The Great Salt River Initiative - Seven States share water anxiety

Great Salt Lake is the "fuel gauge" of the West, blaring red imminent warning signs of failure for each of the major western watersheds (Great Basin, CO River, Rio Grande, Columbia). The Colorado River is the West's engine, currently sputtering and dying for lack of water to supply the 40M dependent people plus America's winter breadbasket.

But the worst effect (on humans) of losing Great Salt Lake is our loss of protection against climate extremes. Great Salt Lake is our local climate modulator: our summer air conditioner and our winter cold sink; our source of summer humidity and winter lake effect storms.

The below are draft documents for conversation amongst ourselves. They have not been published or peer reviewed. They were developed along with the rest of this site in an un-funded voluntary effort to begin a more constructive dialogue than has been occurring of late. This effort is undertaken with a focus on long-term quality of life for the Great Basin and her inhabitants for the next 100-1,000 years. And the vision shared here is also for the Western United States as well as being globally relevant and extensible.

Western-Water-Insecurity_4Basins_v4_2.pdf

Principles_of_Western_Water_Life_Support_v5.pdf

Western Water Woes: seven states share water anxiety

The Great Basin doesn't recognize state lines....

...Neither does the Colorado River Basin.

What are each state's water anxieties?

(and how can all these possibly be met without NEW water?)

Fields lying fallow in CO western slope communities.

Most CO press described front range water need in preference to Western Slope or downstream water pain. The downstream impacts of this new diversion project remain to be seen.

Colorado (Upper Basin headwaters)

Core anxieties (press & politics)

Fear of being pushed into mandatory cuts for the first time, despite never taking their full legal share and already seeing uncompensated shortages for agriculture on the Western Slope.

Concern that new Front Range and Upper Basin diversion/storage projects (including multiple proposed transmountain projects totaling over 1 million acre-feet) will be politically necessary to “protect” Colorado’s allocation, yet deepen interstate conflict and litigation risk over the Compact “tripwire.”

How Colorado is addressing it

This spring ('26) Colorado will begin filling the 90kAf Chimney Hollow reservoir, pulling water from the Western Slope Colorado River headwaters to satiate the burgeoning communities of Longmont, Erie and Loveland.

Western Slope farmers and irrigation districts are fallowing fields, changing crops, and absorbing involuntary supply cuts, while state and regional entities argue these “natural shortages” mean the Upper Basin already lives within climate‑reduced flows.

Colorado officials are backing voluntary, compensated conservation pilots and pushing to avoid any formal, Compact‑style obligation to cut, while still exploring storage and diversion projects to “use” more of their paper right.

Impact on the rest of the basin

Continued talk of new Upper Basin projects to lock in Colorado’s allocation heightens Lower Basin anxiety that upstream states will take more water just as climate shrinks the river, making post‑2026 negotiations harder.

Reliance on uncompensated agricultural shortages in Colorado to meet downstream deliveries effectively shifts the climate‑driven pain onto rural Western Slope communities while shielding growing Front Range and Lower Basin cities.

Wyoming (Upper Basin)

Core anxieties
Worry that any future “system‑wide” cuts or a Compact reinterpretation will drag Wyoming into losing water rights, given that it is the one state within the seven that produces more than it uses. Of special concern is that the federal government will view Wyoming as easy pickin's if the decision is turned over to D.C.

Concern that climate‑driven flow declines will collide with existing and proposed projects serving energy, irrigation, and small communities in the Green River basin.

Additionally, Wyoming is very angry at Utah for implementing the world's most extensive "atmospheric water theft" program in the cloud seeding that diverts downwind Uinta and Windriver Mountain precipitation to the Wasatch ski resorts.

How Wyoming is addressing it
Aligning with other Upper Basin states in arguing that Lower Basin overuse and structural deficits must be cut first, while supporting a menu of potential new Upper Basin projects to secure its legal share.

Participating in Upper Colorado River Commission efforts that focus on voluntary conservation and federal reservoir operations rather than hard, state‑by‑state caps in the Upper Basin.

Impact on the rest of the basin
The insistence on protecting future development space in Wyoming adds to Lower Basin fears that upstream use will grow even as total river flows shrink, making shared reduction targets larger for everyone.

Wyoming’s alignment with Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico strengthens the Upper Basin bloc in negotiations, contributing to the current stalemate that keeps post‑2026 rules unresolved.

Utah (Upper Basin)

Core anxieties beyond the GSL crisis
Utah's affordable housing crisis is exacerbated by limited availability of develop-able properties due in part to water unavailability.

Rural anxiety over severe shortages in places like the Uintah Basin, where ranchers are culling herds and local economies are squeezed by Colorado River‑related cuts.

Urban and political concern that big growth‑oriented projects (e.g., pipelines and municipal expansions) could be constrained by future Compact‑driven cuts or federal action, especially if Powell nears hydropower failure.

How Utah is addressing it
Negotiating desalination infrastructure for LA in return for Colorado River water rights.

Running a Demand Management program that pays farmers to leave water in the river, though early reporting shows it under‑performed expected savings in 2025 because of hydrologic conditions.

Publicly defending its right to develop more water and signaling willingness to litigate if a new deal imposes mandatory Upper Basin cuts that it sees as unfair.

Increasing its use of cloud seeding and automating the silver iodide dispensing.

Impact on the rest of the basin
Paying farmers to conserve can benefit system storage if the conserved water is tracked and shepherded, but under‑performance and hydrologic limits mean other states cannot yet rely on Utah’s program for predictable volumes.

Utah’s push for growth and resistance to mandatory cuts increases Lower Basin skepticism that the Upper Basin will share in permanent, quantified reductions, fueling a harder line from Arizona, Nevada, and California.

Increased cloud seeding results in increased friction with downwind states whose natural precipitation patterns are disrupted by Utah's "atmospheric water theft".

Pipeline redistribution from Farmington to Gallup.

New Mexico (Upper Basin)

Core anxieties
Navajo and other tribal communities face deep worries that major projects like the Navajo‑Gallup Water Supply Project may be underfunded, delayed, or left incomplete, prolonging inequitable access to reliable Colorado/San Juan water.

Broader concern that shrinking San Juan flows and more volatile hydrology will undermine local agriculture and small communities already on the margins.

Environmental groups, farmers, city leaders, Native American tribes and others who will have to deal with the consequences of negotiators’ decisions have mostly been left on the outside looking in.

How New Mexico is addressing it
Pursuing federal funding and phased construction of tribal and rural water projects while working within the Upper Basin negotiating bloc to avoid binding, state‑specific cuts.

Supporting system‑level measures like selective reservoir releases and conservation, while keeping options open for further development of its legal allocation.

Impact on the rest of the basin
Completing tribal water projects will convert “paper rights” to “wet water,” increasing actual depletions and forcing the rest of the basin to account for long‑delayed but legally senior uses.

New Mexico’s participation in Upper Basin resistance to mandatory cuts complicates efforts to craft a basin‑wide, enforceable reduction scheme that accounts for tribal settlements and climate‑reduced flow.

Arizona (Lower Basin)

Core anxieties
With the entire state under drought conditions, Tier 1 and prospective deeper shortages are already cutting hundreds of thousands of acre‑feet, with the heaviest burdens on Central Arizona agriculture and some tribes; local coverage stresses that Arizona is “living on borrowed time” before even harsher post‑2026 cuts.

Fear that without a new deal, Lake Mead and Powell could reach levels that threaten both water deliveries and hydropower, with Arizona bearing disproportionate pain because of junior priority rights.

How Arizona is addressing it
Accepting current Tier 1 reductions (about 512,000 acre‑feet, roughly 30% of CAP’s normal supply) and shifting much of that burden onto low‑priority agricultural users and groundwater pumping.

Joining California and Nevada in proposing at least 1.5 million acre‑feet per year of Lower Basin cuts in a post‑2026 deal, while insisting that Upper Basin states must share in additional reductions.

Impact on the rest of the basin
Arizona’s early, deep cuts help keep Mead and Powell marginally above critical levels, but concentrating reductions on central Arizona farms pushes food production risk onto rural communities and groundwater systems.

Its hard line that the Upper Basin must also accept binding cuts intensifies the current negotiation impasse that is unnerving Mexico, tribes, and cities across the basin.

Nevada (Lower Basin)

Core anxieties
Las Vegas‑area coverage underscores fear of both deeper Colorado River cuts and a political demand to curb growth, even as the Southern Nevada Water Authority argues it can keep expanding while using less water.

Concern that federal authorities could unilaterally slash Nevada’s relatively small allocation if talks collapse, despite Nevada’s record of aggressive conservation.

How Nevada is addressing it
Implementing some of the most aggressive urban conservation measures in the basin—banning non‑functional turf, restricting evaporative cooling, and imposing steep fees for excessive outdoor use.

Planning for additional voluntary reductions (on the order of tens of thousands of acre‑feet) while publicly framing Nevada as a conservation leader that should not be penalized for others’ overuse.

Impact on the rest of the basin

Nevada’s success in cutting per‑capita use while still growing provides a political template for urban conservation that other cities can point to in pushing outdoor‑use reforms.

At the same time, its insistence that growth can continue “growth‑agnostically” on the back of conservation sometimes clashes with calls from environmental groups and other states to reconsider overall development footprints in the desert.

When "we" gripe about "their" use of water, it just might be our own food we're talking about.

California farms face pressure to boost efficiency as water supply declinesThe demand for water from the Colorado River is of paramount importance out West and the focus of some big battles. It's been especially critical for farming and agriculture. In California's Imperial Valley, there are growing questions over the use of that resource and whether bigger changes are needed. Science correspondent Miles O'Brien reports.

California Lower Basin (and Imperial Valley Winter breadbasket)

Core anxieties
Imperial Valley farmers and local media stress that proposed Colorado River cuts could force reductions to the nation’s largest single block of Colorado River irrigation, fueling fear of a “food crisis” if too much water is shifted to cities.

2026 is shaping up to be a crisis water year, and under such a scenario, the region’s water use would again exceed the river’s flow by more than one-fourth.

Urban and state‑level concern that California will be painted as the villain because of senior rights and historically large use, even though recent years have seen record‑low Lake Mead withdrawals and major conservation progress.

How California is addressing it
Through Imperial Irrigation District and state‑backed programs, paying farmers to temporarily reduce irrigation (e.g., deficit‑irrigating alfalfa) and exploring longer‑term conservation deals funded by federal dollars.

Putting forward plans to accept sizeable but structured cuts while leaning on senior priority to avoid unilateral, uncompensated reductions and to keep the option of transferring conserved water to coastal cities like San Diego.

Impact on the rest of the basin
Conservation in Imperial Valley can free up significant volumes for system storage or urban use, but concentrating cuts in one agricultural region raises questions of equity and long‑term food supply for the broader West.

California’s defense of senior rights and careful framing of voluntary cuts slows a basin‑wide shift toward fully proportional reductions, prolonging tensions with Arizona and Nevada over who gives up how much and when.

CO River Estuary Oct. 26, 2024 in Sonora/Baja CA/Mex.

Mexico (Mexicali Valley Breadbasket)

Core anxieties
Communities and environmental groups in the delta are anxious that as U.S. states fight over shortages, Mexico will face automatic treaty‑based cuts (under Minute agreements) without sufficient say in new operating rules.

Additional fear that moves like reactivating the Yuma Desalting Plant could reduce flows to critical delta habitat and undermine hard‑won binational cooperation.

How Mexico is addressing it
Working through binational agreements (Minute 319, 323 and successors) to secure “sharing” of surpluses and shortages and to dedicate some flows to environmental restoration in the delta.

Partnering with U.S. and Mexican NGOs in projects such as Raise the River to restore riparian habitat, which has already produced measurable rebounds in native vegetation and bird populations.

Impact on the rest of the basin

Environmental flows and restoration in Mexico demonstrate that relatively small, well‑timed releases can produce large ecological benefits, shaping broader arguments that the post‑2026 regime must explicitly reserve water for the river itself.

Mexico’s position that any new U.S. operating rules must respect the 1944 treaty and binational Minutes adds a layer of international law that limits how flexibly U.S. states can reallocate shortages among themselves.

A new report from a coalition of environmental nonprofits is calling for changes to Colorado River management and urging policymakers to act more quickly in their response to shrinking water supplies.

CONCLUSION

The entire basin is in agreement that we must balance our water use with the

natural supply. Despite laudable efforts, we are currently not doing so, at least in

part because the hydrology has been unforgiving. Unfortunately, however, this is the

hydrology we must plan for, with the knowledge that the next few years could be

even worse. While inflows and uses during the next year cannot be predicted with

certainty, using the past year as a proxy for the coming year makes for prudent,

conservative planning. We currently have about 6.3 million acre feet in accessible

storage in Lakes Powell and Mead, and if we continue business as usual, we will

deplete nearly half that amount. That will put us in a very difficult position for the

following year when the new operating regime comes into effect. Near-term actions

must reflect this stark reality.

Conclusion:

There is wide acknowledgement that existing directives for managing Colorado River Basin

waters are inadequate to address the ongoing persistent drought and water uses and do not

account for the basin’s current and projected hydrology. The original basis for the Colorado River

Compact assumed more water than is typically available for consumptive uses, and drought in the

basin has exacerbated this issue. Although recent agreements have conserved water relative to

previous baselines, inflows have also decreased and have regularly fallen short of forecasted

levels. The resulting drawdown of basin storage threatens both hydropower production and

water deliveries. Long-term flow projections estimate that available supplies will continue to

decrease, whereas new demands and diversions (e.g., development of tribal water rights) will

continue to increase competition for scarce resources.

Despite agreement that major water delivery reductions are necessary to protect power generation

and reservoir storage, there remain considerable differences of opinion as to precisely what form

these actions should take. The question of which basins, states, and contractors will be subject to

water delivery reductions, and of what amount, as well as what (if any) mitigation should

accompany these efforts, takes on an added level of urgency due to the river’s economic

importance to many areas. The relative priority of water rights in the basin, compared to priority

for health, safety, and other uses, is a central issue facing decisionmakers charged with allocating

the basin’s scarce water resources. Related questions, including alterations to basin infrastructure

and accounting, are also likely to figure prominently in ongoing basin negotiations. Due to its

unique authorities in the basin, the federal government is likely to be heavily involved in these

discussions.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse