Colorado water managers say a state-run conservation program planned for 2027 is in jeopardy as they wait on an agreement with federal officials.
Before they open the application period for a new conservation program, state officials want assurance from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that conserved water they store in Lake Powell won’t just be released downstream for Lower Basin use.
In September, the state water board approved the application review process and criteria for what state officials are calling Colorado’s near-term contribution program for 2027. The program aims to use nearly $100 million in funding from Reclamation to pay water users in the Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) to voluntarily cut back.
But that approval depends upon whether Colorado can get credit for and have control over the stored water. State officials said repeatedly at an Oct. 21 meeting with the Colorado River Water Conservation District that they need assurance in writing from Reclamation that the pool of stored water must be “operationally neutral” — meaning it would not be factored into reservoir releases or used by the Lower Basin — before they move forward with a state-run program.
Amy Ostdiek, interstate section chief with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, state engineer Jason Ullmann and Becky Mitchell, the Upper Colorado River Commission’s Colorado representative, fielded questions from River District board members.
“Essentially, we don’t want to move forward with any of this process with opening the application window, going through all of this, unless and until we have that assurance from Reclamation that this water is not simply going to be released downstream,” Ostdiek told River District board members.
Federal officials say operational neutrality for a conservation pool in Lake Powell will require approval from the Lower Basin states (California, Arizona and Nevada). At a UCRC meeting Oct. 19, the Upper Basin states approved a grant implementation agreement, which allows Reclamation to administer the contribution program grant money to the states.
But according to a prepared statement by Wayne Pullan, Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Basin regional director, the grant agreement “does not establish any new terms for how conserved or contributed water will be credited to the system or subsequently released — that will require a separate process and agreement, as well as consensus among the seven basin states.”
The new two-year federal operating plan for the Colorado River, which was adopted in August, calls for 1.25 million acre-feet of mandatory cuts among the Lower Basin states and annual Lake Powell releases between 6 million and 7 million acre-feet. It also includes the possibility of up to 200,000 acre-feet of Upper Basin voluntary conservation. But beyond this basic framework, many details of operations and programs are left to be hashed out in separate agreements between the states and Reclamation.
Time is running out to get a conservation agreement in place before the 2027 irrigation season. According to the timeline given by state officials, the application window was supposed to be October and November, followed by an evaluation and approval process that would have contracts with participants in place by spring. The Upper Colorado River Commission sent a letter to Reclamation officials in September saying that operational neutrality was essential to the success of a program. Officials say they have not yet received a formal response.
“I’m optimistic that the Upper Division states and Reclamation will develop an appropriate agreement that meets everybody’s needs,” said Chuck Cullom, executive director of the UCRC. “What I am concerned about is how timely that agreement can be developed to support 2027 programs.”
River District General Manager Andy Mueller said the district backs state officials and supports the decision not to open the application process without a written agreement from Reclamation. The River District protects water interests across 15 Western Slope counties. Although the conservation program would be open to anyone in the state who uses water from the Colorado River Basin, it’s understood that most of the conserved water would come from Western Slope agriculture, as it has in previous pilot programs.
“Don’t run the program next year if you can’t run it well, if you can’t operate it in a way that protects the values and interests of our communities and agricultural industries,” Mueller told state officials. “Please don’t do it halfway. Don’t do it too late. Don’t let the federal government’s refusal to act in a timely way damage the communities that these folks represent.”
Delay could mean low participation rates
Last week’s discussion came as the federal government has taken over Colorado River operations and management of the nation’s biggest reservoirs after the seven states that share the river could not find agreement after years of failed negotiations.
Upper Basin water managers have long pointed fingers at their Lower Basin neighbors, saying their overuse was responsible for driving the system into crisis. They want to make sure that any water saved through conservation in the Upper Basin won’t simply be released downstream to be used by the Lower Basin. Precisely what the conserved water will be used for is still unclear and is one of the issues that remain to be figured out in an agreement between the Upper Colorado River Commission and Reclamation.
From 2019 to 2021, Colorado explored what officials called a demand management program, which would have allowed the Upper Basin states to conserve up to 500,000 acre-feet in a pool in Lake Powell. In that case, the water could have been used to help the Upper Basin states meet their water-delivery obligations to the Lower Basin under the terms of the 1922 Colorado River Compact.
But in recent years, officials have been talking about a conserved pool of water being used to boost Lake Powell levels to protect critical infrastructure and maintain the ability to produce hydropower at Glen Canyon Dam. Some experts say flexible, operationally neutral pools could protect Glen Canyon Dam infrastructure, minimize the need for large releases from upstream reservoirs and reduce the risk of litigation among the seven basin states that share the Colorado River.
“Reclamation’s priority remains balancing water-delivery obligations and protecting critical infrastructure at Lake Powell,” Pullan said at last week’s UCRC meeting. “And protecting critical infrastructure at Lake Powell means staying above elevation 3,510.”
Anne Castle, a Colorado River expert and former federal representative to the UCRC, explained why the Upper and Lower basin states might have different views on operational neutrality. Under the federal guidelines for reservoir operations the amount of water released from Lake Powell each year is based on how much water is in the reservoir. When levels dip below certain thresholds, it triggers a reduction in how much is released.
“The Lower Basin doesn’t want that to happen,” Castle said.
If a pool of water conserved by the Upper Basin is not operationally neutral, it could bump up Lake Powell above the trigger elevations and cause more water to be released to the Lower Basin.
“The Upper Basin states are saying we want that pool to be operationally neutral so that that increase in elevation doesn’t affect the releases from Powell,” Castle said. “Reclamation has always taken the position that they can’t do that on their own; the Lower Basin states would have to agree that some portion of the water in Powell doesn’t count against the release requirements.”
Because the amount of water released from Lake Powell each year is based on how much water is in the reservoir — not on the year’s snowpack or how much water flows into the reservoir — more water has been released over the past 25 years than has come in, drawing it down to critically low levels.
In 2023 and 2024, the Upper Basin states participated in a federally funded conservation program, known as the System Conservation Pilot Program. Officials received criticism from water users for its hasty rollout in the fall of 2023, and the first year didn’t see much participation because of the short timeline to apply and plan for the following irrigation season. This year’s delay could run the risk of a similar scenario.
“One of the painful lessons that we learned from 2023 projects is that the later you go into the fall and winter, the more difficult it is for water users to participate,” Cullom said. “The longer we go in time, I would anticipate the fewer participants we will get. … At what point have we run out of time? We’re already later in the year than I think anybody is happy with.”
Even if Colorado’s program can’t come together in time for the 2027 season, the Reclamation funding is good through 2031, Mitchell said, so a program could take place in a future year. She warned River District board members that if Colorado can’t run the program this year, she expects criticism from water users and managers.
“I want to be perfectly honest: If we can’t move forward with this program, there will be pressure from within our own state,” Mitchell said. “But as of right now, I don’t have the assurances that I need that this water will be protected, and I think that’s an important component.”
