Climate Fix Blog

This is a critical moment for the Colorado River. Lake Powell and Lake Mead — the two major reservoirs on a river that provides water to 35 million people — have fallen to historically low levels. Water managers have implemented numerous emergency measures and short-term agreements to stabilize the river over the last 20 years, but it has not been enough. Many of those agreements are expiring, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is working to develop new guidelines for managing the river in the years ahead.

This is our chance to build a more sustainable future for the Colorado River and the communities, fish, and wildlife that depend on it.

Last month, Reclamation released a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) analyzing different alternatives for managing the river. The first page of the report underscores the severity of the situation in the Colorado River Basin stating, “If conditions do not improve, achieving a balance is more difficult, and, under critically dry futures, even large and unprecedented reductions may not be enough to stabilize storage.”

We’re navigating rough waters, and we’ve got limited time to pick the best line through the rapids ahead.

Reclamation has historically counted on the seven states that share the river to take a leadership role in developing management strategies. But the states are paddling in different directions, and their boat is drifting toward a waterfall.

The states have been deadlocked for two years over how to share water shortages, among other issues. Meanwhile, the opportunity to shape solutions is slipping away. The states failed to put forward a joint alternative in 2024 and missed a November 2025 deadline to reach consensus. State governors recently emerged empty-handed from a meeting at the end of January 2026. The next deadline for an agreement is February 14. Failure to reach an agreement will push the states closer to litigation, leaving decisions about the future of water in the West to U.S. Supreme Court judges 1,600 miles away.

What is in the DEIS?#

Fortunately, Reclamation has kept the decision-making process moving despite the stalemate between the states. The agency evaluated five alternatives for managing the Colorado River in its DEIS. Public input is being accepted through March 2. Reclamation will then prepare a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) outlining the preferred path forward. The agency has indicated that a seven-state agreement, if reached, would be incorporated into the FEIS.

The DEIS is not a fixed menu, but instead presents a buffet of options we can choose from. The preferred path forward may include components of different alternatives.

Reclamation used computer models to test each alternative under 1,200 scenarios — combining 400 different hydrologic conditions, ranging from wet to critically dry, and three sets of initial reservoir elevations. For each scenario, the DEIS considers everything from impacts on hydropower production and water supplies to the effects on local economies and the environment.

Management Alternatives#

No Action Alternative#

Evaluating what happens if we do nothing is standard practice in all environmental impact statements. Under the No Action Alternative, the river would revert to outdated and speculative operating guidance that was in place before the 2007 Interim Guidelines. Lower Basin shortages would range from just 400,000-600,000 acre-feet (AF) based on Lake Mead elevations and would be distributed by priority. The alternative does not include contributions from the Upper Basin.

Modeling this alternative shows that inaction is not an option. Deadpool-related reductions to Lower Basin water users occur in 70% of the 1,200 modeled scenarios — the highest of any alternative considered in the DEIS. Hydropower production from Glen Canyon Dam is only preserved in 24% of the future scenarios and from Hoover Dam in just 30% of scenarios.

Basic Coordination Alternative#

This is Reclamation’s plan for using existing authorities to manage the river if the states fail to reach an agreement. Unfortunately, in dry conditions it falls far short of what is needed to protect the river and our communities.

Under this alternative, shortages in the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, Nevada) would be 1.48 million acre-feet (MAF) in most years, based on the elevation of Lake Mead and would be distributed by priority (i.e., those with more junior water rights get cut first). Reclamation would identify conditions when additional reductions might be needed to keep the system from crashing. This alternative does not include water contributions from users in the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming).

This alternative does not create any new water conservation programs, nor does it continue the existing Lower Basin conservation program. The Lower Basin states would only be allowed to recover any water saved under the previous program.

Under the Basic Coordination Alternative, deadpool-related reductions are avoided in just 62% of the modeled scenarios. In the remaining scenarios, our communities would be subject to unplanned emergency shortages.

This alternative also does not do enough to maintain the hydropower that keeps the lights on in homes and businesses across the Basin. Hydropower production in Lake Powell is preserved in just 33% of scenarios and hydropower production in Lake Mead is preserved in 61% of scenarios.

Enhanced Coordination Alternative#

This is a more innovative alternative developed in coordination with federal agencies and with input from Tribes and hydropower providers. Lower Basin shortages are based on how much water is stored in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead, not just Lake Mead. Those shortages start when Powell and Mead are 60% full at 1.3 MAF and go up to 3 MAF when the reservoirs drop to 30% full. Responsibility for shortages would be shared pro rata, so all water users across the Lower Basin would reduce their usage by the same percentage. The alternative also assumes that the Upper Basin conserves water and contributes 200,000 AF annually for the first five years and then increases amounts in the following years (up to 350,000 AF starting in year 11).

The Enhanced Coordination Alternative also creates new conservation pools that the Upper Basin, Lower Basin, and Tribes may contribute to. And, importantly, the alternative factors in recent hydrology into Lake Powell’s operations — something that has been lacking in the past.

The Enhanced Coordination Alternative performs better by many measures than the Basic Coordination Alternative. Deadpool-related reductions are avoided in 84% of modeled scenarios. Hydropower production in Lake Powell is preserved in 86% of scenarios and hydropower production in Lake Mead is preserved in 81% of scenarios.

Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative#

This alternative is based on a proposal submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation by WRA and our partners. Shortages are based on the amount of water stored across the river’s major reservoirs and adjusted for recent hydrology, providing a more complete look at the state of the river.  Shortages to Lower Basin water users are distributed by priority.

Lower Basin shortages are larger and start earlier under the Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative, depending on storage conditions and recent hydrology. This alternative includes Upper Basin contributions that average 200,000 AF annually, with a range from zero to 500,000 AF. Similar to the Enhanced Coordination Alternative, this alternative includes a flexible conservation pool that both Upper and Lower basin states can contribute to. Importantly, the conserved water is not included in determining reservoir operations, so it can be moved back and forth between Lake Powell and Lake Mead to boost river flows through the Grand Canyon, protect critical infrastructure, help maintain fish and wildlife habitat, and support other important outcomes.

The Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative provides greater system stability, avoiding unplanned deadpool-related reductions in 91% of modeled scenarios. In addition, the alternative maintains power pool elevations in 95% of scenarios in Lake Powell and 87% of scenarios in Lake Mead.

Supply Driven Alternative#

This alternative bases Lake Powell releases on a percentage of the recent three-year average natural flow of the river at Lees Ferry — a point on the river in northern Arizona that is the divide between the Upper and Lower basins. Lower Basin shortages are based on the elevation of Lake Mead.

The alternative also includes conservation pools and allows the Upper Basin states and Tribes to save water in Lake Powell while the Lower Basin states and Tribes save water in Lake Mead. Reclamation analyzed this alternative two ways — with shortages distributed by priority and with shortages distributed pro rata across the Lower Basin.

The Supply Driven Alternative avoids deadpool-related reductions in 76% of modeled scenarios in the priority model and in 85% of scenarios in the pro rata model. It maintains power pool elevations in Lake Powell in 28% of scenarios. It maintains power pool elevations in Lake Mead in 76% of scenarios in the priority model and in 84% of scenarios in the pro rata model.

Balancing Supply and Demand#

The new management guidelines must balance water demands. The question is what level of planned shortages we’re willing to accept to reduce the risk of emergency shortages associated with deadpool.

The DEIS shows that alternatives with larger planned shortages generally do a better job at avoiding deadpool-related shortages. Water shortages of any kind have significant impacts on the Basin, but planned shortages leave breathing room to secure funding and put in place plans to mitigate the impacts on communities and the environment.

Where Do We Go From Here?#

The crisis on the Colorado River requires collaborative, bold solutions. We need alternatives that are proactive, incorporate flexible water savings accounts, include contributions from both basins, and account for current river conditions to get us through the dry years ahead.

At WRA we are advocating for new guidelines that:

Include flexible water savings accounts to help the Basin handle swings in water supply. Current water conservation programs are not enough to address the West’s water challenges. In the Lower Basin, conserved water may only be saved in Lake Mead — missing a huge opportunity to boost river flows in the Grand Canyon upstream. The Basin needs expanded conservation pools that allow water to be saved and moved between Lake Powell and Lake Mead to protect river health and stabilize the system. Saving water in wet years will help our communities get through dry years.

Protect river health. The Colorado River is a dynamic, living system that is under stress as the Basin gets hotter and drier. The new guidelines must be responsive to change, consider ecosystem impacts in reservoir operating plans, incorporate mitigation plans to help the river and our communities get through dry years, and support agreements to protect the Colorado River Delta.

Take a proactive approach to water management. Scrambling to make ends meet from one dry year to the next is bad for business, bad for our communities, and bad for the river. Our communities cannot plan ahead when the river is always on the brink of a crisis and facing unplanned emergency actions. The new guidelines must promote water conservation across the Basin, and management decisions need to be based on how much water is actually in the river and stored across its major reservoirs.

Honor Tribal sovereignty and fulfill the federal government’s legal obligations to Tribal Nations. The 30 federally recognized Tribes in the Colorado River Basin have historically been excluded from decision making and key programs on the Colorado River. Greater transparency, inclusion, and collaboration are urgently needed. Tribes hold rights to the river’s water, and the federal government has a responsibility to uphold those rights and provide pathways for Tribal collaboration. Tribes must be able to engage in conservation pools and other programs, and the new guidelines must include Tribal voices and fulfill federal trust responsibility.

The Colorado River is undergoing transformational changes. We must change with it. It’s time to work together and advance policies that protect the hardest working river in the West.

Resources#

Webinar#

Finding the Best Path Forward: Unpacking Proposals for Managing the Colorado River

Factsheet#

Building a Sustainable Future for the Colorado River