By Jack Schmidt,1 Anne Castle,2 John Fleck,3 Eric Kuhn,4 Kathryn Sorensen,5 Katherine Tara,6
While Colorado River Basin attention is focused on negotiating post-2026 operating rules, a near term crisis is unfolding before our eyes. If no immediate action is taken to reduce water use, our already-thin buffer of storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead could drop to just 9 percent of the levels with which we started the 21st century.
Water consumption in the Basin continues to outpace the natural supply, further drawing down reservoir levels. While Basin State representatives pursue the elusive goal of a workable and mutually acceptable set of post-2026 operating rules, our review of the latest Bureau of Reclamation data shows that the gap between ongoing water use and the reality of how much water actually flows in the Colorado River poses a serious near term threat. Another year like the one we just had on the Colorado River would nearly exhaust our dwindling reserves.
In a report being issued today, we look at total mass balance in the system – reservoir storage, inflow, and water use – to help clarify how much water the Basin actually has to work with if next year’s snowmelt runoff is similar to 2025, and the risks if we do not take near term action to reduce our use. The findings are stark.
Today, Lake Mead and Lake Powell hold 6.3 million acre feet of realistically accessible water – water stored above critical thresholds identified by Reclamation as necessary to protect the infrastructure and ensure reliable supplies. That is down from 39 million acre feet above those thresholds at the end of the 20th century. A below average monsoon, a dry warm fall, and depleted upstream reservoirs means that next year’s snowmelt inflow to Powell could be well below average even with a decent winter. If 2026 is as dry as 2025 and water use continues at the rate of the recent past, something current operating rules allow, our analysis shows the reserve of usable water could drop next year to just 3.6 million acre feet – less than the lowest previous storage content that occurred in March 2023. Such a situation occurring on Sept. 1, 2026 would necessitate drastic reductions in use during the subsequent reservoir depletion season, which typically results in another 1.4 million acre feet of drawdown before significant inflows begin. To be clear, we are not predicting what will happen next year. But a repeat of last year’s low inflows is a very real possibility. If we wait to see if 2026 is dry, the actions needed to save the system will be far more unpleasant than if we act prudently now.
A solution can’t wait for a long term agreement among the states. It may be difficult, if not impossible, for the Basin States to take such short term action. That reality puts the onus on the Department of the Interior to act.
1 Director, Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, former Chief, Grand Canyon
Monitoring and Research Center.
2 Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School, former US Commissioner, Upper
Colorado River Commission, former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, US Dept. of the
Interior.
3 Writer in Residence, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.
4 Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District.
5 Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University, former Director, Phoenix Water Services.
6 Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico
The parties have been “fiddling” for more than 10 years. One would have thought that the triggering of shortages in 2022 would have done the trick. But . . .
Upper Basin States have come up with a BS issue regarding the “will not cause” flow at Lee Ferry to be below 7.5 MAF, on average over any 10-year period. They say it is the drought and global warming. So what? If the flow would have been 7.5 MAF or below that and they took out any water, they caused it to be below. They have not taken their share for decades. In riparian prior appropriation if you don’t use your allotment over years, you lose your right. Stick them with that and then insist on their delivering the 7.5 MAF on average. And it’s downstream from Lake Powell, so evaporation from Lake Powell is on them. THEN MAYBE THEY’LL COME TO THE TABLE AND SHARE THE SHORTAGE IN PROPORTION. And, what’s this about Denver taking more water.
Also, I’m curious about LCR, Havasu Creek, lesser tribs in Grand Canyon and the Virgin River. How do their perennial flows compare with evaporation from Lake Mead? Their occasional floods should amount to something in Lake Mead. Although gages have been removed from Grand Canyon, their old records and recent rainfall records should be usable for estimating their contributions with some accuracy. What would it take to seal Lake Mead? Has that been going on slowly for nearly a century?
Given that “reality puts the onus on the Department of the Interior to act”, i’d suggest it remains to be seen if the current administration’s hollowing out of federal agencies, systematic dismantling of government and creation of a maze of falsehoods and lies will leave us more vulnerable and even less prepared for the future.
I’m concerned that the current administration will use extortion to grant illegal and favorable allotment to one or more states in exchange for hidden contributions. Whether it’s extortion or bribery depends on which side initiates it. The result is unfair distribution of a resource that’s declining. “Will not cause.”
The Upper Basin States seem to be ahead in propaganda, asserting that they have reduced withdrawals and under drought and global warming conditions, they are the good guys. It needs to be acknowledged that California and Arizona left allocations in Lake Mead. (And were rewarded). I don’t remember whether Nevada left any.