deeper optimism about communities’ abilities to thrive with less water remain? What can a new generation of water leaders (looking at you, Rin) bring to bear?

Special thanks to Rin for what was the most fun interview I can remember doing.

You can find it on Buzzsprout or, as they say, “wherever you get your podcasts.”

Bonnie Colby and Zoey Reed-Spitzer:

Access to water, a concern around the globe, is constrained in many areas of the Colorado River Basin (CRB) by water scarcity, pollution and lack of delivery and treatment infrastructure. These constraints disproportionately affect the basin’s Native American, Hispanic and Black populations, groups which often have lower access to resources for mitigation and recovery. Moreover, these groups historically have not been represented in policy processes where key decision affecting water access and water quality are made. A number of tribal governments, in recent decades, have been at the negotiation tables due to their status as sovereign governments with significant water rights. However, there is no consistent process for inclusion of low-income communities of color in the basin. The urgent high-level dialogue among tribal governments, federal interests, states, cities and agricultural water users (and, to some extent, environmental NGOs) focuses on allocating the ever-scarcer waters of the CRB, with little emphasis on disproportionate access.

From the excellent new report Dancing With Deadpool, a broad effort by a broad group of contributors to the Colorado River Research Group.

By Jack Schmidt | December 3, 2025

Autumn Rains Delay Basin-wide Reservoir Depletion

In Brief
Unusually wet conditions in the Basin in October and November 2025, combined with reduced releases from some reservoirs, led to a basin-wide increase in storage for the two-month period. The combined contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead increased during the two months for only the second time since 2010, and storage in the San Juan River basin increased by 19%, especially in Vallecito and Navajo Reservoirs. These changes were a welcome respite from the relentless depletion of storage that has dominated the last few years. Nevertheless, the upcoming winter snow season is predicted to be below average, and total active storage in the Basin is less than a 2 year supply when compared with recent Basin-wide consumptive uses and losses.

The Details

The rains of October and November 2025 slowed depletion of the Colorado River’s reservoirs due to increases in stream flow and reduced reservoir releases in some places. Water levels rose in a few reservoirs, and autumn’s rains provided a small bit of flexibility for water managers at the beginning of what is likely to be a below-average winter snow season.

As of November 30, the Basin’s 46 reservoirs held 24.63 million af (acre feet) of active storage[1], of which 90% was in 12 federal reservoirs,[2] including 15.00 million af in Lake Powell and Lake Mead (hereafter, Powell+Mead) and 4.88 million af in 8 federal reservoirs upstream from Lake Powell (Fig.1). This amount of storage is similar to conditions in early 2022, a situation that was described at that time as a crisis. If we divide the total active storage in the Basin’s 46 reservoirs by the basin-wide total annual rate of consumptive use and loss that was 12.7 million af in 2024, the basin-wide reservoir water supply would sustain Basin-wide use for less than 2 years. We continue to live at the doorstep of crisis.

Figure 1. Graph showing active storage in Colorado River basin reservoirs between January 1, 2021, and November 30, 2025.

Basin-wide reservoir storage stabilized in October and November, because Powell+Mead storage stabilized and storage in the San Juan River basin increased. Total Inflow to Lake Powell exceeded releases for more than one week between October 11 and October 18, when Lake Powell increased by 105,000 af[3]  which is a 1.6% gain (Fig. 2). Approximately 40% of the total inflow came from the San Juan River, and the monthly October inflows were the largest since 2015. The gain in storage in Lake Powell during this weeklong period exceeded depletions during the rest of the month, and Lake Powell gained approximately 52,000 af during the month. Lake Powell lost 147,000 af in November.

Figure 2. Graph showing inflow and outflow from Lake Powell and active storage between October 1 and November 30, 2025. Total monthly flow at Lees Ferry, representing the total releases from Lake Powell, were 490,000 af in October and 501,000 af in November.

In contrast, the autumn rains did not significantly increase inflow to Lake Mead, because most of the inflows come from scheduled releases from Lake Powell. These reservoir releases were supplemented by 101,000 af of inflows downstream from Lees Ferry[4] and 8000 af from the Virgin River.[5] The most significant changes in Lake Mead occurred at the end of November when releases from Hoover Dam were significantly reduced (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.  Graph showing inflow and outflow from Lake Mead and active storage between October 1 and November 30, 2025. Total monthly flow inflow of the Colorado River, representing the total releases from Lake Powell and inflows within Grand Canyon, were 574,000 af in October and 550,000 af in November. Reservoir releases from Hoover Dam were 485,000 af in October and 415,000 af in November. Withdrawals and return flows of the Southern Nevada Water Authority were not included in these data.

Together, total active storage in Powell+Mead increased by 63,000 af during October,[6] and decreased by only 38,000 af in November (Fig. 4).[7]  More significant than the gains, however, was that the the pace of reservoir depletion was significantly slowed. Storage in Powell+Mead increased by approximately 25,000 af in October and November, only the second time since 2010 that total storage in these two reservoirs increased during these two months.[8]

Figure 4. Graph showing active storage in Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and in Powell+Mead between January 1, 2023, and November 30, 2025.

Reservoir storage in the San Juan River basin increased more than in any other part of the Colorado River Basin. Five San Juan basin reservoirs increased by 197,000 af in October and November, mostly in Navajo and Vallecito Reservoirs.[9] Not much happened elsewhere, however. The 21 reservoirs of the upper Colorado River watershed lost 57,000 af during October and November, and 16 reservoirs in the Green River watershed lost 10,000 af during the same period.

• [1] Active storage in 46 reservoirs are reported by Reclamation at https://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/hydrodata/reservoir_data/site_map.html.
• [2] Taylor Park, Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, Crystal, Fontenelle, Flaming Gorge, Vallecito, Navajo, Lake Powell, Lake Mead, Lake Mohave, and Lake Havasu.
• [3] Inflow to Lake Powell was computed as the sum of mean daily discharge of the Colorado River at Gypsum Canyon near Hite (gage 09328960), Dirty Devil River above Poison Springs near Hanksville (09333500), Escalante River near Escalante (09337500), and San Juan River near Bluff (09379500), as reported by the U.S. Geological Survey. Outflow from Lake Powell was computed as the mean daily discharge of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry (09380000), because stream flow is measured 15 miles downstream from the dam and includes ground-water seepage around the dam.  Lake Powell storage increased between October 10 and October 20, as reported by Reclamation.
• [4] Inflows within Grand Canyon were calculated as the difference between measurements of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry (09380000), Colorado River above Diamond Creek near Peach Springs (09420000), and Diamond Creek nr Peach Springs (09404208).
• [5] Virgin River below confluence Muddy River near Overton (09419530)
• [6] Between October 1 and November 1, 2025, active storage in Lake Powell increased 52,000 af and 11,000 af in Lake Mead.
• [7] Between November 1 and November 30, active storage in Lake Powell decreased by 147,000 af and increased by 109,000 af in Lake Mead.
• [8] During the previous 15 years between 2010 and 2024, total storage in Powell+Mead increased by 36,000 af in 2011. During the other 14 years of that period, the median depletion of Powell+Mead was 436,000 af.
• [9] Storage in Navajo Reservoir increased 126,000 af between October 9 and November 8 and increased by 114,000 af in October and November. Active storage in Vallecito Reservoir gained 68,000 af in October and November. At the end of November, Navajo Reservoir was 60% of its 1.65 million af capacity. Vallecito Reservoir was 77% of its 125,400 af capacity.