Connect with us

Colorado

Deadline for Colorado River plan looms. Here’s what’s at stake.

Published

on

Deadline for Colorado River plan looms. Here’s what’s at stake.


After months of tense negotiations, Utah and six other western states are running up against the clock to broker a deal over the drought-stricken Colorado River.

The federal government gave the Colorado River Basin states a Nov. 11 deadline to reach an agreement on how to manage the water supply for 40 million people after the current guidelines expire next year. If they fail, the federal government may come up with a plan for them.

“We’re making steady progress on key issues the federal government has identified, aiming to reach broad alignment by November 11—even if the finer details come later,” Gene Shawcroft, Utah’s Colorado River commissioner, said in a statement. “If we can get there, it may allow the states to retain control of the process and avoid federal intervention.”

The states are still struggling to reach a consensus on key sticking points, though, and Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs on Wednesday called on the Trump administration to “step in, exert leadership and broker a deal,” the Arizona Daily Star reported.

Advertisement

Hobbs said the Upper Basin states have held an “extreme negotiating position” in refusing to agree to cuts on their share of the river.

“Without consensus among all seven states, Interior’s management options would be more limited and less beneficial than what could be achieved through a collaborative approach,” a spokesperson for the Interior Department said. “We are optimistic that, through continued collaboration and good-faith efforts, the seven states can develop the level of detail and consensus needed to meet the initial November deadline.”

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

The river and its upstream tributaries are the lifeblood of the U.S. Southwest and northern Mexico. It supports farms, 30 federally-recognized tribes, habitat for endangered fish and booming metropolises from the Wasatch Front to Phoenix.

The critical waterway is being stretched thin, though, and has been dwindling as hot and dry conditions have plagued the Western U.S. for the past two decades. The entire Colorado River Basin was in drought this year, with large chunks in extreme or exceptional drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

Advertisement

“We’re in just a very dry period over the last 20 years,” said Mark Stilson, the principal engineer for the Colorado River Authority of Utah.

What states are negotiating

For over a century, the states across the Colorado River Basin have managed the river according to the Colorado River Compact. That law divided the region into the Upper Basin — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — and the Lower Basin — Arizona, California and Nevada.

The compact did not account for the historic drought the region has been experiencing, though. The states and Interior adopted temporary guidelines in 2007, 2019 and 2024 that implemented increasing cuts to lower basin states as water levels at Lake Mead drop.

Those agreements expire at the end of 2026, though, and states are now working on a new agreement to manage the river during years of low flows.

Tensions have flared, particularly over one major sticking point: who takes cuts during dry times.

Advertisement

“We need to figure out a way to withdraw less water over the long term from the Colorado River … and fundamentally it comes down to sharing the pain of shortage,” said Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University.

The argument over water cuts

Because Lower Basin states have agreed to take cuts during times of shortage, they argue Upper Basin states must agree to reduce their use, too.

Utah and its Upper Basin neighbors have said that they already reduce their water use each year based on the actual flows of the river. “We scale water use according to the water availability every single year, every week of the year,” said Michael Drake, deputy state engineer at the Utah Division of Water Rights.

While Lower Basin states fall downstream of the country’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, many upstream communities lack such long-term water storage and must adapt according to snow runoff.

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

Advertisement

“We’re always on the brink of disaster, so to speak, if we don’t have good winters,” Stilson said.

Utah’s state engineer has the power to cut water rights when needed. Those with the newest, or most junior, water rights receive cuts first. But even farmers with some of the oldest rights in the state have had to reduce use.

“In Utah, even the 1860 rights were cut by 30 to 40% this year,” Shawcroft said at a meeting of the Upper Colorado River Commission in September.

In neighboring Colorado, the Dolores Project, which provides water to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, received a 70% cut, and the Ute Farm and Ranch Enterprises operated on a 50% supply, Becky Mitchell, the Colorado River Commissioner for Colorado, said at the UCRC meeting two months ago.

While some water users have faced cuts in dry years, researchers have found that the Upper Basin has actually used more water in dry years.

Advertisement

“I just don’t think the claim of these shortages being taken is a legitimate claim,” said John Fleck, a writer and member of the Colorado River Research Group that conducted the study. “It misstates the hydrologic reality of the way water is moved around in the Upper Basin.”

The four northern states used an average of 4.6 million acre-feet of Colorado River water per year from 2016-2020, according to a Bureau of Reclamation report. That’s roughly 3 million acre-feet short of their annual allotment under the compact.

(David Condos | KUER) Farmer and rancher Coby Hunt stands next to idle irrigation equipment in one of his fields near the town of Green River, Aug. 19, 2024. Utah has launched a new program that will pay producers to leave their fields empty, as Hunt has done, and leave their irrigation water in the Colorado River system.

What matters to the Lower Basin, though, is how much water flows downstream to their states. As part of the original compact, the Upper Basin is required to “not cause the flow of the river” at Lees Ferry to fall below an average of 7.5 million acre-feet over a 10-year period.

“We’re perilously close to the point where the Lower Basin will assert that the Upper Basin has not delivered the amount of water that it’s required to under the compact and all of the related agreements,” Porter said. “It’s hard to imagine that unless we have a new agreement, this won’t occur in the next couple of years.”

Advertisement

The tense debate boils down to whether or not the Upper Basin has a “non-depletion obligation” or a “delivery obligation,” Porter added.

If the compact just requires the Upper Basin states to not deplete the river, then they may be able to make an argument that forces such as climate change are causing the reduced flow. If it’s a delivery obligation, then Utah and the three other states may have to cut their own use to make sure the Lower Basin’s and part of Mexico’s allocation flows past Glen Canyon Dam.

The different interpretations are at the crux of what states are hashing out right now.

“When we get less water, it makes it harder for us to be able to honor those commitments in the future,” Stilson said. “And that’s the heart of what the negotiations are about.”

The reality of the river

If negotiators were to agree on cuts for the Upper Basin, Utah’s cities and agricultural communities may not be too happy about having to reduce their water use for farmers and booming metropolitan areas downstream. “[Farmers] struggle with closing down their farms in favor of farms down in California and Arizona,” Drake said.

Advertisement

Lower Basin states have made strides in cutting use, though. The Lower Basin historically used their full allotment of the river, even going beyond their full share at times. But recent data compiled by Fleck shows that those states are projected to cut their take of the Colorado River down to 5.9 million acre-feet in 2025, the lowest level since 1983.

“You have seen these … really significant reductions in water use, and the economies of these communities just keep chugging along,” Fleck said. “Even if you look at the agricultural productivity in places like Imperial, Yuma, they’re doing great with less water.”

While communities would prefer to not cut their water use, Fleck said, desert cities and farms can survive with less. “The alternative is not acceptable,” he added.

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Lake Powell near Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Ariz. on Tuesday, May 20, 2025.

Climate change projections show the Colorado River will continue to have less than it did when the seven basin states negotiated the compact over a century ago. While the current drought has been referred to as a “crisis,” Porter said that word has become overused and “doesn’t have any meaning anymore.” The real crisis may be how managers respond to the new water reality.

Advertisement

“It’s been recognized for a very long time that essentially the Colorado River is over allocated, and that we were going to drive down the reservoir levels. … Where we are now is because the states can’t come to agreement,” Porter said.

If the states reach consensus by Tuesday, they will have until mid-February to hash out the finer details of a plan, according to the Bureau of Reclamation.

“Utah remains fully committed to defending every drop of Colorado River water to protect our communities and water users,” Shawcroft said, “and we’re hopeful that the Basin States can unite around a workable framework before the February deadline.”



Source link

Advertisement

Colorado

Colorado attorney general expands lawsuit to challenge Trump ‘revenge campaign’ against state

Published

on

Colorado attorney general expands lawsuit to challenge Trump ‘revenge campaign’ against state


Attorney General Phil Weiser on Thursday expanded a lawsuit filed to keep U.S. Space Command in Colorado to now encapsulate a broader “revenge campaign” that he said the Trump administration was waging against Colorado.

Weiser named a litany of moves the Trump administration had made in recent weeks — from moving to shut down the National Center for Atmospheric Research to putting food assistance in limbo to denying disaster declarations — in his updated lawsuit.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser speaks during a news conference at the Ralph Carr Judicial Center in Denver on Tuesday, July 22, 2025. (Photo by Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post)

He said during a news conference that he hoped both to reverse the individual cuts and freezes and to win a general declaration from a judge that the moves were part of an unconstitutional pattern of coercion.

“I recognize this is a novel request, and that’s because this is an unprecedented administration,” Weiser, a Democrat, said. “We’ve never seen an administration act in a way that is so flatly violating the Constitution and disrespecting state sovereign authority. We have to protect our authority (and) defend the principles we believe in.”

Advertisement

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, began in October as an effort to force the administration to keep U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs. President Donald Trump, a Republican, announced in September that he was moving the command’s headquarters to Alabama, and he cited Colorado’s mail-in voting system as one of the reasons.

Trump has also repeatedly lashed out over the state’s incarceration of Tina Peters, the former county clerk convicted of state felonies related to her attempts to prove discredited election conspiracies shared by the president. Trump issued a pardon of Peters in December — a power he does not have for state crimes — and then “instituted a weeklong series of punishments and threats targeted against Colorado,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit cites the administration’s termination of $109 million in transportation grants, cancellation of $615 million in Department of Energy funds for Colorado, announcement of plans to dismantle NCAR in Boulder, demand that the state recertify food assistance eligibility for more than 100,000 households, and denial of disaster relief assistance for last year’s Elk and Lee fires.

In that time, Trump also vetoed a pipeline project for southeastern Colorado — a move the House failed to override Thursday — and repeatedly took to social media to attack state officials.

The Trump administration also announced Tuesday that he would suspend potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of low-income assistance to Colorado over unspecified allegations of fraud. Those actions were not covered by Weiser’s lawsuit, though he told reporters to “stay tuned” for a response.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

US Fish and Wildlife backed Colorado plan to get wolves from Canada before new threats to take over program, documents show

Published

on

US Fish and Wildlife backed Colorado plan to get wolves from Canada before new threats to take over program, documents show


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service backed Colorado’s plan to obtain wolves from Canada nearly two years before the federal agency lambasted the move as a violation of its rules, newly obtained documents show.  

In a letter dated Feb. 14, 2024, the federal agency told Colorado state wildlife officials they were in the clear to proceed with a plan to source wolves from British Columbia without further permission.

“Because Canadian gray wolves aren’t listed under the Endangered Species Act,” no ESA authorization or federal authorization was needed for the state to capture or import them in the Canadian province, according to the letter sent to Eric Odell, CPW’s wolf conservation program manager. 

The letter, obtained by The Colorado Sun from state Parks and Wildlife through an open records request, appears to be part of the permissions the state received before sourcing 15 wolves. The agency also received sign-offs from the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.  

Advertisement

In mid-December, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service pivoted sharply from that position, criticizing the plan and threatening to take control over Colorado’s reintroduction. 

In a letter dated Dec. 18, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik put CPW on alert when he told acting CPW Director Laura Clellan that the agency violated requirements in a federal rule that dictates how CPW manages its reintroduction. 

Colorado voters in 2020 directed CPW to reestablish gray wolves west of the Continental Divide, a process that has included bringing wolves from Oregon in 2023 and British Columbia in 2025.

A gray wolf is carried from a helicopter to the site where it will be checked by CPW staff in January 2025. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife photo)

The federal rule Nesvik claims CPW violated is the 10(j). It gives Colorado management flexibility over wolves by classifying them as a nonessential experimental population within the state of Colorado. Nesvik said CPW violated the 10(j) by capturing wolves from Canada instead of the northern Rocky Mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, eastern Oregon and north-central Utah “with no warning or notice to its own citizens.” 

CPW publicly announced sourcing from British Columbia on Sept. 13, 2024, however, and held a meeting with county commissioners in Rio Blanco, Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle counties ahead of the planned releases last January. The agency also issued press releases when the operations began and at the conclusion of operations, and they held a press conference less than 48 hours later.

Advertisement

Nesvik’s December letter doubled down on one he sent CPW on Oct. 10, after Greg Lopez, a former Colorado congressman and 2026 gubernatorial candidate, contacted him claiming the agency violated the Endangered Species Act when it imported wolves from Canada, because they lacked permits proving the federal government authorized the imports. 

That letter told CPW to “cease and desist” going back to British Columbia for a second round of wolves, after the agency had obtained the necessary permits to complete the operation. Nesvik’s reasoning was that CPW had no authority to capture wolves from British Columbia because they aren’t part of the northern Rocky Mountain region population.  

But as regulations within the 10(j) show, the northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves “is part of a larger metapopulation of wolves that encompasses all of Western Canada.” 

And “given the demonstrated resilience and recovery trajectory of the NRM population and limited number of animals that will be captured for translocations,” the agencies that developed the rule – Fish and Wildlife with Colorado Parks and Wildlife – expected “negative impacts to the donor population to be negligible.” 

So despite what Nesvik and Lopez claim, “neither identified any specific provision of any law – federal, state or otherwise – that CPW or anyone else supposedly violated by capturing and releasing wolves from British Columbia,” said Tom Delehanty, senior attorney for Earthjustice. “They’ve pointed only to the 10(j) rule, which is purely about post-release wolf management, and  applies only in Colorado.” 

Advertisement

More experts weigh in 

In addition to the 2024 letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, documents obtained by The Sun include copies of permits given to CPW by the Ministry of British Columbia to export 15 wolves to the United States between Jan. 12 and Jan. 16, 2025. 

These permits track everything from live animals and pets to products made from protected wildlife including ivory. 

The permit system is the backbone of the regulation of trade in specimens of species included in the three Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, also called CITES. A CITES permit is the confirmation by an issuing authority that the conditions for authorizing the trade are fulfilled, meaning the trade is legal, sustainable and traceable in accordance with articles contained within the Convention. 

An image that looks to be from a security camera shows a wolf looking straight at the camera
Gray wolf sits in a temporary pen awaiting transport to Colorado during capture operations in British Columbia in January 2025. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

Gary Mowad, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife agent and expert on Endangered Species Act policies, said “obtaining a CITES certificate is unrelated to the 10j rule” and that in his estimation, CPW did violate both the terms of the 10(j) and the memorandum of agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service, because “the 10(j) specifically limited the populations from where wolves could be obtained, and Canada was not authorized.” 

Mike Phillips, a Montana legislator who was instrumental in Yellowstone’s wolf reintroduction that began in 1995, thinks “the posturing about a takeover seems like just casually considered bravado from Interior officials.” 

And Delahanty says “Nesvik and Lopez are making up legal requirements that don’t exist for political leverage in an effort that serves no one. It’s unclear what FWS hopes to accomplish with its threatening letter,” but if they rescind the memorandum of agreement, “it would cast numerous elements of Colorado’s wolf management program into uncertainty.” 

Advertisement

Looking forward 

If Fish and Wildlife does as Nesvik’s letter threatens and revokes all of CPW’s authority over grey wolves in its jurisdiction, “the service would assume all gray wolf management activities, including relocation and lethal removal, as determined necessary,” it says. 

But Phillips says “if Fish and Wildlife succeeds in the agency’s longstanding goal of delisting gray wolves nationwide,” a proposition that is currently moving through Congress, with U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Pet and Livestock Protection Act bill, the agency couldn’t take over Colorado’s wolf program. That’s because “wolf conservation falls back to Colorado with (its voter-approved) restoration mandate.” And “the species is listed as endangered/nongame under state law,” he adds. 

If the feds did take over, Phillips said in an email “USFWS does not have staff for any meaningful boots-on-the-ground work.” Under Fish and Wildlife Service control, future translocations would probably be “a firm nonstarter,” he added, “but that seems to be the case now.” 

A big threat should Fish and Wildlife take over is that lethal removal of wolves “in the presence of real or imagined conflicts might be more quickly applied,” Phillips said. 

A gray wolf with black markings crosses a snowy area into a patch of shrubs.
A gray wolf dashes into leafless shrubs. It is one of 20 wolves released in January 2025, 15 of which were translocated from British Columbia (Colorado Parks and Wildlife photo)

But it would all be tied up in legal constraints, given that gray wolves are still considered an endangered species in Colorado, and requirements of the 10(j) and state law say CPW must advance their recovery. 

So for now, it’s wait and see if CPW can answer Fish and Wildlife’s demand that accompanies Nesvik’s latest letter. 

Advertisement

Nesvik told the agency they must report “all gray wolf conservation and management activities that occurred from Dec. 12, 2023, until present,” as well as provide a narrative summary and all associated documents describing both the January 2025 British Columbia release and other releases by Jan. 18., or 30 days after the date on his letter. If they don’t, he said, Fish and Wildlife “will pursue all legal remedies,” including “the immediate revocation of all CPW authority over gray wolves in its jurisdiction.” 

Shelby Wieman, a spokesperson for Gov. Jared Polis’ office, said Colorado disagrees with the premise of Nesvik’s letter and remains “fully committed to fulfilling the will of Colorado voters and successfully reintroducing the gray wolf population in Colorado.” 

And CPW maintains it “has coordinated with USFWS throughout the gray wolf reintroduction effort and has complied with all applicable federal and state laws. This includes translocations in January of 2025 which were planned and performed in consultation with USFWS.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Avalanche To Play Mammoth in 2027 Discover Winter Classic in Salt Lake City | Colorado Avalanche

Published

on

Avalanche To Play Mammoth in 2027 Discover Winter Classic in Salt Lake City | Colorado Avalanche


NEW YORK – The National Hockey League announced today that the Colorado Avalanche will be the visiting team in the 2027 Discover Winter Classic and play the Utah Mammoth at the University of Utah’s Rice-Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City. Additional details for the game, including ticketing information, date and start time, will be announced at a later date.

The 2027 Winter Classic marks the first time the Avalanche will play in the event and will be the fourth ever outdoor game the franchise plays in and the first one they’ll compete as the visiting team. Colorado hosted the Detroit Red Wings at Coors Field in the Stadium Series on Feb. 27, 2016, the Los Angeles Kings for the 2020 Stadium Series at Air Force Academy’s Falcon Stadium on Feb. 15, and the Vegas Golden Knights at Edgewood Tahoe Resort for the NHL Outdoors at Lake Tahoe event on Feb. 20, 2021.

“We’re excited and honored that the League selected us for the Winter Classic,” said Avalanche President of Hockey Operations Joe Sakic. “The Avalanche organization is always proud to be in consideration for marquee events like this. We’re looking forward to being matched up with a great team and represent the Rocky Mountain region in a game that appeals to these two markets in this part of the country.”

The Avalanche are 1-2-0 all-time in outdoor games but captured the most recent one at Lake Tahoe by a 3-2 score.

Advertisement

Colorado has faced the Mammoth six times since their inception ahead of the 2024-25 campaign, and the Avalanche have posted a 4-1-1 record. The club also owns a 2-0-1 record against Utah this season, which includes beating them in the home opener when Nathan MacKinnon became the first player in NHL history to record a game-winning goal against 32 franchises.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending