Connect with us

Colorado

Colorado River states have just weeks to strike a deal. Here’s why it’s so hard for them to agree.

Published

on

Colorado River states have just weeks to strike a deal. Here’s why it’s so hard for them to agree.


Each negotiator drew a card from the deck.

John Entsminger, from Nevada, picked the highest card: the ace. Gene Shawcroft, from Utah drew the lowest: an eight.

“My luck in Las Vegas isn’t very good,” Shawcroft said, holding up his card to show an audience of 1,700 people. They chuckled under the ornate chandeliers of a Caesars Palace ballroom.

Shawcroft, Entsminger and the five other negotiators from the states in the Colorado River Basin were picking cards to determine the speaking order for the final panel of the Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas in mid-December.

Advertisement

While the stakes for that card draw were quite low, the stakes of what the seven states are negotiating couldn’t be much higher.

(Brooke Larsen | The Salt Lake Tribune) Gene Shawcroft, Utah’s Colorado River commissioner, speaks on a panel of state negotiators at the Colorado River Water Users conference in Las Vegas on Thursday, Dec. 18, 2025. Negotiators picked from a deck of cards to determine the speaking order. Shawcroft chose the lowest card, so he went first.

The Colorado River is the lifeblood of the American Southwest and northern Mexico. Cities, tribes, farms, fish and various industries rely on it for drinking water, irrigation, habitat, power and more.

But it has been overtapped. And as the region gets hotter and drier and populations continue to boom, there is less and less water to go around.

The states have struggled to agree on how to share the river. Politics, different experiences of the river, complicated regulations and dwindling water supplies make negotiations difficult.

Advertisement

On the last day of the conference, state negotiators tried to appear cordial and close to consensus, even making light of the tension.

“It’s an honor and pleasure to be here today alongside my Colorado River family,” Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s negotiator, said. “As you all know, sometimes you can’t pick your family, but you get through it anyways.” The audience roared in laughter.

Differences quickly surfaced, though, and states didn’t appear close to reaching a deal.

The clock is ticking: The seven basin states only have until February 14 to come up with a plan for how to manage the river in dry times. The current guidelines expire at the end of the year. If they test their luck and fail to reach an agreement, they risk the Interior Department making a plan for them or years of litigation.

The seven state negotiators are meeting for four days in Salt Lake City this week as they work to hash out a deal before that deadline, according to Becki Bryant, public affairs officer with the Bureau of Reclamation.

Advertisement

The bureau released a draft environmental impact statement on Friday that lays out a series of pathways to manage the river system and its major reservoirs. If the states reach a deal, the bureau says it will insert that plan as the preferred way forward, Scott Cameron, acting commissioner for the bureau, told The Tribune at the conference. If states can’t agree, the federal government will choose an alternative itself, he added.

(Brooke Larsen | The Salt Lake Tribune) Scott Cameron, acting commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, addresses a large audience at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference in Las Vegas on Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2025. He emphasized the urgent need for states to reach a deal on the future management of the river.

In this game of water diplomacy, there will likely be no clear winners. “No one is too big to fail,” said Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s negotiator.

Federal officials say sacrifices must be made going forward.

“That means being willing to make and adhere to uncomfortable compromises,” Cameron said.

Advertisement

Whether states are willing to give enough to seal a deal is yet to be seen.

Is hydrology the problem?

Throughout the conference, anxiety about drought and the abnormally warm start to winter hung over panel discussions and side conversations in hallways lined with velvet curtains colored terracotta, like the Colorado River after a big storm.

October brought heavy rains, but November and December were abnormally warm and dry. Snowpack in the Upper Colorado River Basin is at its lowest level in a quarter century, according to the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center.

Lake Powell is only 28% full and could drop below 3,490 feet next year, according to forecasts from the Bureau of Reclamation. At that level, water would be unable to pass through Glen Canyon Dam’s electricity-generating turbines.

(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)

Advertisement

The drought has been blamed for the stagnation in the negotiations. “We need to remember that hydrology is the problem,” Brandon Gebhart, Wyoming’s negotiator, said. “It’s not political positions. It’s not legal interpretations. It’s not one state.”

Low reservoirs mean less water storage to prop up the river system when flows are low.

“Without that resiliency, people are very risk averse, very concerned about every acre-foot, so the give and take becomes very difficult,” Chuck Cullom, director of the Upper Colorado River Commission and former Colorado River programs manager in Arizona, told The Tribune.

When the seven states established guidelines for how to manage the river during dry years in 2007, drought had begun to plague the basin. But there was a much greater storage buffer then.

“The 2007 guidelines started with Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the two largest reservoirs in the United States, at about 90% capacity,” Cullom said. Today, the combined contents of Powell and Mead is closer to 30% full, he added.

Advertisement

Even with additional deals in 2019 and 2023 that led to sharp reductions in water use in the Lower Basin, the water crisis has continued to worsen, and climate scientists have said that trend will continue.

“We haven’t really got much of a break hydrologically, but this is something that has been foreseeable for a very long time,” Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University, told The Tribune in November.

(Bethany Baker | The Salt Lake Tribune) The bathtub ring is visible at Lake Powell near Ticaboo, Utah on Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2023.

Some at the conference argued leaders need to stop blaming the stalemate on the river’s flow.

“Water is life, and like all of nature, the river is inherently chaotic,” Kirin Vicenti, water commissioner for the Jicarilla Apache Nation, said. “Despite those that think hydrology is the problem, it’s not, and it can’t always be the scapegoat. Our planning and policies must allow for flexibility and innovative and dynamic solutions.”

Advertisement

A ‘very technical’ disagreement

The basin states are working to come to terms that will provide more flexibility in river management during dry years.

The Upper Basin states — Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming — have been at odds with the Lower Basin — Arizona, California and Nevada — over how to divvy up and enforce water cuts, though.

That’s in part due to different interpretations of the Upper Basin states’ obligation to the Lower Basin under the Colorado River Compact established over a century ago.

“This is a very technical, nerdy, hydrological disagreement,” Porter told The Tribune after the conference.

If a rolling average of 7.5 million acre-feet of water doesn’t make it past Lee’s Ferry, just below Glen Canyon Dam, over a ten year period, Lower Basin states may sue the Upper Basin.

Advertisement

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Ariz., on Monday, May 19, 2025.

State negotiators want to avoid litigation and may include protections against that in their deal. But so far, states have not found enough common ground.

Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s negotiator said he needs the Upper Basin to make conservation commitments that are “verifiable and mandatory.” To sign on to a deal, Buschatzke has to get a deal approved by his state legislature, an “additional burden” unique to Arizona, Porter said.

The Upper Basin negotiators said demands for mandatory cuts from their water users ignores the realities of how water is managed and flows through their states.

‘Different experience of the river’

Across much of Utah, Colorado River water is often known by a different name locally: Ashley Creek, Price River, Escalante River, Rock Creek. Dozens of smaller waterways flow through the mountains and canyons of Utah to major tributaries like the Green and San Juan Rivers, before dumping into the Colorado in the southeast corner of the state.

Advertisement

The flow in those lesser creeks and rivers fluctuate day to day, year to year, based on snowpack, creating a variable water supply across Utah and other Upper Basin states.

Some reservoirs, such as Strawberry and Scofield, exist along the journey to store water for drinking water and irrigation. But those human-made lakes pale in comparison to the nation’s largest reservoir, Lake Mead, that the Lower Basin relies on for water delivery.

“That very different experience of the river and water supply makes it hard for people to find common ground because there’s not a lot of common experience,” Cullom said.

(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) The San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado River, near Mexican Hat, on Friday, May 27, 2022.

Beyond just differences in storage and water availability, the Secretary of the Interior has much greater powers in the Lower Basin thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court ruling that deemed the secretary the “water master” of the river below Lake Mead.

Advertisement

“The secretary could go to water users in the Lower Basin and say, ‘There’s an existential crisis. I’m going to cut you off.’ The secretary does not have that authority in the Upper Basin,” Cullom said.

‘We’re all on the same rowboat’

Entsminger, the Nevada negotiator, spoke last on the final panel at the Colorado River Water Users Association conference — a reward for drawing the ace.

He kept it short and pointed at his fellow negotiators.

“If you distill down what my six partners just said, I believe there’s three common things: Here’s all the great things my state has done. Here’s how hard, slash impossible, it is to do any more. And here are all the reasons why other people should have to do more,” he said. “As long as we keep polishing those arguments and repeating them to each other, we are going nowhere.”

Entsminger closed his speech, and the largest Colorado River conference of the year, with a metaphorical warning for any negotiator that holds a hard line.

Advertisement

“We’re all on the same rowboat,” he said. “The first one to fire a shot puts a hole in the boat and sinks it.”

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) A raft on the Colorado River as seen from Navajo Bridge in Ariz. on Tuesday, May 20, 2025.

This article is published through the Colorado River Collaborative, a solutions journalism initiative supported by the Janet Quinney Lawson Institute for Land, Water, and Air at Utah State University. See all of our stories about how Utahns are impacted by the Colorado River at greatsaltlakenews.org/coloradoriver.



Source link

Advertisement

Colorado

Colorado Highway getting bicycle bypass bridge

Published

on

Colorado Highway getting bicycle bypass bridge



The first of two closures happened on Colorado Highway 119 as crews install a new bicycle bypass bridge. The upgrade is part of the Safety Mobility and Bikeway Improvements Project in Boulder County. 

Advertisement

CBS


The bike-overpass bridge is being installed at the intersection of 63rd Street and Highway 119. The highway is expected to see a 25-percent increase in drivers by 2040. The goal of this project is to make the highway safer for everyone. It was fast tracked after the death of Magnus White, a teen cyclist who was hit and killed in that area two years ago.

“Obviously, we’ve lost a couple of pretty wonderful young people out there,” one cyclist told CBS News Colorado. “I’ve been here over 40 years so it used to be a lot more accessible.” 

Advertisement

The highway did reopen Friday afternoon, but another closure is planned for Friday, July 17, 2026 from 5:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado to weigh daily hunting limits, ban on fur sales for wildlife hunted for fur 

Published

on

Colorado to weigh daily hunting limits, ban on fur sales for wildlife hunted for fur 


At its upcoming meetings on July 20 and 21, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission will consider whether to impose daily hunting limits for furbearers and a ban on commercial fur sales. It’s the latest chapter in a years-long debate over how these species — which include beavers, foxes, coyotes, bobcats, martens and other mesocarnivores — should be managed.  

Both potential policy changes have emerged from a surge of public interest in furbearers following Proposition 127 — a failed ballot measure in 2024 that sought to ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx. 

The idea to impose a limit on the number of furbearers a recreational hunter can kill in a single day has been raised in public comments and was among several recommendations made to the agency in a 2025 stakeholder group. 



While Parks and Wildlife proposed a daily limit of 15 for all 17 furbearer species in March, wildlife advocates and some commissioners pushed back, arguing it didn’t go far enough and asked staff to consider a lower number. On July 20, the commission will discuss one new option proposed by the wildlife agency — though its recommendation remains a daily limit of 15. 

Advertisement

The idea to ban the commercial sale of furs in Colorado emerged out of a petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity in June 2025. 



The petition argued that it is a common-sense and ethical change that aligns furbearers with how the state manages other wildlife. In a controversial March vote, the commission approved the petition against the recommendation of Parks and Wildlife staff, sending it forward for additional debate. The first hearing will be held on July 21, with Parks and Wildlife offering two options for potential fur sales bans. The agency’s recommendation remains not to impose any ban.

A public divided on Colorado’s current furbearer management 

Public sentiment around furbearers is largely divided into two groups. 

The first, primarily represented by sportspersons and agriculture advocates, argues that the agency’s current management is driven by science and represents a critical part of Colorado’s hunting heritage that provides critical data to the agency. The second, held by wildlife conservation and welfare advocates, contends that the management of furbearers is outdated, unethical and leading to overexploitation of the species

Currently in Colorado, all 17 furbearer species can be hunted with the purchase of ​​a $10 permit. In its 2024-25 fiscal year, the agency sold 19,620 furbearer permits. There are no limits on the number that a permit-holder can kill. 

Advertisement

These species are grouped together as mesocarnivores, sharing high reproductive output, high natural mortality rates and qualities as habitat generalists, according to a March report. 

In a July memo to the commission, Parks and Wildlife Director Laura Clellan wrote that “current annual harvest rates range from 0.6-5.8% of the conservative population projections,” and that there is no scientific evidence that the current level of furbearer hunting is causing population declines. 

A fox keeps an eye on her kits in Steamboat Springs on Wednesday, June 24, 2026. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is considering making changes to how it manages foxes and other furbearer species at its July 2026 commissioner meeting.
John F. Russell/Steamboat Pilot & Today archive

Parks and Wildlife staff have said that the allowed methods of trapping — which were narrowed significantly by a 1996 ballot measure in Colorado — act as a natural limit on how many furbearers can be hunted.

There have been some concerns and criticism that Parks and Wildlife lacks sufficient population estimates for these species. In the memo, Clellan clarifies that the wildlife profession tends not to use population abundance for small game and furbearer management because their populations are limited, not by harvest, but by factors like weather and habitat — meaning there are “often very large population swings year to year.”  

While Colorado law makes it illegal to sell or purchase wildlife for commercial gain, there’s an exemption that allows the sale of “nonedible portions of wildlife,” including furbearer pelts and hides. This includes allowing the sale, barter or trading of items like fur, feathers, teeth, horns, antlers, bones and more that were acquired legally.

Should Colorado implement daily hunting limits on furbearers?  

Mink are among the 17 species Colorado Parks and Wildlife manages as furbearers. The agency is considering making changes to how it manages these mesocarnivores.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Courtesy Photo

When it comes to imposing a daily limit on the number of furbearers a hunter can legally kill, the agency has offered two options. The first is a limit of 15 that applies to all furbearer species hunted for sport in Colorado. According to Clellan, this is still the agency’s recommendation. 

The second would apply a limit of eight or four, depending on the species. The higher limit of eight would be applied to species identified by state law as those that can cause property damage: badger, bobcat, beaver, coyote, muskrat, striped skunk, western spotted skunk, raccoon and red fox. The lower limit of four would be applied to mink, opossum, marten, ring-tailed cat, gray fox, swift fox, long-tailed weasel and short-tailed weasel. 

Advertisement

In her memo, Clellan said the reason Parks and Wildlife is considering a limit is in response to perceptions that there is a “regulatory loophole allowing unlimited, unsustainable harvest and a regulatory gap between how furbearers are managed in comparison to small game.”

She added that it would also help maintain “social acceptance” of recreational hunting of furbearers.

“There is no information that suggests reducing harvest is necessary to sustain adequate furbearer populations throughout their respective ranges in Colorado,” Clellan wrote, adding that daily limits would only “affect a small number of hunters or trappers, as the vast majority of Colorado furharvesters take only a few animals, even across the whole harvest season.”

A screenshot from a July 2026 Colorado Parks and Wildlife memo showing population estimates and hunting levels for several “priority” furbearer species, including beaver, gray fox, marten, ringtail, swift fox and bobcat.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife/Courtesy Photo

Should Colorado ban the commercial sale of furs from furbearers? 

In a July issue paper identifying potential options for a ban on the sale of fur, the agency gives three potential options for the commission to consider. Parks and Wildlife indicates that the alternatives offered are “substantially different” from the petition to avoid potential regulatory conflicts.

The first — recommended by Parks and Wildlife staff — is not to implement a ban, citing its previous denial of the petition. Clellan wrote in the denial recommendation that there was no “solid evidence that commercial fur sales drive harvest levels in Colorado.” 

The second option would prohibit the sale of “fur products,” defined as the pelt, hide or any part of a furbearer hunted in Colorado. The third would ban the sale of “raw pelts,” referring to the skin or any part of the furbearer intact with skin that has not been tanned. Both would only apply to fur sales within the state, meaning an animal legally hunted in Colorado could still be sold in another state. 

Advertisement

The agency reports that both of these would have enforcement challenges. 

Both the second and third would exempt any furbearers killed for tribal uses or by private landowners and producers dealing with nuisance animals. The latter is currently legal under a state law that allows these individuals to kill nine of the furbearer species for causing damage to crops, private property or livestock without a license. 

In between the March and July meetings, Parks and Wildlife solicited feedback on a potential ban on its EngageCPW.org website and through several stakeholder groups.

chart visualization

The survey received 726 responses, with 57% opposing a commercial fur sales ban. Opponents said the proposal lacks scientific justification, goes against Parks and Wildlife staff recommendations, could hurt local economies and businesses, and would remove an important wildlife management tool.

About 38% supported the ban, citing animal welfare, ethics and the ecological importance of furbearers. Many said ending commercial fur sales would stop the commercialization of native wildlife, arguing that trapping and fur harvesting are inhumane and that the animals should be managed for their ecological value rather than commercial use.

The commission’s March decision to go against staff’s recommended denial of the petition has raised concerns about the overall direction of the board and agency. 

Advertisement

“The consequence will be that now there is an onslaught of petitions coming your way that will tie up your CPW staff,” said Rio Blanco County commissioner Callie Scritchfield at the commission’s May meeting. “Colorado is moving more and more toward ballot-box biology, and now petition biology. This allows for management based on emotions and politics, and I haven’t seen any evidence that that’s more successful than managing based on our science and experience on the ground.” 

Others, however, supported the commissioner’s decision to allow the petition a hearing. In May, Delia Malone, an ecologist based in Redstone, said the “vote to support an ethical, science-based relationship with our natural world by voting to protect native furbearers from commercialization has been one of the most important votes in Colorado in the last century.”

“The commission has made great progress in moving Colorado towards the ethical ecological light of the moral universe and out of the scientifically unethical world where guns dominate wildlife management, and killing is misconstrued as conservation,” she said. 





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado reports 90 cases of Cyclospora this year: Here’s what health officials want you to know

Published

on

Colorado reports 90 cases of Cyclospora this year: Here’s what health officials want you to know


As health officials investigate a growing multistate Cyclospora outbreak, Colorado public health leaders say there is no evidence of an increased risk from produce sold in Colorado.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has recorded about 90 Cyclospora cases so far this year, according to State Epidemiologist Dr. Rachel Herlihy.

Advertisement

Centers for Disease Control


“We typically annually see about 167 cases of this infection in the state,” Herlihy said. “We do typically see more infections due to Cyclospora in the spring and summertime.”

Cyclospora is a parasite that causes an intestinal infection known as cyclosporiasis. Symptoms typically begin about a week after exposure and commonly include watery diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea.

“It is not pleasant, that’s for sure,” Herlihy said. “But we don’t see high hospitalization rates associated with this particular infection.”

The parasite is most often spread through contaminated food or water. Produce such as leafy greens, herbs and berries has been linked to previous outbreaks.

Advertisement

cyclospora-lettuce-10pkg-frame-657.jpg

Centers for Disease Control


“This particular parasite can be difficult to wash off of produce,” Herlihy said. “It can stay attached to greens or herbs or berries, even after you wash them.”

The warning comes as federal investigators work to identify the source of a growing outbreak affecting several Midwestern states. While the CDC’s public dashboard currently lists only 1 to 10 Colorado cases, Herlihy said those numbers are outdated because they only include reports through the middle of June.

“The outbreak that is occurring outside of Colorado really appears to have started to increase significantly in late June,” she said. “We certainly expect the CDC numbers to go up because the state health department numbers that are not yet reported on the CDC website are much higher.”

Advertisement

Reba Pousma, who lives in the Denver area, has been suffering from symptoms like the parasite for a week. A doctor she spoke with believes Cyclospora could be the cause of her illness, though her source of exposure has not been confirmed.

“It’s definitely different from regular food poisoning,” Pousma said. “I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy.”

cyclospora-lettuce-10pkg-frame-1087.jpg

CBS


She believes her symptoms started after eating a salad last week. She’s still battling stomach cramps, exhaustion and relentless trips to the bathroom.

Advertisement

“I’m on day five now of going to the bathroom over 40 times a day, and nothing has been solid,” she said.

She posted about her experience online, and the video has drawn thousands of comments, many from people who say they’re experiencing similar symptoms.

“There’s a lot of people commenting that they’re experiencing the same symptoms,” Pousma said. “I think some people are worried, and some people are like, ‘Oh my gosh, this is me too. Thankfully, somebody’s talking about it.’”

Unlike the Midwest outbreak, Herlihy said most Colorado cases reported so far this year have been linked to international travel, not food purchased or consumed in Colorado.

When someone tests positive, CDPHE investigators conduct detailed interviews about where they traveled, what they ate, restaurants they visited and grocery stores where they shopped to help identify possible sources of exposure.

Advertisement

Testing for Cyclospora requires a stool sample, typically using a PCR test that detects the parasite’s DNA.

Most people recover without treatment, but Herlihy said symptoms can linger for weeks and may come and go. Antibiotics can shorten the illness, particularly for people at higher risk, including young children, older adults and those with weakened immune systems.

cyclospora-lettuce-10pkg-frame-344.jpg

CBS


For now, CDPHE says Coloradans don’t need to avoid fresh produce but should continue to follow safe food-handling practices by washing produce under cold water, washing their hands before and after handling food, scrubbing firm fruits and vegetables when possible, and refrigerating cut or cooked produce promptly.

Advertisement

“There is no reason to believe that there’s any increased risk of exposure to Cyclospora from eating produce in Colorado,” Herlihy said. “But it is always a good idea to thoroughly wash produce.”

For more information, visit the CDC website.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending