Western Water Policy Program

The Shoshone Instream Flow Acquisition: Public Process Carves a Path Forward

Annie Carlozzi — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:00:00 +0000

The Shoshone Instream Flow Acquisition: Public Process Carves a Path Forward Annie Carlozzi Mon, 12/15/2025 - 08:00

Daniel Anderson

On November 19^th, a rapt crowd gathered both in Denver and online for a six-hour public hearing and deliberation by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) board members. CWCB was meeting to consider a proposed deal to acquire and protect the water rights for the Shoshone hydropower station in the Colorado River as an “instream flow” (ISF). Perhaps more fascinating than the CWCB board members’ approval of the ISF agreement, however, was the open process built on shared values that led to this decision.

The non-consumptive Shoshone water rights, which have been generating power at the Shoshone generating station in Glenwood Canyon for nearly a century, have considerable importance on the Colorado River. Under the proposed ISF agreement, once Public Service Company (PSCo) stops generating hydropower under these Shoshone rights in the future, the water will continue to flow downstream rather than become available to junior users, like those on Colorado’s Front Range. A collection of West Slope entities, CWCB, and (presumably) the federal government will chip in to pay $98.5 million to purchase the water rights and then donate them to the CWCB in perpetuity. The goal: improve the environment on the 2.4-mile stretch in Glenwood Canyon where water currently is diverted out of the Colorado River to generate power before being returned. Importantly, acquiring these water rights would also maintain the fragile status quo for municipalities, irrigation districts, endangered species, and recreation downstream.

Some Front Range municipal water users, like Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern), opposed technical and legal elements in the agreement to change these significant water rights for use as instream flows. After several hours of thoughtful questioning and tinkering with words like “shall” and “may,” the CWCB board members ultimately approved the monumental ISF agreement on terms substantially similar to the proponents’ proposal. The legal transfer of the water rights contemplated in the agreement now heads to Colorado water court (25CW3177). There, the water court process should lead to a decree that ensures the exercise of these water rights matches historical use, and therefore, no injury comes to other Colorado River users.

Characterizing public decision-making processes as wasteful and inefficient is in vogue. Just eight days before CWCB’s approval of the Shoshone ISF agreement, the seven Colorado River basin states failed to meet a deadline on how they plan to manage Colorado River operations after 2026 – all after years of primarily closed-door negotiations. But the CWCB’s process during the Shoshone water rights acquisition facilitated both collaboration and compromise – two critical elements that appear to be missing from the present negotiations regarding the Colorado River’s post-2026 operations. The Shoshone example demonstrates that a public process rooted in shared values can lead to fair, durable, and flexible solutions in complex water management problems.

Finding Compromise through Effective Public Process

Despite the high stakes, the November 19^th CWCB hearing that decided the fate of the Shoshone ISF agreement was remarkably open and fluid. In fact, this hearing was actually an extension from a roughly fourteen-hour opposition hearing that took place September 17^th-18^th pursuant to the public process required by 2 CCR 408-2 (specifically, ISF Rule 6m). The two-day September hearing concluded with a request by CWCB board members to both sides: earnestly pursue mediation with former water court judges to reach a negotiated settlement before the next regular CWCB board meeting on November 19^th-20^th. Two months later, the parties brought back competing redlined versions of the ISF agreement (and even competing bluelines due to fractures among the opposers). Despite returning without a complete settlement, CWCB staff and the Colorado River District (CRD), the named proponents of the ISF agreement, incorporated solutions to some of the opposers’ major concerns. For example, their proposed version provided a mechanism to continue a 2007 agreement that allows Denver Water to jump the seniority queue for Colorado River water using the Shoshone rights under defined “drought” conditions.

Despite this progress, a few issues lingered during the November 19^th hearing. It became evident three hours into the hearing that neither side would surrender on a few aspects of the ISF agreement. And the CWCB board members, representing every major water basin across the state, seemed uncertain whether they really needed to reach a decision that day. But their hesitation was not due to a lack of decisiveness or entrenched positions. Rather, the hesitation reflected concerns with how future generations might look upon this acquisition long after these decision-makers were gone. CWCB board members wrestled with these concerns on hot mics, prefacing questions and statements with their unique expertise and regional perspective.

For instance, Denver Water and Northern warned the CWCB board members that under the proponents’ ISF agreement, the CWCB would cede their statutory authority to CRD in perpetuity due to Section 7B, the collaborative process created for voluntary ISF call reductions. CWCB board members asked clarifying questions of both sides to understand the details of 7B. In limited circumstances, 7B allows CWCB and CRD to jointly decide whether to voluntarily reduce the amount of water flowing downstream under the Shoshone water right. This voluntary reduction was not required by law or any previous agreement but was included by CWCB and CRD to provide opportunities for public input and adaptive action if unforeseen challenges threatened future Coloradans across the state. Rather than shy away from an innovative process due to an unresolved legal argument over CWCB’s exclusive authority, CWCB board members shifted their attention to adjusting 7B’s language to fairly accomplish the aims of such a voluntary call reduction. During final edits on the ISF agreement, CWCB board members ensured that any “affected water user” – not just current opposers – could request this voluntary reduction. They also changed language so CWCB and CRD could make these voluntary call reductions based on future circumstances beyond the already-extensive list of factors found in 7Biii.

The hearing was time-consuming and a bit unstructured, but in the end, quite productive. Ultimately, the hearing officer suggested projecting the proponents’ updated ISF agreement for all attendees to see, then collectively reviewing and editing the ISF agreement live. Under the leadership of Chair Lorelei Cloud, the CWCB board members agreed to this approach. At the end of the night, a modified version of the ISF agreement containing compromise, flexibility, and creative joint decision-making mechanisms was approved by the CWCB board members. The transfer of these rights still needs to clear other hurdles, but in time, CWCB will hold this substantial water right in perpetuity to preserve and improve the natural environment on the Colorado River.

Shrouded Colorado River Negotiations

Compare this with the cycle of closed-door negotiations taking place between the seven basin states over the Colorado River. For the last few years, state negotiators have engaged in clandestine meetings, often in undisclosed locations, at undisclosed times. The public often hears only a few rumors of what is being discussed. Publicly, basin representatives repeat the legal positions that reinforce their proposed management alternative but also commit to continuing the difficult discussions off-the-record. Then the cycle repeats.

This heightened level of confidentiality might be prudent for settlement negotiations involving a sensitive private matter, such as a business dispute. But 40 million people across the American west depend on the Colorado River for their livelihoods. And this closed-door approach centered on the basin states largely excludes Native Nations, many of which cannot meaningfully benefit from their significant reserved water rights to Colorado River water. The current approach further constrains their sovereignty and their relationship with the river.

This opaque method of deciding the shared fate of the Colorado River has understandably generated frustration across the basin. At the Getches-Wilkinson Center’s Colorado River Conference this past June, Jim Lochhead, Colorado’s former top water negotiator, described the current process like “waiting for the black smoke or the white smoke to come out off the seven-state negotiating room.” So far, this conclave-like strategy has been ineffective: the states recently blew through another deadline on November 11^th.

Public Process and Binding Values in Effective Decision-making

It’s fair to say that there are just as many differences as similarities between Colorado River basin management and the Shoshone ISF agreement approval by the CWCB board members. The latter is just one step in the process to change ownership and use of water rights within Colorado law. Once the Shoshone generating station shuts down, this ISF right will improve the natural environment in the 2.4-mile stretch of Glenwood Canyon while largely maintaining the existing downstream flow regime. On the other hand, Colorado River negotiations currently take place between seven states (and impact the interests of two national governments and thirty sovereign tribal governments). That’s a whole lot more cats to herd than the seven major river basin representatives on the CWCB board who undoubtedly have more in common as a headwater state.

But take a step back from those differences, and the potential benefits of embracing a transparent and mission-driven process emerge. At least on November 19^th, that approach ultimately led to a thoughtfully crafted decision to preserve crucial flows in the Colorado River into perpetuity. Such a public process may provide more incentives for negotiators to move off sticky legal arguments and consider reasonable compromises that include everyone with a stake in the Colorado River.

While opening the Colorado River’s management to a more public process could help, the success in the Shoshone ISF acquisition also required shared values. In CWCB’s Shoshone acquisition, even the opposers applauded the efforts to preserve this water for environmental reasons for future generations. To be sure, the opposers still have more chances in water court to question the CWCB’s authority to share some decision-making and quibble with the historical use volumes of the Shoshone generating station. But they also recognized the factors by which the CWCB were making their decision (ISF Rule 6e). And the Colorado legislature gave the CWCB a clear mission: “to conserve, develop, protect, and manage Colorado’s water for present and future generations.” (See also, C.R.S. 37-60-102). While broad, this mission empowers CWCB to balance competing interests in Colorado's rivers and streams, which is exactly what happened during the Shoshone proceedings.

No comparable shared mission glues parties together in the Colorado River Compact of 1922 with equal clarity. There, the major purposes found in Article I are to “provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water; to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin… To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two basins…”. The Compact divided the basin in half and adopted a rigid allocation system in the hopes of preventing future conflict once and for all. Nonetheless, a century of controversies has followed, limiting the options available to future leaders entrusted with managing the Colorado River.

Despite good intentions when drafting the Compact, the basin states lack a body with executive authority and technical staff like the CWCB. Where no such body is directed to carefully weigh collective gains that can be shared by an entire basin, river, or region, the opportunities for creative compromise narrow. Conversely, Colorado statutes require the CWCB to act with all Coloradans in mind, and disagreements by the parties involved in the Shoshone ISF acquisition hearing were frequently couched in this unitive framework. In terms of water management decisions, this led to a relatively fast, inexpensive resolution.

Some deadlines will surely be missed when many parties are involved in making difficult, lasting choices. In the case of the Shoshone ISF agreement, extending the final decision one time after the September hearing was arguably a feature of a functioning, flexible process. Parties reported at the November 19^th hearing that they spent the past two months meeting together. These efforts led to major modifications, incorporating the concerns of various stakeholders while also making concessions that may pay dividends to the entire Colorado River basin.

While certainly not a silver bullet, Colorado River basin states should take a step back to orient around shared values to drive a more inclusive, public process. Armed with these values, Colorado River decision-makers would be empowered to realign their positions from adversaries to allies. This realignment could then inform a new approach, like creating an inter-sovereign commission that serves as a public forum or even updating the compact with a modern water allocation scheme. Future generations will thank today’s leaders for taking that risk.

For Further Reading

Final Shoshone ISF Agreement.

Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2025 Shoshone ISF Acquisition (last visited Dec. 10, 2025).

Matthew McKinney, Jay Weiner & Daryl Vigil, First in Time: The Place of Tribes in Governing the Colorado River System, 63 Nat. Res. J. 153 (2023).

Colorado River Research Group, Colorado River Insights: Dancing with Deadpool 55 (Dec. 2025).

Up Next

Stay tuned for an upcoming piece discussing the CWCB’s authority to share management of its instream flow rights – and what that means for future streamflow protection in Colorado.

Off

Traditional

White

Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool

Annie Carlozzi — Wed, 03 Dec 2025 20:46:16 +0000

Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool Annie Carlozzi Wed, 12/03/2025 - 13:46

In a collection of essays and research summaries, eleven members of the Colorado River Research Group (with eight guest contributors) touch on issues as diverse as plummeting reservoir storage, climate change trends, risk management, agricultural water conservation, equity, and governance, all against the backdrop of the need to fashion post-2026 reservoir operating rules.

Download the report here:
Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool

Chapter 1. Colorado River Reservoir Storage – Where We Stand
Jack Schmidt, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Kathryn Sorensen, and Katherine Tara

Chapter 2. Think Natural Flows Will Rebound in the Colorado River Basin? Think Again.
Jonathan Overpeck and Brad Udall

Chapter 3. The Erosion of the Colorado River “Safety Nets” is Alarming
Doug Kenney

Chapter 4. Water Equity in the Colorado River Basin
Bonnie Colby and Zoey Reed-Spitzer

Chapter 5. The Tale of Three Percentage-Based Apportionment Schemes
Eric Kuhn

Chapter 6. A Humbly Proffered Proposal to Aid the Colorado River System: Conservation Easements & Land Purchases
Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter

Chapter 7. Facing the Future: Can Agriculture Thrive in the Upper Basin with Less Water?
Kristiana Hansen, Daniel Mooney, Mahdi Asgari, and Christopher Bastian

Chapter 8. Towards a Basinwide Entity: Moving from Vision to Action
Matthew McKinney, Jason Robison, John Berggren, and Doug Kenney

Contributors

Colorado River Research Group (CRRG) Members

Bonnie Colby, Professor, University of Arizona.

John Fleck, Writer in Residence, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.

Kristiana Hansen, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.

Doug Kenney, Director, Western Water Policy Program, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School; and Chair, Colorado River Research Group.

Eric Kuhn, Retired General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District.

Matthew McKinney, Co-director, Water & Tribes Initiative; Senior Fellow, Center for Natural Resources & Environmental Policy, University of Montana; Fulbright Specialist 2025-2027.

Jonathan Overpeck, Dean, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan.

Jason Robison, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Gina Guy Center for Land & Water Law, University of Wyoming.

Jack Schmidt, Director, Center for Colorado River Studies, Utah State University, and former Chief, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.

Kathryn Sorensen, Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University; and former Director, Phoenix Water Services.

Brad Udall, Senior Water and Climate Research Scientist/Scholar, Colorado Water Center, Colorado State University.

Guest Contributors

Mahdi Asgari, Postdoctoral Scholar, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.

Christopher Bastian, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming.

John Berggren, Regional Policy Manager, Western Resource Advocates.

Anne Castle, Senior Fellow, Getches-Wilkinson Center, University of Colorado Law School; former US Commissioner, Upper Colorado River Commission; and former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, US Department of the Interior.

Daniel Mooney, Associate Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University.

Sarah Porter, Director, Kyl Center for Water Policy, Arizona State University.

Zoey Reed-Spitzer, Research Assistant, North Carolina State University (formerly University of Arizona).

Katherine Tara, Staff Attorney, Utton Transboundary Resources Center, University of New Mexico.

Download the report here:
Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool

Off

Traditional

White

Broken Trust

Annie Carlozzi — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 15:00:47 +0000

Broken Trust Annie Carlozzi Thu, 10/30/2025 - 09:00

Tribal Nations and communities will experience a 70% reduction in funding - losing $551 million dollars - for access to clean, reliable, and accessible drinking water under the Trump administration’s proposed FY 2026 budget. The President’s budget proposal is clear demonstration of the Trump Administration’s policy priorities and its view of federal responsibilities to Tribal Nations. Broken Trust, a new report from the initiative on Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities describes the devastating cuts proposed to Tribal water infrastructure funding and the inevitable impacts.

Read the full report here:
Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities (UACW), 2025. “Broken Trust: President Trump’s Proposed FY 2026 Budget and Tribal Water.”

Image credit: : Russel Albert Daniels

Off

Traditional

White

Getches-Wilkinson Center Water Law Fellow Position Announcement

Annie Carlozzi — Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:03:40 +0000

Getches-Wilkinson Center Water Law Fellow Position Announcement Annie Carlozzi Mon, 10/20/2025 - 12:03

Program Overview

The Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (GWC) at the University of Colorado Law School invites applications for the next GWC Water Law Fellow – an early-career attorney eager to make a difference in the field of water law and policy.

The Water Law Fellowship offers a one-of-a-kind opportunity to work on today’s most pressing water law reform challenges. Fellows are mentored by leading faculty and practitioners and partner with decision-makers from the nonprofit, government, and private sectors.

Water Law Fellows will be expected to draft at least one paper for publications in the first year and to assist with organizing conferences, workshops, public education events, and other GWC events. Fellows may also publish white papers on current topics, attend conferences on water-related topics, draft blog posts and other communications on emerging issues, and work on other projects that develop in-depth expertise in water law.

Key benefits include:

Personalized research agenda and drafting original scholarship for publication supported by GWC staff and Colorado Law Faculty, focused on real-world water law challenges in the American West, including Colorado River management, interstate water governance, groundwater management, and Tribal water rights.
Mentorship from faculty, GWC staff, and practicing attorneys – opportunities to work alongside GWC’s Executive and Assistant Directors, the Director of GWC’s Western Water Policy Program, and access to GWC’s network of leaders on the Advisory Council.
Opportunities to collaborate with leaders in NGOs, government agencies, Tribes, and private practice.
The freedom to explore creative, multidisciplinary solutions to water challenges in the West.
Travel support to represent GWC at professional gatherings, conferences and networking events.
Organization and participation in workshops, public events and conferences at Colorado Law.

Terms, Salary, and Benefits:

Start date: Flexible between January 1 and September 1, 2026.
Duration: One year, with the option to extend for a second year.
Salary: $75,000/year, plus travel and training support.
Location: Boulder, CO
Benefits: Excellent medical, dental, and transit benefits (ECO Pass) through the University of Colorado Boulder

What we require:

J.D.
At least one year of relevant professional experience or a demonstrated commitment to water issues during law school (judicial clerks encouraged to apply).
Excellent research and writing skills.

What we would like you to have:

Strong academic record.
Background in water or natural resources law.
Experience in environmental research.
Commitment to equity and service to underrepresented communities.
Collaborative, team-oriented approach.

Application Instructions:

Submit the following as a single PDF to Annie Carlozzi (annie.carlozzi@colorado.edu) by Monday, November 17, 2025, at 11:59 p.m.

Cover letter explaining your interest in water law and the Fellowship.
Resume (max 2 pages)
Law school transcript (unofficial accepted)
Writing sample (max 10 pages)

Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis, so early applications are encouraged.

The Water Law Fellowship is open to individuals regardless of race, national origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or gender. We encourage individuals from groups historically underrepresented in environmental conservation to apply.

Contact Information

For more information, please contact Annie Carlozzi, GWC Assistant Director, at annie.carlozzi@colorado.edu

Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment

The Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment advances the truly sustainable management and conservation of natural resources, with a focus on the American West, by:

Influencing natural resources law and policy, including issues of water, land, climate change, and the rights of Tribes and Indigenous Peoples; and

Educating, inspiring and mentoring the next generation of committed lawyers and advocates devoted to justice and equity.

Learn more about Colorado Law

Download GWC Water Law Fellow Announcement

Off

Traditional

White

The 1922 Compact is Now the Obvious Elephant in the Negotiating Room

Annie Carlozzi — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 18:02:46 +0000

The 1922 Compact is Now the Obvious Elephant in the Negotiating Room Annie Carlozzi Tue, 10/07/2025 - 12:02

Eric Kuhn , Anne Castle , John Fleck , Kathryn Sorensen , Jack Schmidt , Katherine Tara

The Colorado River system is inching closer and closer to the “tripwire” in the 1922 Compact. This is the requirement that a specified volume of water pass Lee Ferry, the dividing point between the Upper and Lower Basins, every ten years. Declining flows and depletion of reservoir storage reserves, as well as the need to protect the Infrastructure of Glen Canyon Dam, are challenging our ability to operate the river system in a way that both preserves critical levels in Lakes Powell and Mead and avoids triggering the tripwire. This new paper by Eric Kuhn, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Jack Schmidt, Kathryn Sorensen, and Katherine Tara explains the issues, runs the numbers, and explains the conclusions. The only solution to this unavoidable conflict is a negotiated agreement among the seven Colorado River Basin states.

Read the full paper here.

Off

Traditional

White

State Legislators Focused on Trends and Emerging Concerns in Western Water

Annie Carlozzi — Wed, 01 Oct 2025 19:23:02 +0000

State Legislators Focused on Trends and Emerging Concerns in Western Water Annie Carlozzi Wed, 10/01/2025 - 13:23

Doug Kenney

The Council of State Governments (Western chapter), comprised of state legislators and legislative staff, recently convened in Jackson Wyoming to review a variety of challenging issues facing the western states, including water. The Getches-Wilkinson Center was asked to participate in the lively review of trends and emerging concerns in western water, with a focus on those issues most likely to demand action from state legislatures.

Three interrelated issues dominated the discussion. First, the increasing impact of climate change in the West, especially in the arid and semi-arid regions, is rapidly intensifying water scarcity challenges. This is best shown by the unfolding interstate crisis on the Colorado River, which is quite likely to require the individual basin states to implement new (and often painful) coping strategies. Second, this increased competition for water, when combined with other trends (in subjects as diverse as foreign trade and immigration) continue to strain the viability of ranches and farms throughout the West. Agriculture, especially small-scale family farms, are in decline in many (if not most) pockets of the West. And third, the “federal apparatus” of agencies, expertise, programs, and other resources to deal with these challenges is being aggressively culled, shifting the burden of problem-solving increasingly to the states and state legislators. It is, unfortunately, a perfect storm of bad news.

State decision-makers are finding these challenges particularly burdensome as they offer few opportunities for win-win solutions, and are of a scale (and cost) that is beyond the resources of many states. Nonetheless, dispute the troubling nature of the trends and emerging concerns, most participants remain hopeful that discussing experiences with each other through the CSG-West network will help identify viable paths forward.

Off

Traditional

White

Analysis of Colorado River Basin Storage Suggests Need For Immediate Action

Annie Carlozzi — Thu, 11 Sep 2025 16:21:03 +0000

Analysis of Colorado River Basin Storage Suggests Need For Immediate Action Annie Carlozzi Thu, 09/11/2025 - 10:21

Jack Schmidt , Anne Castle , John Fleck , Eric Kuhn , Kathryn Sorensen , Katherine Tara

Water consumption in the Colorado River Basin continues to outstrip natural supply, causing steep declines in reservoir storage. This paper looks at the realistically accessible amount of storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead and what happens if next year is the same as this year in terms of inflow and uses. The resulting picture is grim. In order to avoid extremely low reservoir reserves at the outset of the next set of operating guidelines, and the corresponding constraints on water use going forward, the prudent course of action is to reduce use immediately.

Read the full paper here.

Off

Traditional

White

Colorado River Remains a Key Focus of the GWC

Annie Carlozzi — Wed, 13 Aug 2025 19:33:07 +0000

Colorado River Remains a Key Focus of the GWC Annie Carlozzi Wed, 08/13/2025 - 13:33

Doug Kenney

As the economic, ecological and cultural centerpiece of the American Southwest, the increasingly dire condition of the Colorado River remains a central focus of GWC activities. Continuing a recent tradition, the GWC joined with the Water & Tribes Initiative in June to bring basin officials, Tribal leaders, water users, and river advocates to discuss the situation in: Turning Hindsight into Foresight: The Colorado River at a Crossroads. With roughly 350 in-person (and 115 Zoom) attendees, participants were tasked with identifying past experiences and lessons that can inform current challenges, beginning with the experiences of the Ancient Puebloans displaced by drought in the 13^th century, to efforts in the early 21^st century to craft the soon expiring 2007 Interim Guidelines, to ongoing efforts to craft new rules guiding river operations after 2026. Not surprisingly, the conversation was a lively union of technical analyses of law, policy and hydrology nested within a spiritually rich foundation acknowledging the deeply personal impact that the declining river has on the people and creatures that call the region home.

Efforts to craft new (post-2026) reservoir operating rules on the river dominate most Colorado River discourse at the moment, with the ongoing Environment Impact Statement (EIS) process expected to result in a Draft EIS by December and a Final EIS (and Record of Decision) by next summer. Those efforts have largely stalled over the last year as the Basin States have, unsuccessfully, attempted to craft a joint Alternative to be included in the analysis, a difficult proposition given that every road forward is likely to result in declining water availability for every state, a painful but mathematically inevitable result of life in a basin where snowmelt-driven natural flows have dropped nearly 20% since 2000. This reality was the backdrop of a public forum in late June where I was paired with Rebecca Mitchell, the Colorado official tasked with representing the state in these negotiations. Speaking before the crowd in Crested Butte, neither of us found much reason for optimism in current trends in climate and hydrology, a situation only magnified by the shockingly low runoff of local streams resulting from what seemed like a relatively healthy winter snowpack. No amount of interstate negotiation—or threats of interstate litigation—can overcome the increasingly consequential impact of warming in the basin.

This tension between the river we thought we had and the river that now exists runs through much of the work of the Colorado River Research Group (CRRG), hosted by the GWC but comprised of over a dozen prominent Colorado River scholars spread across the basin (and beyond). CRRG members are currently drafting a detailed summary of key issues and, in some cases, prescriptions for the river system, focusing on issues affecting nearly all sectors and sub-regions of the basin. It is an increasingly alarming review of trends that, collectively, illustrate the erosion of all the safety nets in the basin: reservoir storage, groundwater reserves, federal drought response funding, and technical support from agencies and universities engaged in Colorado River problem-solving.

It is a challenging time in the Colorado River Basin. More than ever, the GWC is focused on developing new leaders to bring ideas and energy to a basin in need of answers.

Off

Traditional

White

GWC Well Represented at Crested Butte Public Policy Forum

Annie Carlozzi — Wed, 02 Jul 2025 13:27:54 +0000

GWC Well Represented at Crested Butte Public Policy Forum Annie Carlozzi Wed, 07/02/2025 - 07:27

Douglas Kenney

On the evening of June 24, the GWC’s Doug Kenney joined Becky Mitchell, Colorado’s lead negotiator on Colorado River matters, at the Crested Butte Public Policy Forum for a conversation about current and future Colorado River issues. Well over 100 people packed the Center for the Arts for the public event that in previous years has featured speakers as varied as Ted Turner, Sandra Day O’Connor, and the GWC’s Senior Fellow Anne Castle.

The primary focus of discussion was how “big river” issues—that is, the changing rules determining how Colorado River supplies are shared amongst the seven states—impact the availability of water on Colorado’s West Slope. This required a review of the three numbers in the basin that increasingly are out of step: the amount of water entering the system each year through snowmelt and rain; the amount of water consumed by water users throughout the basin; and the amount of consumptive use that has been promised to water users in the Colorado River Compact and other laws. This mismatch of supplies, demands and allocations is not a new problem, but is of particular urgency now as Lakes Powell and Mead are two-thirds empty, the EIS process for new determining new reservoir operations is well underway, and the current year runoff is shaping up as one of the worst in decades.

The conversation was led by Julie Nania, an icon in Crested Butte for her work with High Country Conservation Advocates in protecting Mt. Emmons—the so-called “Red Lady”—from development into a molybdenum mine, as well as her service on the Board of Directors of the Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District and as Executive Director and Faculty Chair of the Coldharbour Institute based at Western Colorado University. Julie began her career at Colorado Law (class of 2011), which included a post-graduate fellowship with the GWC from 2013-2014 working on tribal water rights. Julie stands as a great example of the GWC’s ongoing influence in protecting the resources and places that we all value.

Off

Traditional

White

2025 Conference on the Colorado River

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Jun 2025 17:46:05 +0000

2025 Conference on the Colorado River Anonymous (not verified) Sat, 06/07/2025 - 11:46

The Getches-Wilkinson Center and Water & Tribes Initiative will be co-convening the 2025 Conference on the Colorado River on Thurs, June 5th and Fri, June 6th at the Wolf Law Building in Boulder, CO.

Turning Hindsight into Foresight: The Colorado River at a Crossroads

Once again, the Colorado River is at a crossroads, as the efforts to finalize the post-2026 rules push up squarely against longstanding conflicts, legal interpretations, and notions of equity and inclusivity. Complicating progress is the narrow focus on reservoir operating rules, and the tradition of pushing the thorniest issues to future discussions in largely undetermined forums and unknown schedules. In this event, we assess the current state of progress, focusing specifically on the degree to which emerging steps forward incorporate the lessons learned through past experiences.

We hope you join us for what will be sure to be an engaging 2-day conference bringing together thought leaders from across the Colorado Basin.

Thursday, June 5th and Friday, June 6th

8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. (Mountain Time)
Wolf Law Building, Wittemyer Courtroom

Breakfast, Snack and Lunch provided daily
Attendee reception provided on Thurs, June 5th

15 Colorado CLE general credits have been approved for the conference.

Conference Recording

Conference Agenda

THURSDAY, JUNE 5

Session 1: Modern Challenges Through a Historical Lens. The Colorado River community is now laser focused on the need to adopt new operating rules by the summer of 2026. At this important inflection point in the basin, it is useful to look back, reflect on lessons learned, and turn hindsight into foresight to ensure that the actions we take now are appropriate for the ever-evolving challenges we face in the basin. The session will start by focusing on lessons learned by some of the basin’s first inhabitants: the Ancient Puebloans. It will then review the history of subsequent human settlement in the basin, exploring the legal and institutional principles that shape current opportunities and constraints to achieving a more sustainable future relationship between the people and the river. The discussion concludes with a review of the agreements expiring at the end of 2026: the Interim Guidelines, Minute 319 and the DCPs (drought contingency plans). Each of these frameworks have had successful elements, but each have had shortcomings. This interactive panel will highlight lessons learned, procedurally and substantively, identified by a number of people involved in those decision-making processes.

Session 2: The Aridification of Agriculture. The contributions of agriculture to the socioeconomic fabric of the basin are significant, but the mathematic reality is that it’s likely impossible to balance the regional water budget without major reductions in agricultural water consumption. This session frames the current role of agriculture in shaping the region’s water budget, highlights the practical challenge of funding the inevitable transition, and identifies some on-the-ground pathways for moving forward to a more sustainable future.

FRIDAY, JUNE 6

Session 3: Updates from the Tribes. Thirty tribes in the basin have strong interests (and legal rights) in how Colorado River management evolves. What are some of the most pressing concerns and demands?

Session 4: Rethinking Infrastructure: Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell. “What the River Knows” is a new film exploring how declining Lake Powell levels have resurfaced many environmental and cultural resources in and around Glen Canyon, and what opportunities and imperatives that might suggest for the future of Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell. This is the first “pre-screening” of the film, followed by a panel discussion.

Session 5: Insights from the Basin States. In the spirit of moving from "hindsight to foresight" and respecting that delicate ongoing negotiations preclude the states from publicly discussing positions in any detail, the panel will provide only a brief "status update" on interstate negotiations and then transition into the primary focus on lessons/insights for moving the basin forward in coming years where water scarcity and climate uncertainty are likely to escalate further. This discussion, reliant heavily on audience questions, will be informed by discussions earlier in the event.

Session 6: Looking Beyond the Rule-Making. While the crafting of new reservoir operational rules is the current focus of most attention and debate, thinking longer-term, the basin has several, more fundamental, issues that will demand thoughtful discussion and resolution, a longer-term challenge that will necessitate cultivating new ideas and leadership. In the spirit of turning hindsight into foresight, how do we move past the latest exercise in incremental, crisis management to achieve a healthy, just, and sustainable Colorado River?

Confirmed speakers' bios and head shots can be found HERE.

Anne Castle, Getches-Wilkinson Center
Bidtah Becker, Navajo Nation
Bill Hasencamp, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Brad Udall, Colorado State University
Brian Richter, Sustainable Waters
President Carlene Yellowhair, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe
Celene Hawkins, The Nature Conservancy
Chris Winter, Getches-Wilkinson Center
Chuck Cullom, Upper Colorado River Commission
Colby Pellegrino, Southern Nevada Water Authority
Craig Childs, Author
Daniel Mooney, Colorado State University
Elizabeth Koebele, University of Nevada
Eric Balken, Glen Canyon Institute
Eric Kuhn, Author
Jason Hauter, Attorney for Gila River Indian Community
Jason Robison, University of Wyoming College of Law
Jay Weiner, Attorney for the Quechan Tribe
Jennifer Pitt, Audubon
Jim Lochhead, Consultant
John Fleck, University of New Mexico
John Weisheit, Living Rivers
Joseph "Brophy" Toledo, Flower Hill Institute
Kathryn Sorenson, Kyl Center for Water Policy
Lorelei Cloud, Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Michael Connor, Consultant
Patty Limerick, University of Colorado
Peter Culp, Culp & Kelly, LLP
Peter Ortego, Acadian Desert Consulting
Roger Fragua, Flower Hill Institute
Scott Cameron, U.S. Department of the Interior
Governor Stephen Roe Lewis, Gila River Indian Community
Tahlia Bear, Western Resource Advocates
Terri Bissonette, Tribal Leadership Programs, NWF/WTI

Thank you to our 2025 Conference Partners:
Walton Family Foundation
Conscience Bay Company
Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti, LLP

Water & Tribes Initiative 2025 Partners

Off

Traditional

White

Western Water Policy Program

The Shoshone Instream Flow Acquisition: Public Process Carves a Path Forward

Off

Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool

Download the report here: Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool

Contents

Contributors

Download the report here:Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool

Off

Broken Trust

Off

Getches-Wilkinson Center Water Law Fellow Position Announcement

Contact Information

Off

The 1922 Compact is Now the Obvious Elephant in the Negotiating Room

Off

State Legislators Focused on Trends and Emerging Concerns in Western Water

Off

Analysis of Colorado River Basin Storage Suggests Need For Immediate Action

Off

Colorado River Remains a Key Focus of the GWC

Off

GWC Well Represented at Crested Butte Public Policy Forum

Off

2025 Conference on the Colorado River

Turning Hindsight into Foresight: The Colorado River at a Crossroads

Off

Download the report here:
Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool

Download the report here:
Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool