Connect with us

Nevada

California, Arizona and Nevada all agree: The Trump administration needs to fix a key Colorado River dam

Published

on

California, Arizona and Nevada all agree: The Trump administration needs to fix a key Colorado River dam


Representatives of California, Arizona and Nevada are urging the Trump administration to take a different approach in confronting the problems of the water-starved Colorado River.

As Trump’s appointees inherit the task of writing new rules for dealing with the river’s chronic water shortages, the three states are raising several concerns they want to see addressed. One of their top asks: consider fixing or overhauling Glen Canyon Dam.

The infrastructure problems at the dam in northern Arizona have come into focus over the last few years. If the levels of Lake Powell continue to decline and reach critically low levels, water could be released only through four 8-foot-wide steel tubes, potentially limiting how much could pass downstream to the three states and Mexico.

Last year, federal officials discovered damage inside those four tubes that could severely restrict water flow when reservoir levels are low, raising risks the Southwest could face major shortages that were previously unforeseen.

Advertisement

“It’s a better situation to have the dam actually function without tripping us up and forcing massive reductions,” said JB Hamby, California’s Colorado River commissioner. Making fixes to Glen Canyon Dam, he said, “would prevent the need for draconian reductions.”

Hamby and officials representing the governors of Arizona and Nevada presented their concerns in a letter to the Trump administration last month.

They urged Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to scrap a report the Biden administration released in November outlining options for new water management rules, arguing that it failed to consider their proposals and would violate the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the foundational agreement that apportions the water.

For one thing, they said, the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the river’s dams, “must evaluate the impacts of infrastructure repairs, modifications and enhancements at Glen Canyon Dam” as part of its analysis of options.

The Colorado River provides water for cities from Denver to Los Angeles, 30 Native tribes and farmlands from the Rocky Mountains to northern Mexico. California relies on Colorado River water to supply farmlands in the Imperial Valley and the Coachella Valley, as well as cities from Palm Springs to San Diego.

Advertisement

The river’s water has long been overused and its reservoirs have declined dramatically since 2000. The average flow of the river has shrunk about 20% in that time, and while drought is partly to blame, scientists have estimated that roughly half the decline in flow has been caused by global warming driven by the burning of fossil fuels and rising levels of greenhouse gases.

The water level of Lake Powell, the nation’s second-largest reservoir, now stands at 34% of capacity. The reservoir’s surface is currently 71 feet above a threshold at which water could no longer flow through the dam’s main intakes and would instead have to move through the low-level bypass tubes — called the river outlet works.

The dam’s managers said last year that they had spotted deterioration in these bypass tubes, and federal officials have said they are analyzing options for fixes — but have been doing this on a separate track from the writing of new rules for sharing shortages.

The three states’ representatives said in their Feb. 13 letter that failing to consider these “infrastructure limitations” as part of the new rules would violate the law.

“The prior administration’s approach to protecting the Lake Powell outlet works by reducing releases from Lake Powell — rather than making infrastructure repairs and improvements — is shortsighted,” they wrote. They said this approach would harm the three states “by slashing the water available to our farmers, communities, and economies.”

Advertisement

Lake Powell has shimmered between Glen Canyon’s reddish sandstone walls along the Arizona-Utah border since the dam was completed in the 1960s.

But Glen Canyon Dam has been controversial since its inception, with environmentalists arguing the reservoir was unnecessary and destroyed the canyon’s pristine ecosystem. In recent years, advocates of river restoration have called for reengineering the dam and gradually draining Lake Powell to store the water downstream in Lake Mead near Las Vegas.

Hamby said the dam was “built in not a great way.” He likened it to a defective gas tank in a car that would stop working if it was less than half full.

“You’ve got a couple options. You could either constantly gas up your car or you could just stop driving,” Hamby said. “But a better option is, go get your car fixed.”

The push by California for the federal government to take a different approach is occurring alongside persistent disagreements that have left two camps at an impasse. On one side are the states in the river’s lower basin — California, Arizona and Nevada — which have been deadlocked in negotiations with the states in the river’s upper basin: Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico.

Advertisement

Those on both sides say they are willing to continue trying to reach a deal on how to apportion cutbacks in water use after 2026, when the current rules expire.

In their letter, Hamby, Tom Buschatzke of Arizona and John Entsminger of Nevada suggested that the potential water-supply bottleneck at Glen Canyon Dam could be “avoided by some combination of straightforward engineering fixes, moving water to Lake Powell from upstream reservoirs when necessary, and temporary reductions in upper basin use.”

They said they would strongly support a “collaborative, consensus-driven approach,” but they also suggested that without a consensus, ongoing disputes among the Colorado River Basin’s seven states might end in court battles.

In response to questions about the states’ letter, a spokesperson for Bureau of Reclamation said in an email that the agency is “actively engaging in dialogue with the Colorado River Basin partners as we work toward long-term operational agreements for the river after 2026.”

The three states stressed in the letter that the 1922 Colorado River Compact requires the upper basin states to deliver an annual average of 7.5 million acre-feet to California, Arizona and Nevada over any 10-year period. If water deliveries were to decrease below that required minimum, that would enable the lower basin states to make a so-called compact call and require the upper basin states to cut their water usage.

Advertisement

The letter mentioned a potential compact call 23 times. It said this outcome is “reasonably foreseeable” in the coming years if the states don’t reach an agreement, and that the implications must be considered in the federal government’s review of alternatives.

“Ultimately, having a strong federal role to motivate people to come together and come to a compromise is essential,” Hamby said, “in order to get us to a place where we sustainably manage the river and don’t end up in litigation.”

Environmentalists said they agree with California, Arizona and Nevada.

“What the letter really is trying to do is force the Bureau of Reclamation to rebuild those bypass tubes so that they will pass enough water,” said Gary Wockner, executive director of the Colorado nonprofit group Save The World’s Rivers. “There needs to be an infrastructure solution that allows water to get through or around that dam in order for the Colorado River Compact to not be violated.”

During the Biden administration, federal officials said they were studying the possibility of overhauling the dam. They discussed proposals such as penetrating through the dam’s concrete to make new lower-level intakes, or tunneling a shaft around either side of the dam, among other options.

Advertisement

The Bureau of Reclamation announced in September that the agency was spending $8.9 million relining the bypass tubes, where the original coal-tar coating was “showing normal signs of wear and tear” after more than 60 years of use. The agency said this maintenance work, expected to take about a year, will not prevent the risk of additional “cavitation” when reservoir levels are low — which refers to the formation and collapse of air bubbles in flowing water, and which can pit and tear into metal, damaging infrastructure. The agency said it was “working on reducing that risk” by developing interim procedures and carrying out “additional analyses.”

But the three states indicated in their letter they believe the government must do more to address what they see as problems in the dam’s design.

“The reason that they wrote this letter is because they see a very serious water delivery risk at Glen Canyon Dam,” said Eric Balken, executive director of the nonprofit Glen Canyon Institute.

“The writing is on the wall that something has to be done sooner than later,” he said. “If we want to actually fix this river system for the long term, we have to have a thorough debate about how to reengineer Glen Canyon Dam.”

Advertisement



Source link

Nevada

2026 lunar eclipse visible in Nevada. How to watch

Published

on

2026 lunar eclipse visible in Nevada. How to watch


play

A lunar eclipse will be in Nevada skies late Monday night — or, more accurately, early Tuesday morning, March 3.

The downside is the hour: you’ll have to be up very late or very early, depending on your perspective.

Advertisement

Unlike a solar eclipse, which occurs when the moon passes between the Earth and the sun, a lunar eclipse happens when Earth casts its shadow on the moon, creating a rusty red hue.

If you’re looking to see the lunar eclipse, here’s everything you need to know about viewing it in Nevada.

What eclipse is in 2026?

If you live in the U.S., you will be able to see the lunar eclipse starting at 12:44 a.m. PST Tuesday, March 3, 2026, according to NASA. During the night, you’ll see the moon in a reddish hue, or a blood moon.

Totality lasts for a little more than an hour before the moon begins to emerge from behind Earth’s shadow, according to the popular site timeanddate.com. As the moon moves into Earth’s shadow, also known as the umbra, it appears red-orange or a “ghostly copper color,” hence its name: blood moon, NASA says.

Advertisement

“During a lunar eclipse, the moon appears red or orange because any sunlight that’s not blocked by our planet is filtered through a thick slice of Earth’s atmosphere on its way to the lunar surface,” NASA says. “It’s as if all the world’s sunrises and sunsets are projected onto the moon.”

Countdown clock to the 2026 total lunar eclipse

If you live in the U.S., you will be able to see the eclipse starting at 12:44 a.m. PST Tuesday, March 3, 2026.

The entire eclipse will last about six hours. People in Nevada can see the lunar eclipse during the early morning hours of Tuesday, March 3, 2026. The total lunar eclipse will be visible in North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Asia, Australia and Antarctica.

Everything will be over by 6:23 a.m. PST on March 3, 2026. Below is a countdown clock for the 2026 total lunar eclipse.

Where are the best places to see the lunar eclipse near Reno?

Though the Biggest Little City has an abundance of light pollution, darker skies are less than an hour from Reno.

Advertisement
  1. Fort Churchill State Park: The park provides a dark night sky ideal for evening astronomical events among the ruins of Fort Churchill. Park entrance costs $5 for Nevada residents and $10 for nonresidents.
  2. Pyramid Lake: A popular spot for Renoites seeking a night of stargazing, the lake is less than an hour from The Biggest Little City. It offers beautiful natural wonders and dark skies that give a clear view of the lunar eclipse.
  3. Lake Tahoe: Multiple locations around the lake are excellent for stargazing that are less than an hour from Reno.
  4. Cold Springs or Hidden Valley still get light pollution from the Biggest Little City, but have clearer skies than the middle of town.
  5. Driving down the road on USA Parkway will likely also give you the dark skies to see the lunar eclipse without having to make a significant drive outside of town.

Carly Sauvageau with the Reno Gazette Journal contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

Nevada

How the strikes on Iran could impact gas prices in northern Nevada

Published

on

How the strikes on Iran could impact gas prices in northern Nevada


The United States and Israel launched targeted attacks on Iran on Saturday. The move brought new uncertainty into global energy markets, as northern Nevadans could be paying more at the pump in the coming weeks.

Following the strikes, oil prices increased. Brent crude, the international benchmark, jumped to roughly $73 a barrel, while the national benchmark, West Texas Intermediate, traded above $67.

Much of the concern centers around the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman. which carries about a fifth of the world’s oil supplies.

Patrick de Haan, head of petroleum analysis with GasBuddy, a price tracking company, spoke on the current questions in the region.

Advertisement

“The known would reduce oil prices if there becomes clarity, but it’s the unknown that is stoking fears…. If there is some sort of clarity in the days ahead, whether from Iran, the United States, or Israel, on how long this would last. We’d be able to put potentially an end date for the potential impacts that we’re seeing,” said de Haan.

Experts say for every $5 to $10 increase in oil prices, drivers could pay 15 to 25 cents more per gallon.

According to Triple-A, the average price of a gallon of gas in Nevada on Sunday comes in at $3.70, which comes in above the national average of roughly $2.98.

Over at the Rainbow Market on Vassar Street, prices sat just below four dollars a gallon on Sunday. Reno resident Abran Reyes talked about gas prices potentially going up.

“Whether it’s to work, to maybe run errands, to do stuff that helps you, gas is essential…. That gas price really hits, especially in today’s economy, where gas prices are extraordinary…. I just hope everyone’s safe. I hope our soldiers and all of our troops can be okay,” said Reyes.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Nevada

Nevada debuts public option amid federal health care shifts

Published

on

Nevada debuts public option amid federal health care shifts


More than 10,000 people have enrolled in Nevada’s new public option health plans, which debuted last fall with the expectation that they would bring lower prices to the health insurance market.

Those preliminary numbers from the open enrollment period that ended in January are less than a third of what state officials had projected. Nevada is the third state so far to launch a public option plan, along with Colorado and Washington state. The idea is to offer lower-cost plans to consumers to expand health care access.

But researchers said plans like these are unlikely to fill the gaps left by sweeping federal changes, including the expiration of enhanced subsidies for plans bought on Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

The public option gained attention in the late 2000s when Congress considered but ultimately rejected creating a health plan funded and run by the government that would compete with private carriers in the market. The programs in Washington state, Colorado, and Nevada don’t go that far — they aren’t government-run but are private-public partnerships that compete with private insurance.

Advertisement

In recent years, states have considered creating public option plans to make health coverage more affordable and to reduce the number of uninsured people. Washington was the first state to launch a program, in 2021, and Colorado followed in 2023.

Washington and Colorado’s programs have run into challenges, including a lack of participation from clinicians, hospitals, and other care providers, as well as insurers’ inability to meet rate reduction benchmarks or lower premiums compared with other plans offered on the market.

Nevada law requires that the carriers of the public option plans — Battle Born State Plans, named after a state motto — lower premium costs compared with a benchmark “silver” plan in the marketplace by 15% over the next four years.

But that amount might not make much difference to consumers with rising premium payments from the loss of the ACA’s enhanced tax credits, said Keith Mueller, director of the Rural Policy Research Institute.

Advertisement

“That’s not a lot of money,” Mueller said.

Three of the eight insurers on the state’s exchange, Nevada Health Link, offered the state plans during the open enrollment period.

Insurance companies plan to meet the lower premium cost requirement in Nevada by cutting broker fees and commissions, which prompted opposition from insurance brokers in the state. In response, Nevada marketplace officials told state lawmakers in January that they will give a flat-fee reimbursement to brokers.

The public option has faced opposition among state leaders. In 2024, a state judge dismissed a lawsuit, brought by a Nevada state senator and a group that advocates for lower taxes, that challenged the public option law as unconstitutional. They have appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Federal Policy Impacts

Recent federal changes create more obstacles.

Advertisement

Nevada is consistently among the states with the largest populations of people who do not have health insurance coverage. Last year, nearly 95,000 people in the state received the enhanced ACA tax credits, averaging $465 in savings per month, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

But the enhanced tax credits expired at the end of the year, and it appears unlikely that lawmakers will bring them back. Nationwide ACA enrollment has decreased by more than 1 million people so far this year, down from record-high enrollment of 24 million last year.

About 4 million people are expected to lose health coverage from the expiration of the tax credits, according to the Congressional Budget Office. An additional 3 million are projected to lose coverage because of other policy changes affecting the marketplace.

Justin Giovannelli, an associate research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, said the changes to the ACA in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, will make it more difficult for people to keep their coverage. These changes include more frequent enrollment paperwork to verify income and other personal information, a shortened enrollment window, and an end to automatic reenrollment.

In Nevada, the changes would amount to an estimated 100,000 people losing coverage, according to KFF.

Advertisement

“All of that makes getting coverage on Nevada Health Link harder and more expensive than it would be otherwise,” Giovannelli said.

State officials projected ahead of open enrollment that about 35,000 people would purchase the public option plans. Of the 104,000 people who had purchased a plan on the state marketplace as of mid-January, 10,762 had enrolled in one of the public option plans, according to Nevada Health Link.

Katie Charleson, communications officer for the state health exchange, said the original enrollment estimate was based on market conditions before the recent increases in customers’ premium costs. She said that the public option plans gave people facing higher costs more choices.

“We expect enrollment in Battle Born State Plans to grow over time as awareness increases and as Nevadans continue seeking quality coverage options that help reduce costs,” Charleson said.

According to KFF, nationally the enhanced subsidies saved enrollees an average of $705 annually in 2024, and enrollees would save an estimated $1,016 in premium payments on average in 2026 if the subsidies were still in place. Without the subsidies, people enrolled in the ACA marketplace could be seeing their premium costs more than double.

Advertisement

Insights From Washington and Colorado

Washington and Colorado are not planning to alter their programs due to the expiration of the tax credits, according to government officials in those states.

Other states that had recently considered creating public options have backtracked. Minnesota officials put off approving a public option in 2024, citing funding concerns. Proposals to create public options in Maine and New Mexico also sputtered.

Washington initially saw meager enrollment in its Cascade Select public option plans; only 1% of state marketplace enrollees chose a public option plan in 2021. But that changed after lawmakers required hospitals to contract with at least one public option plan by 2023. Last year the state reported that 94,000 customers enrolled, accounting for 30% of all customers on the state marketplace. The public option plans were the lowest-premium silver plans in 31 of Washington’s 39 counties in 2024.

A 2025 study found that since Colorado implemented its public option, called the Colorado Option, coverage through the ACA marketplace has become more affordable for enrollees who received subsidies but more expensive for enrollees who did not.

Colorado requires all insurers offering coverage through its marketplace to include a public option that follows state guidelines. The state set premium reduction targets of 5% a year for three years beginning in 2023. Starting this year, premium costs are not allowed to outpace medical inflation.

Advertisement

Though the insurers offering the public option did not meet the premium reduction targets, enrollment in the Colorado Option has increased every year it has been available. Last year, the state saw record enrollment in its marketplace, with 47% of customers purchasing a public option plan.

Giovannelli said states are continuing to try to make health insurance more affordable and accessible, even if federal changes reduce the impact of those efforts.

“States are reacting and trying to continue to do right by their residents,” Giovannelli said, “but you can’t plug all those gaps.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact KFF Health News and share your story.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending