Colorado
US Plans to Limit Water Usage from Colorado River
The U.S. government plans to reduce the amount of Colorado River water several states are permitted to use next year.
The river supplies water to seven Western states, more than 20 Native American tribes, and two states in Mexico.
Those states and the country of Mexico are also considering plans for how to share the water after 2026. That is when many current rules and agreements about the use of Colorado River water will come to an end.
The river brings water to millions of hectares of farmland in the American West. Hydroelectric dams on the river produce power. Experts say increased water use, combined with rising temperatures and dry weather, are the reasons for the need to make cuts.
In 2007, following years of dry weather, the U.S. states in the river’s basin and the federal government agreed to rules to help deal with lower water levels. The states involved were Arizona, Nevada, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
Those rules determine when some of the states must cut their water usage based on levels at Lake Mead. The lake is on the border of Nevada and Arizona. It provides water for hydropower, farming, and other needs.
Because of the need for new rules, states, Native American tribes, and others are forming new plans to deal with even deeper water cuts that might happen in 2026.
The federal government will announce water cuts for 2025 based on levels at Lake Mead. If Lake Mead drops below a level that has been agreed to, Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico will face cuts. However, California might not face cuts because the current rules give that state special water rights.
Last year, Arizona, California and Nevada agreed to save an extra 3 million acre-feet of water in addition to the cuts the federal government had already required. An “acre-foot” is equal to about 1.2 million liters. In return, the U.S. government agreed to pay water districts and other users for much of that reduction in water use.
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming are in the river’s Upper Basin. Those states have not used all of the water the rules permit them to use. For this reason, they have not yet had to reduce the amount of water they take from the river.
Wet weather in 2023 and efforts to save water by Lower Basin states have increased the level of Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Lake Powell in Utah is another body of water that holds and releases water from the river.
However, experts say higher temperatures will continue to reduce water in the Colorado River in the coming years.
In March, Upper and Lower Basin states, tribes and environmental groups proposed plans to deal with likely water reductions in the future.
Arizona, California and Nevada asked the federal government to include water levels at other reservoirs besides Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Their plan says that if the whole system drops below 38 percent of the maximum amount of water it can hold, the Upper Basin and Mexico should share deeper cuts equally with the Lower Basin.
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming want larger and sooner cuts when water is low at Lake Mead and Lake Powell. The cuts would affect California, Arizona and Nevada. Their plan does not call for reductions in how much water Upper Basin states use.
The federal government is expected to propose new rules by December. The rules would consider the different plans and possible steps for the future. Until then, states, tribes and other groups will continue negotiations on water.
I’m Andrew Smith. And I’m Anna Matteo.
Suman Naishadham wrote this story for The Associated Press. Andrew Smith adapted it for VOA Learning English.
________________________________________________
Words in This Story
basin –n. the area drained by a river
determine –v. to officially decide
acre-feet –n. a measure of volume used specifically in the United States for large-scale water use which is equal to about 1.2 million liters
district –n. a special area created by a government for a special purpose
reservoir –n. a body of water usually formed by a dam that is meant to be used as a water supply
Colorado
Toyota Game Recap: 2/25/2026 | Colorado Avalanche
ColoradoAvalanche.com is the official Web site of the Colorado Avalanche. Colorado Avalanche and ColoradoAvalanche.com are trademarks of Colorado Avalanche, LLC. NHL, the NHL Shield, the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup and NHL Conference logos are registered trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P. Copyright © 1999-2025 Colorado Avalanche Hockey Team, Inc. and the National Hockey League. All Rights Reserved. NHL Stadium Series name and logo are trademarks of the National Hockey League.
Colorado
Colorado State grinds out sixth-straight win, continues February surge in Mountain West
Colorado
Colorado Congressional Democrats demand ICE abandon plans for Hudson immigration detention center
Three of Colorado’s congressional Democrats are calling on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to abandon plans to open a new immigration detention facility in the small Weld County town of Hudson.
“As ICE agents continue to terrorize our communities, illegally detain U.S. citizens and skirt congressional oversight of existing facilities, we strongly oppose the expansion of ICE detention beds in Colorado,” U.S. Rep. Brittany Petterson and Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and acting ICE director Todd Lyons.
Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado revealed that ICE had identified a defunct private prison in Hudson as the site for a new immigration detention center, the Big Horn Facility, that would expand detention beds from 1,532 at ICE’s existing detention facility in Aurora to more than 2,700 beds across the state.
The documents showed that ICE issued a contract to the GEO Group for $39,042,069 for six months of services at the Big Horn Facility, according to the congressional letter. The documents were heavily redacted, so details about the contract — including terms and pricing — were not yet known. The status of the contract remains unclear.
DHS representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
“We are deeply concerned that this expansion will lead to decreased oversight, reduced access to legal representation for detained individuals and increased geographical barriers for visitors,” Petterson, Bennet and Hickenlooper wrote. “The GEO Group and ICE have a demonstrated history of blocking Congressional oversight of the Aurora GEO Detention Facility by refusing Members of Congress access to the facility, withholding answers to oversight questions, and failing to respond to congressional casework inquiries. There is no reason to believe that these illegal actions will not be continued in the Big Horn Facility.”
ICE also redacted more than 100 pages of documents from late August that appeared to justify why the agency should award a sole contract to the GEO Group for the Hudson facility without full and open competition.
The possible ICE expansion into Hudson has drawn opposition from across Colorado. Protesters have gathered outside the former private prison multiple times and flooded the small town’s council meetings, pleading with Hudson leaders to push back against the proposed plans.
The congressional letter noted that the facility’s remote location would hinder family and legal representatives from visiting detained immigrants, delaying legal proceedings and limiting access to counsel.
“We therefore seek clarity into the Department of Homeland Security decision to authorize such a facility and what actions it will take to ensure those detained in the facility will have equal and adequate access to legal representation as their cases remain ongoing,” they wrote. “We strongly oppose the use of the Big Horn Detention Center as an ICE detention facility, and we urge DHS to immediately abandon plans to expand detention capacity in Colorado.”
Pettersen, Bennet and Hickenlooper requested responses to eight questions by March 13. They asked for confirmation that the GEO Group had already received and spent nearly $39 million prior to anyone being detained in the facility, and requested an itemized explanation of how that money was spent.
They also asked how many beds ICE expects the facility to hold and what steps will be taken to ensure health and safety standards are met.
Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.
-
World15 hours agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts24 hours agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana7 days ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Louisiana3 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology5 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Culture1 week agoTest Your Knowledge of the Authors and Events That Helped Shape the United States
-
Technology5 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making