Infrastructure Policy Casebook/Colorado River

Introduction On August 21, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Interior signed a Record of Decision (ROD) setting the rules for operating Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado River, from 2027 through 2036. The decision replaces the 2007 Interim Guidelines, which expire at the end of 2026, and governs a river that supplies water to about 40 million people in seven U.S. states and Mexico. thumb|Lake Powell is in the Upper Basin and hosts the Glen Canyon Dam The river's legal allocations, set largely between the 1920s and 1940s, total about 16.5 million acre-feet (maf) per year, while its natural flow averaged 12.7 maf per year from 2008 to 2025. In 2026, the basin recorded its lowest snowpack on record and Lake Mead fell to a record-low elevation. After years of negotiation, the seven Basin States could not agree on how to share future shortages. thumb|Lake Mead is a reservoir in the Lower Basin and hosts the Hoover Dam Without a state agreement, Interior did not adopt fixed long-term operating rules. Instead, the ROD establishes a ten-year Decision Framework under which operating guidelines are issued for two-year intervals. The first guidelines, for 2027–2028, reduce Lower Basin deliveries by 1.25 maf per year and impose no mandatory reductions on the Upper Basin. The decision remains contested: Arizona water officials have argued the framework fails to comply with Colorado River CompactArizona Reconsultation Committee August 24, 2026 Arizona Reconsultation Committee Meeting #14 https://www.azwater.gov/sites/default/files/2026-08/2026.08.24_ARC_Meeting_FINAL.pdf, and Nevada has filed suit against the Department of the Interior. The case raises a central question: how should a system be governed when legal claims, physical infrastructure and future supply no longer align? The framework favors flexibility and adaptability over fixed long-term rules. Background Geography and Infrastructure The Colorado River rises in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Its basin spans seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California) and two Mexican states (Baja California and Sonora). The river flows toward the Gulf of California, but in most years it no longer reaches the sea.Reclamation Bureau of Colorado River Basin Bureau of Reclamation https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/ 2026-10-11 www.usbr.gov en The basin is regulated by two very large reservoirs: Lake Mead, formed by Hoover Dam, and Lake Powell, formed by Glen Canyon Dam. Together they can store about four years of the river's average flow. Their size allowed the system to keep delivering water through dry years for decades without cutting releases. The same storage, however, long masked the underlying imbalance between supply and use. +Colorado River at a GlanceDepartment of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation July 2026 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need, Post-2026 Colorado River Reservoir Operations Final EIS https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/final-eis/docs/Vol-I/P26-FEIS_1_Ch1_PurposeNeed_508.pdfItemValueBasin Area~250,000 square milesRiver Length~1,400 milesPeople served~40 million center|707x707px Sources of Flow and the Supply Gap Where the river's water is produced and where it is used are highly uneven. High-elevation snowmelt areas in the Upper Basin, about 15 percent of the basin's area, supply about 92 percent of annual flowDepartment of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation July 2026 Technical Appendix 3. Hydrologic Resources, Post-2026 Colorado River Reservoir Operations Final EIS https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/final-eis/docs/Vol-III/P26-FEIS_TA_03_Hydro_508.pdf. Nearly all of the river flow reaching the Lower Basin originates in the Upper Basin and is released through Glen Canyon Dam into Lake Mead. This asymmetry lies at the root of the dispute over who should bear shortages. alt=Colorado river flow and allocation|800x800px Because snowmelt supplies most of the flow, the basin is highly sensitive to snowpack and temperature. Since 2000, natural flow has averaged well below the twentieth-century mean. Research attributes part of the decline to warming, which reduces the runoff produced by a given snowpack.Milly P. C. D. Dunne K. A. 2020-03-13 Colorado River flow dwindles as warming-driven loss of reflective snow energizes evaporation https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay9187 Science en 367 6483 1252–1255 10.1126/science.aay9187 0036-8075 thumb|Lake Mead and its bathtub ring upstream of Hoover Dam Water use did not fall at the same pace. In the Lower Basin, deliveries plus evaporation and system losses exceed inflows by a "structural deficit" commonly estimated at more than 1 million acre-feet per year. The gap was filled by drawing down storage. Lake Mead and Lake Powell were nearly full around 2000; by March to April 2023 their combined storage had fallen to a record low of 24 percent of total capacity. Conditions worsened in 2026. The winter of 2025-2026 brought the lowest observed snowpack on record, and Lake Mead reached a record-low elevation in AugustDepartment of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation August 21, 2026 Interior Department Finalizes Plans for 2027-2028 Colorado https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/news-release/5392, shortly before the 2026 Record of Decision was signed. The Law of the River The Colorado River is governed not by a single statute but by an accumulation of compacts, federal laws, court decisions, contracts, an international treaty and operating guidelines, collectively known as the "Law of the River." Prior Appropriation and the 1922 Compact Western water law follows the doctrine of prior appropriation ("first in time, first in right"), under which the earliest users hold the most secure rights. In the early twentieth century, slower-growing states feared that fast-growing California would establish senior rights to most of the river before they could develop their own uses. Negotiations among the seven states, chaired by then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, produced the Colorado River Compact, signed in Santa Fe in November 1922. The Compact divided the basin at Lee Ferry, Arizona, into an Upper Basin and a Lower Basin. It apportioned to each basin the consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet per year. Under Article III(d), the Upper Basin must not cause flow at Lee Ferry to be depleted below 75 maf over any ten consecutive years. These allocations rested on flow estimates from an unusually wet period in the early twentieth century. Together with later obligations to Mexico, total legal entitlements now exceed what the river reliably produces. Later Laws and Decisions +History table of the Law of the RiverYearInstrumentWhat it does1922Colorado River CompactSplits basin at Lee Ferry; 7.5 maf/yr to each basin1928Boulder Canyon Project ActAuthorizes Hoover Dam; Lower Basin split: CA 4.4, AZ 2.8, NV 0.3 maf1944U.S.-Mexico Water TreatyGuarantees Mexico 1.5 maf/yr1948Upper Colorado River Basin CompactDivides Upper Basin share among its states by percentage1956Colorado River Storage Project ActAuthorizes Glen Canyon Dam and other Upper Basin storage1963Arizona v. CaliforniaUpholds 1928 allocations; confirms Interior authority; recognizes tribal reserved rights1968Colorado River Basin Project ActAuthorizes CAP, but makes it junior to California's 4.4 maf Federal Authority and Tribal Water Rights The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, operates the major federal reservoirs and serves as "watermaster" of the Lower Basin, a role confirmed in Arizona v. California (1963). Whether that authority extends to reallocating water among states without their consent is contested. About thirty federally recognized tribes in the basin hold water rights, many of them senior under the reserved-rights doctrine. Tribes were not parties to the 1922 Compact, and many tribal rights remain unquantified or undeveloped for lack of infrastructure. Key Actors and Institutions The central divide in the post-2026 negotiations was between the two basins. The Upper Basin states, which produce most of the water, held that any conservation of theirs should be voluntary. The Lower Basin states, which use most of it, wanted mandatory cuts to be shared once reductions exceeded 1.5 maf per year. Within the Lower Basin, burdens also differ because of priority: Arizona's Central Arizona Project (CAP) is junior to California. +Key Actors(For the formal participants in the NEPA process, see the table in the Record of Decision section.)ActorRolePosition on the RODDepartment of InteriorRule the dams; Lower Basin watermaster; issued the RODA framework until states agreeUpper Basin states (CO, NM, UT, WY)7.5 mafCuts should be voluntary; no mandatory cuts in RODArizona2.8 maf; most junior priorityLargest cut 760,000 af/yr; says framework fails to comply with the CompactCalifornia4.4 maf; senior priorityCut 440,000 af/yr; sees near-term certaintyNevada0.3 maf; depends on Lake MeadCut 50,000 af/yr; filed suit against Interior over the ROD(Aug 2026)Basin tribes(30)Senior reserved rightsPositions varyMexico1.5 maf under 1944 TreatyHandled through IBWC From Surplus to Shortage Management Since 2000 the basin's institutions have shifted from distributing surplus to managing scarcity through a series of negotiated, time-limited agreements. +YearEventSignificance2003Quantification Settlement AgreementCalifornia limited to its 4.4 maf, partly via farm-to-city transfers2007Interim GuidelinesFirst shortage rules tied to Lake Mead elevations; coordinated Powell–Mead operation; expire end of 2026 2017Minute 323Mexico shares shortages and conservation through 20262019Drought Contingency PlansAdded voluntary Lower Basin reductions and Upper Basin drought operations2021First federal shortage declaration (for 2022) Cuts fall first on Arizona under the 1968 priority These agreements shared a common design: each was negotiated among the seven states, often with federal funding, and each was temporary. The 2007 Interim Guidelines, the core of the current operating rules, expire at the end of 2026. Replacing them required a new environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, ideally, a new consensus among the states. The next section examines how that process unfolded, and why it ended in a federal decision without a state agreement. The Record of Decision Section XI.G7.D of the 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines instructed the Secretary of the Interior to review the efficacy the guidelines by 2020.U.S. Department of the Interior 2007 Record of Decision https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf In adherence, the Secretary of the Interior completed a formal review process in December 2020. The Final Report found that the 2007 Interim Guidelines provided operational criteria for the lakes that increased water predictability for Lower Basin states. In addition, the creation of water storage and delivery mechanisms, such as the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS), resulted in increased elevations in Lake Mead. However, the 2007 Interim Guidelines were effective when compared to the 2000s projections. Improved research and intensified drought conditions indicated an increased risk of the Colorado River reaching critically low levels.U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation December 18, 2020 Review of the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/7d/7.D.Review_FinalReport_12-18-2020.pdf This analysis concluded that the post-2026 Operating Framework should allow for more flexibility, improve participation in complementary conservation efforts, and implement stronger, more robust measures.U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation August 31, 2026 Review of the 2007 Interim Guidelines & 7.D. Report https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/interimguidelines/7dreport/index.html The NEPA Process Pursuant to section 106 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the creation of a Colorado River governance structure has “reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment.” Therefore, the Bureau of Reclamation must develop an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that outlines alternatives and addresses public comments. July 4, 2025 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10352/pdf/COMPS-10352.pdf With the 2007 Interim Guidelines expiring in 2026, the Bureau of Reclamation’s new governance structure for the Colorado River would be shaped by thorough stakeholder engagement and NEPA documentation requirements. +Bureau of Reclamation NEPA TimelinesDateActionDecember 20202007 Interim Guidelines are reviewed for efficacy.June 2022Pre-Scoping Notice published in Federal Register. Commences 60 day public comment period. August 2022Pre-Scoping Notice public comment closes.June 2023Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement published in the Federal Register. Commences 60 Day public comment period and public meeting opportunities. Negotiations begin.August 2023Notice of Intent public comment closesJanuary 2025Alternatives Report published, informing the continuing negotiation and consultation process. January 2026Notice of Availability of Draft EIS is published in the Federal Register. 45 day public comment period commences. Negotiations and consultations continue.March 2026Public comment closesJuly 2026Final EIS publishedAugust 2026Record of Decision Published outlining the 2027-2036 Decision Framework for water distributionAugust 20262027-2028 Operating Guidelines are PublishedOctober 20272007 Interim Guidelines expire. The 2027 Water Year begins on October 1, 2026, commencing the start of the first Operations Interval in the 10 year Decision Framework. Stakeholder Engagement In 2022, a pre-scoping notice was published in the Federal register, allowing public engagement prior to the formal initiation of the NEPA process. Received public comments were used to develop strategies for meaningful public engagement across the Basin. These comments were incorporated into a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which formally initiated the NEPA process upon publication in 2023. Between the publication of the Notice of Intent and the 2026 Draft EIS, the Bureau of Reclamation regularly consulted with Basin states, Basin tribes, non-governmental organizations, water users, other participating federal agencies, and agencies to inform the development of alternative operational guidelines. In addition, the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal agencies hosted public meetings and conferences to gather input.Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation July 2026 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination, Post-2026 Colorado River Reservoir Operations Final EIS https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/final-eis/docs/Vol-I/P26-FEIS_4_Ch4_ConsultCoord_508.pdf Throughout the public comment period and engagement efforts, stakeholder concerns conflicted with each other. For example, both the Upper Basin and Lower Basin States submitted their own proposals. The Upper Basin Plan proposed water delivery cuts for Lower Basin States users only. Meanwhile, the Lower Basin Plan proposed a reduction strategy for the entire Basin. In this plan, the Lower Basin experienced water delivery cuts during average or dry conditions, but both the Upper and Lower Basin must cut water delivery in under the driest conditions.Hite Kirsten Sheikh Pervase A. Stem Charles, V. October 1, 2026 Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45546 Similarly, the agreement would need to appropriately incorporate Tribal water rights, which have priority over other water uses of the Colorado River. Due to the tense and conflicting nature of the consultation process, the preliminary draft EIS did not identify a preferred alternative. Consultations and negotiations continued during the Draft EIS's Public Comment period and to inform the governance decisions in the final EIS.Department of the Interior August 2026 Record of Decision Decision Framework for Colorado River Guidelines: Coordinated Operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2027-2036) https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/decision-doc/P26_RecordofDecision_Final.pdf +Formal Participants in the NEPA Process Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation July 2026 Appendix P. Tribal Consultation and Coordination Efforts, Post-2026 Colorado River Reservoir Operations Final EIS https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/final-eis/docs/Vol-II/P26-FEIS_Appendix_P_TribalConsultationEfforts_508.pdfParty TypeRoleNameFederal EntitiesLead AgencyBureau of Reclamation, Department of InteriorCooperating AgencyBureau of Indian Affairs, Department of InteriorNational Parks Service, Department of InteriorU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of InteriorU.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, Department of State Western Area Power Administration, Department of EnergyTechnical ExpertiseU.S. Geological Survey, Department of the InteriorStatesUpper BasinColoradoNew MexicoUtahWyomingLower BasinArizonaCaliforniaNevadaTribesBasin TribesAk-Chin Indian CommunityChemehuevi Indian TribeCocopah Indian TribeColorado River Indian TribesFort McDowell Yavapai NationFort Mojave Indian TribeGila River Indian CommunityHavasupai TribeHopi TribeHualapai Indian TribeJicarilla Apache NationKaibab Band of Paiute IndiansLas Vegas Tribe of Paiute IndiansMoapa Band of Paiute IndiansNavajo NationPaiute Indian Tribe of UtahPascua Yaqui TribeQuechan Indian TribeSalt River Pima- Maricopa Indian CommunitySan Carlos Apache TribeSan Juan Southern PaiuteSouthern Ute Indian TribeTohono O'odham NationTonto Apache TribeUte Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray ReservationUte Mountain Ute TribeWhite Mountain Apache TribeYavapai-Apache NationYavapai-Prescott Indian TribeZuni TribeNon-Basin, Technical ExpertisePueblo of AcomaPueblo of CochitiPueblo of JemezPueblo of LagunaPueblo of NambéPueblo of PojoaquePueblo of San FelipePueblo of San JuanPueblo of SandiaPueblo of Santa AnaPueblo of Santa ClaraPueblo of TesuquePueblo of ZiaNon-Government OrganizationsConservation GroupsAmerican RiversEnvironmental Defense FundNational Audubon SocietyThe Nature ConservancyTheodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipTrout UnlimitedWestern Resource AdvocatesInternationalMexicoMexican Section of the International Boundary and Water ComissionMexico National Water CommissionMexico Secretariat of Foreign Relations Alternatives The NEPA Process resulted in the development of 6 possible alternatives, each incorporating stakeholder interests differently. No Action Alternative: Colorado River would no longer operate according to the 2007 Interim Operating Guidelines following the 2026 expiration. No activities for water storage and delivery are defined, other than pre-existing emergency measures. Basic Coordination Alternative: This alternative represents governance largely defined by Federal Authority and would be incorporated if Basin states could not reach a new agreement. Bureau of Reclamation would determine releases for Lake Powell and identify when Upper Basin States should take additional action. Otherwise, no new delivery or storage mechanisms are defined.Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation January 2025 Alternatives Report: Post-2026 Operational Guidelines and Strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/post2026/alternatives/Post-2026_Alternatives_Report_20250117_508.pdf Enhanced Coordination Alternative: This alternative is defined by Tribal and federal stakeholder suggestions. Water would be distributed proportionally to the storages of Lake Mead and Lake Powell. It also includes Basin-wide contributions. Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative: Advocated by non-governmental conservation organizations, this alternative called for voluntary Basin-wide contributions. Additionally, 3 additional Basin reservoirs will be used for water storage. Supply Driven Alternative: This incorporates elements of proposals from Upper and Lower Basin States. It includes new storage and distribution mechanisms for Lake Powell and Lake Mead and incentives for conservation efforts. Contributions are Basin-Wide. Preferred Alternative: A 10 year decision framework that issues new operating guidelines every 2 years. It does not establish guidelines for Lake Mead and Lake Powell operations. Instead, it establishes guidelines for how to develop future operating guidelines.This Alternative was not present in the Draft EIS posted for public review, as negotiations with stakeholders failed to reach a consensus. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation January 2026 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives: Post-2026 Colorado River Reservoir Operations DEIS https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/draft-eis/docs/vol-1/P26-DEIS-2-Ch2.pdf 2027-2036 Colorado River Decision Framework Governance Structure Rather than a single set of Operating Guidelines to govern how water is distributed between 2027-2036, the preferred alternative outlined in the ROD and formally implemented is a 10 year decision framework. The framework promotes flexibility and adaptability to changing natural conditions by dividing the 10 year period into intervals that last 2 years. During each interval, new Operating Guidelines for the operations of Lake Mead and Lake Powell are issued remain in effect until the start of the next operating interval. While this is an open-ended framework, it still maintains that each interval's Operating Guidelines incorporate core principles and minimum operational requirements. For example, the operational principles state that Operating Guidelines must: Consider changing hydrologic conditions and remain responsive to fluctuating water supply. Ensure Operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead do not compromise critical infrastructure. If Lake Powell falls below 3,500 feet in elevation or Lake Mead falls below 1,000 feet in elevation, the Bureau of Reclamation will intervene to protect critical infrastructure facilities. Include Long Range Operating Criteria (LROC) in its guidelines. LROC refers to the specific protocols and metrics to coordinate Lake Mead and Lake Powell operations. In addition, the LROC should outline how to address Extraordinary Circumstances. Reflect recommendations of consensus between parties. If a new agreement emerges among stakeholders, it will take priority over current Operating Guidelines. In addition, there are key threshold ranges the operating guidelines must remain within. However, the selected ranges remain broad to accommodate new water governance strategies or future consensus agreements. The Operating Guidelines also establish a timeline requirements for the development of the following interval's Operational Guidelines, ensuring each guideline is completed with timely reviews and consultations. 2027- 2028 Operating Guidelines The first Operating Guidelines under the Decision Framework will be effective for the 2027-2028 interval. The goal of the current operating guidelines is to maintain water access in the Lower Basin and protect critical infrastructure through increasing Lake Powell elevation in the Upper Basin.Bureau of Reclamation 2026 Future Colorado River Operations Fact Sheet https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/decision-doc/FutureColoradoOperations_Factsheet.pdf While protecting critical infrastructure protects electricity access across the Basin, water allotments for Lower Basin states was cut by 21%.Hartman Travis Hay Andrew September 14, 2026 Wolf Julia Bryson Donna Williams Nia How drought and demand pushed the Colorado River toward crisis https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ENVIRONMENT/COLORADO-RIVER/znpngebyxvl/ Meanwhile, per the ROD, Upper Basin States contributions are voluntary, and may contribute up to 200 thousand acre feet per year. However, the Operating Guidelines do not impose water allotment cuts to the Upper Basin or impose required water contribution measures. +Terms of the 2028 Operating GuidelinesDepartment of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation August 2026 Operating Guidelines – Colorado River Guidelines for Coordinated Operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead Operating Years 2027 and 2028 https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/decision-doc/2027-2028OperatingGuidelines_Final.pdfOperationsMechanismsLake Powell (Upper Basin) Lake Powell's elevation should be protected and not drop below 3,510 feet. The amount of water Lake Powell releases water will be determined by the elevation level. When Lake Powell's elevation is above 3,565 feet (Upper Elevation Range), Lake Powell can release 8.23 million acre feet (maf) of water in an initial release. Subsequent monthly releases will evaluated appropriately, between 8.0 and 7.5 maf. If it is below 3,540 feet (Lower Elevation Range), Lake Powell should 7.0 maf in its initial releases. Following monthly releases should be adjusted according to elevation, but no less than 6.0 maf.Colorado River Storage Project (Upper Basin) Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Upper Basin Units are water reservoirs in the Upper Basin that should maintain drought operations throughout the interval. Releases should be less than 7.0 maf, unless otherwise negotiated among the Department of Interiror, Upper Basin States, and Lower Basin States.Lake Mead (Lower Basin) Lake Mead should remain above 1,010 feet. Under Shortage conditions, Lake Mead will reduce its release of water for Lower Basin state consumption by 1.25 maf. Each year, Lower Basin states will receive 6.25 maf for consumptive use and apportioned according to current agreements among Lower Basin states. If Lake Mead is above 1,125 feet, the Secretary of the Interior may increase water apportionments.Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) The 2007 Interim Guidelines created an Intentionally Created Surplus, which is a mechanism that rewards projects that conserve water and increase water supply. Additional amounts of water are delivered to Lower Basin states proportional to the amount of water they contributed through ICS projects. The ICS program is continued, but there is limitations on the amount that is delivered annually. ICS may not surpass 800,000 acre feet (af) over the interval. ICS deliveries will occur if Lake Mead elevation is under 1,000 feet.Federally Managed Water Resource Pool (FMWRP) Federally Managed Water Resource Pool (FMWRP) is created to strengthen Federal delivery of ICS in Lake Mead. The Bureau of Reclamation will accumulate a maximum of 450,000 af to meet delivery requirements. In times of shortages, Tribal water entitlements are reduced due to reduced water supply. The FMWRP provides shortage offsets to Lower Basin Tribes up to 25% of their reduced entitlements. Mexico Water delivery to Mexico must follow the 1944 Water Treaty. Reductions must be negotiated through the International Boundary and Water Commission. Implications Funding While the 2027-2036 Decision Framework and 2027-2028 Operation Guidelines have no specific funding mechanisms, the availability of other federal funds impact water deliveries in the Lower Basin. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act designated $4 billion in conservation efforts in the Colorado River Basin, establishes a grant program for water management and conservation through the Lower Colorado River Basin System Conservation and Efficiency Program, and designates an additional $50 million for upper Basin Conservation.October 12, 2022 Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Steps for Drought Mitigation Funding from Inflation Reduction Act https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-new-steps-drought-mitigation-funding-inflation Similarly, the Bureau of Reclamation funds toward water storage projects and Colorado River Conservation in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Normand Anna E. Stern Charles V. 03/21/2024 Bureau of Reclamation Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47032 However, in 2025, the Trump Administration froze funding for Infrastructure Reduction Act Projects that had not yet been distributed, pausing payments for many recipients in the Basin.Hager Alex February 25, 2025 Trump funding freeze includes payments to keep the Colorado River flowing https://www.npr.org/2025/02/25/nx-s1-5302718/trump-funding-freeze-includes-payments-to-keep-the-colorado-river-flowing The availability of Federal funds strengthens conservation measures and can impact the elevation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell. For Lower Basin states, a loss of funds can result in a loss of opportunity for increased water apportionments. Resource Access Water Under the 2027–2028 Operating Guidelines, required reductions fall on the Lower Basin. Arizona's deliveries are reduced by 760,000 acre-feet (af) per year, California's by 440,000 af and Nevada's by 50,000 af, a total of 1.25 maf per year. Arizona's share is the largest because Central Arizona Project supplies are junior to California's under the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act. The Upper Basin faces no mandatory reductions. The framework provides for releases from upstream federal reservoirs when needed to protect critical Lake Powell elevations. Electricity thumb|The Hoover Dam Services Lower Basin States of Arizona, California, and Nevada Lake Powell hosts the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead hosts the Hoover Dam. Therefore, shortage can threaten the availability of hydropower. The Glen Canyon Dam services Nebraska, every Upper Basin state, and every Lower Basin State except California.Bureau of Reclamation February 23, 2026 Glen Canyon Unit https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/crsp/gc/ Meanwhile, the Hoover Dam distributes energy to the Lower Basin States.Bureau of Reclamation August 1, 2018 Hoover Dam https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html While the 2027-2028 Operating Guidelines prioritize increasing Lake Powell elevation high, the Upper Basin's power access is consistently maintained without compromising their water availability. Meanwhile, the Lower Basin must trade off water supply in exchange for continued power access. Flexibility and Reliability Issuing guidelines in two-year intervals lets operations respond to changing hydrology, but it also means that operating rules are set only through 2028; water users do not yet know the rules that will apply after the current interval. The Final EIS indicates that the framework does not by itself secure the system. In modeling of a representative version of the framework, Lake Powell stayed above 3,500 feet in every month in 58 percent of simulated futures through 2039, and Lake Mead stayed above 975 feet in every month in 72 percent. Reclamation found that, absent additional action, the framework is reasonably likely to be vulnerable to Lake Powell falling below 3,500 feet within the next ten years under a drier future. Discussion and Further Reading Discussion Questions Does a framework that issues new guidelines every two years help the system adapt, or does it undermine the certainty that cities, farms and tribes need for long-term investment? Water contributions and conservation measures for the Upper Basin are voluntary, while Lower Basin contributions are incentivized under ICS. Does the lack of incentives discourage Upper Basin contributions? Alternatively, because the Lower Basin experiences reduced water delivery, is the availability of incentives an equitable solution? In June 2026, San Diego agreed to explore trading part of its Colorado River supply to Arizona and Nevada, replacing it with water from its desalination plant. Desalinated water costs about $3,500 per acre-foot, versus $365 for Central Arizona Project water. Can trades like this ease the conflict, and who should pay the difference? Further Reading Framework Schmidt, J. C., Yackulic, C. B., & Kuhn, E. (2023). The Colorado River water crisis: Its origin and the future. WIREs Water, 10(6), e1672. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1672Schmidt J.C. Yackulic C.B. Kuhn E. 2023 The Colorado River water crisis: Its origin and the future. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1672 WIRES Water 10 6 e1672 Naishadham, Suman (2024). How states dependent on the Colorado River are struggling to strike a long-term agreement. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-states-dependent-on-the-colorado-river-are-struggling-to-strike-a-long-term-agreement Naishadham Suman August 14, 2024 How states dependent on the Colorado River are struggling to strike a long-term agreement https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-states-dependent-on-the-colorado-river-are-struggling-to-strike-a-long-term-agreement Bureau of Reclamation (2026). Future Colorado River Operations Fact Sheet. https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/decision-doc/FutureColoradoOperations_Factsheet.pdf Arens, Seth (2026). 2025-2026 Extreme Snow Drought in the Intermountain West. https://wwa.colorado.edu/resources/hazard-assessments/briefing/2025-2026-extreme-snow-drought-intermountain-westArens Seth May 14, 2026 2025-2026 Extreme Snow Drought in the Intermountain West https://wwa.colorado.edu/resources/hazard-assessments/briefing/2025-2026-extreme-snow-drought-intermountain-west Western Water Assessment Reception Endara, Emilia and Kenney, Doug (2026). The Colorado River: Searching for Solutions in the Face of Uncertainty. https://www.colorado.edu/center/gwc/media/842.Endara Emilia Kenney Doug 2026 The Colorado river in the Face of Uncertainty https://www.colorado.edu/center/gwc/media/842 Galang, Drew (2026). Nevada Files Lawsuit Against Department of the Interior over Colorado River Operations Record of Decision. https://www.gov.nv.gov/press-releases/nevada-files-lawsuit-against-department-of-the-interior-over-colorado-river-operations-record-of-decision/Galang Drew August 24, 2026 Nevada Files Lawsuit Against Department of the Interior over Colorado River Operations Record of Decision https://www.gov.nv.gov/press-releases/nevada-files-lawsuit-against-department-of-the-interior-over-colorado-river-operations-record-of-decision/ Buschatzke, Thomas (2026). State of Arizona Comments on Post 2026 Colorado River FEIS. https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/af/81/c4806afc445782abedaec6bb4821/2026-8-10-az-feis-p26-comments.pdfBushatzke Thomas August 10, 2026 State of Arizona Comments on Post 2026 Colorado River FEIS https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/af/81/c4806afc445782abedaec6bb4821/2026-8-10-az-feis-p26-comments.pdf Upper Basin States Release Joint Statement on Federal Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Future Colorado River Operations (2026). https://governorsoffice.colorado.gov/governor/news/upper-basin-states-release-joint-statement-federal-environmental-impact-statement-regardingJuly 1, 2026 https://governorsoffice.colorado.gov/governor/news/upper-basin-states-release-joint-statement-federal-environmental-impact-statement-regarding https://governorsoffice.colorado.gov/governor/news/upper-basin-states-release-joint-statement-federal-environmental-impact-statement-regarding