As 2024 comes to an end, it seems the chaos of Colorado River negotiations is only getting more tense. GCI attended the Colorado River Water Users Association (CRWUA) meeting in Las Vegas this month, the largest annual gathering of Colorado River decision makers and stakeholders. If attendees were hoping to find some clarity about what the future of river management will look like under a second Trump administration and a gripping water crisis, they were probably dismayed to see much of the same old “water is for fighting over” mentality we’ve grown accustomed to.

Lower Basin delegates speak at CRWUA. Photo: Luke Runyon, The Water Desk.

Fighting Words

In panel discussions from both the Lower and Upper Colorado River Basin delegates, emotions were high and little was held back. California’s lead negotiator, JB Hamby, called the Upper Basin’s messaging “propaganda,” citing its false claims that the Lower Basin uses more water than they did twenty years ago (the Lower Basin has reduced use significantly). Hamby also pointed out that the Upper Basin is actually moving forward with plans to use more water, aiming to build “pipelines to golf courses.” 

On the other side, Wyoming’s lead delegate called out “the saber rattling” for being “bullshit,” and said that no one can force Upper Basin states to cut use without a compact call. A “call” is a drastic ultimatum built into the Law of the River that says Lower Basin states can call on the federal government to force Upper Basin curtailments if deliveries from Glen Canyon Dam fall short of their legally required amount. A compact call would be an explosive mechanism that would almost certainly open an onslaught of litigation that all parties say they want to avoid. Yet the idea of a compact call was mentioned multiple times at the conference. 

The main topic of CRWUA was, of course, the much-discussed Post-2026 Colorado River EIS, which will ostensibly update the previous 20-year management regime and bring some balance to the river’s supply and demand problem. When conversations around this EIS began a few years ago, there was a lot of hope that it would be the golden opportunity to bring the river back into balance in a way that protects water users, the environment, and Tribes. 

Today, the mood is much more sober. Experts believe this EIS will be shorter term—on the scale of five to ten years—and that it won’t necessarily solve the biggest problems on the river. After all, the states are at a stalemate, funding from the Biden era legislation that bankrolled conservation efforts over the past few years is drying up, and Tribes still have significant water rights that are unused, uncompensated, unsettled, and undeveloped.

The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) presented brief outlines of the EIS alternatives they are analyzing. The descriptions entail different versions of water curtailments in the basin, but don’t necessarily model for the river’s physical infrastructure constraints (like Glen Canyon Dam’s plumbing). A couple elements of these alternatives stood out to us: 

• Nearly all alternatives entail new water accounting approaches, where Upper Basin and Lower Basin water could be stored in opposite basins—not too far afield from the idea behind GCI’s Fill Mead First proposal.
• “Protecting Glen Canyon Dam infrastructure” was mentioned in almost every alternative. Former Deputy Secretary of Interior Mike Connor said at the conference, “we have to fix the engineering at Glen Canyon Dam.”

Given the impasse in negotiations and the precedent of previous EISs, it’s a good bet that the federal government will lead with a heavy hand to force states to come back to the table. 

The Environment 

At the only panel discussion on the environment, it was made clear that the primary environmental concern in this EIS is the Grand Canyon, and preventing the spread of smallmouth bass. In 2022, the voracious invasive fish, adept at preying on native species like humpback chub, was discovered in the Grand Canyon for the first time. As Lake Powell reservoir dropped to historic lows, the fish were “entrained,” getting sucked through Glen Canyon Dam’s hydropower turbines and spit out downstream. This prompted a flurry of proposals to prevent further spread, ultimately leading to “cool mix flows” out of the dam that occurred last year. The results of these flows (and more importantly, two big winters and higher reservoir levels) is that the populations of smallmouth bass did not increase in 2024. By all accounts, this is a near-term success story, but could change quickly when dry conditions return. 

Smallmouth bass. Photo: NPS.

A proposal from The National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service essentially calls for filling Powell first, in an attempt to prevent further entrainment of smallmouth bass, and to allow for High Flow Experiments, which stir up sand for beaches in the sediment-deprived river corridor below the dam. The presenter told the audience that BOR’s analysis of this proposal showed a “near zero percent chance” that Powell reservoir would drop near minimum power pool. This is hard to believe, given the extreme dry periods the river has experienced in recent years, with Powell dropping to within 30 feet of power pool just last year. 

The back of Glen Canyon Dam, when the reservoir was at 24% of capacity last year. Photo: Alex Hager, KUNC.

Had there been an opportunity for audience questions during the panel, we would have asked, “what’s the plan if/when Powell drops low enough for smallmouth bass to enter the Grand Canyon again?” Not only is this scenario possible, it was a reality last year. If the “invasion curve” of these fish progresses, then the entire environmental approach to Glen Canyon Dam and the Grand Canyon will be flipped on its head. The “cool mix flows” employed this year are not guaranteed to happen again, and have been complicated by cavitation at Glen Canyon Dam’s river outlet works. 

Conclusions

Our takeaway from CRWUA was that a drastic overhaul of the system is unlikely, and that the Colorado River crisis will continue to be dealt with incrementally, as it has been for the past two decades. The glaring plumbing problems at Glen Canyon Dam will apparently be dealt with in a different venue, and all the current solutions to address them are some version of propping up the reservoir. This approach will work in the short term, but without preparing for worsening climate change and low reservoir levels, decision makers are setting the system up for disaster.

Glen Canyon Dam’s river outlet works. Photo: Alex Hager, KUNC.

We would advocate that the proposals to modify Glen Canyon Dam, which BOR quietly released to the public last year, be front and center in Colorado River negotiations. The environmental and management implications are too big, and the timeframe of construction too long for dam modification plans to continue behind closed doors. As climate change puts more pressure on the system, the need to modify the dam will become more immediate. 

Not only would this address the impending water delivery crisis for the 25 million people in the Lower Basin, but it would broaden the scope of environmental values to more than just the Grand Canyon. As pointed out in a new white paper by Jack Schmidt, John Fleck, and Eric Kuhn, the physical and societal values of the canyons below and above Glen Canyon Dam have changed, begging for a more cohesive management approach that takes into account resources in Glen Canyon. When Glen Canyon Dam was commissioned in 1956, our hydrology and societal value looked very different from today. 

The old value system assumed that Glen Canyon needed to be sacrificed so that we could store excess water and that the Upper Basin could meet its delivery obligation required by the Colorado River compact. Today, there is no more excess water—not enough to fill either reservoir. And everyone agrees the accounting system that created the “need’ for the dam in the first place is outdated and untenable. The dam’s aging infrastructure has shown its frailty in low water operations, creating a bottleneck for adaptability and flexibility to deal with modern hydrology and climate change. 

Meanwhile the national park-caliber landscape of Glen Canyon has begun to reveal itself upstream, capturing the public imagination and opening up the possibility for one of the greatest restoration sites in the world. The geologic features, precious riparian ecosystems, unique recreation opportunities, and invaluable cultural sites of Glen Canyon are on par with their prized counterparts in the Grand Canyon. 

Hikers take in a restoring section of Davis Gulch. Photo: Spenser Heaps. 

It’s time for Glen Canyon’s values to be acknowledged. It’s time for Glen Canyon Dam’s infrastructure problems to be addressed. And it’s time for this conversation to happen in a way that the public can participate. If the Post-2026 EIS is another short-term fix to keep the “wheels from falling off the bus,” then we need another venue to solve the river’s real problems for the long term.