The Bureau of Reclamation released a long-anticipated draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating how the Colorado River’s major reservoirs could be operated after 2026, when the current interim operating guidelines expire.
The document lays out five distinct operational alternatives but stops short of identifying a preferred option, a move intended to preserve flexibility as negotiations among Colorado River Basin states, Tribes and other stakeholders continue.
“The Department of the Interior is moving forward with this process to ensure environmental compliance is in place so operations can continue without interruption when the current guidelines expire,” said Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Andrea Travnicek. “The river and the 40 million people who depend on it cannot wait. In the face of an ongoing severe drought, inaction is not an option.”
The Colorado River supplies water to more than 40 million people across seven states, supports 5.5 million acres of farmland, provides hydropower and serves as a critical resource for 30 Tribal Nations.
Reclamation said that the 2007 Interim Guidelines, which expire at the end of the 2026 operating year, have not sufficiently reduced risk. Despite repeated drought-response actions, reservoir levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead have remained low, and new infrastructure risks have emerged at Glen Canyon Dam.
Alternatives
Reclamation emphasized that the alternatives were shaped through extensive engagement, including more than 100 meetings with states, Tribes and other partners, as well as public scoping periods in 2022 and 2023. Three of the five alternatives directly reflect stakeholder proposals, while the Basic Coordination Alternative was developed to ensure operations could continue if negotiations stall.
Under the No Action Alternative, the National Environmental Policy Act requirements would be met by operations reverting to annual decisions made through the Annual Operating Plan. Releases from Lake Powell would generally remain at 8.23 million acre-feet (maf), unless higher releases are needed for reservoir equalization or lower releases are required due to infrastructure constraints. Shortages to the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada would be determined strictly by priority and capped at 600,000 acre-feet, reflecting pre-2007 operating practices.
The Basic Coordination Alternative is intended as a fallback option if basin states fail to reach new agreements. It maintains Lake Powell releases primarily at 8.23 maf, with the ability to drop as low as 7 maf. Additional releases from Upper Basin reservoirs could be used to protect infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam. Lower Basin shortages of up to 1.48 maf would be triggered by Lake Mead elevations and allocated according to existing priority systems.
The Enhanced Coordination Alternative emphasizes shared basin-wide responsibility and reflects extensive input from Tribes, federal agencies and other stakeholders. A combination of lakes Powell and Mead elevations, 10-year running-average hydrology and Lower Basin deliveries would determine Powell releases. Shortages would begin at 1.3 maf and could reach 3 maf, distributed on a pro-rata basis.
The Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative, developed from a conservation coalition proposal, relies on highly adaptive tools. Lake Powell releases could range from 11 maf down to 5 maf, with operations shifting to run-of-river at critically low elevations. Lower Basin shortages could reach 4 maf, triggered by storage conditions across seven reservoirs and supplemented by voluntary conservation from both basins.
Finally, the Supply-Driven Alternative directly links releases to hydrology, setting annual Powell deliveries at 65% of the three-year average natural flow at Lees Ferry, AZ. Lower Basin shortages of up to 2.1 maf would be triggered by Lake Mead elevations and distributed using either a priority-based or a basin-wide pro-rata approach.
Criticism of plan
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California sharply criticized the draft EIS, warning that the analysis underscores the urgency of a basin-wide agreement.
“The release of today’s Draft EIS is yet another wake-up call that we need a consensus agreement supported by all water users that rely on the Colorado River,” said Metropolitan General Manager Shivaji Deshmukh. He continued that basin states endorse none of the five alternatives and any could trigger “lengthy litigation.”
Deshmukh said several options signal “potentially dramatic cuts” to Southern California supplies, adding that Metropolitan’s conservation efforts should not be met with arbitrary reductions.
Separately, Save The Colorado argued the draft misinterprets the Law of the River and violates federal law. Director Gary Wockner said Lower Basin protections and downstream flows are essential to both legal compliance and the ecological health of the Grand Canyon and the river itself.
The EIS was published in the Federal Register on Jan. 16, triggering a 45-day public comment period that closes March 2. The University of Denver Water Law Review noted that the November 2025 deadline for basin-state consensus has already passed. Without an agreement by the new Feb. 14 deadline, the federal government is poised to assume a direct managerial role over Colorado River operations.
A final decision on post-2026 operations is expected before Oct. 1, 2026, the start of the 2027 water year. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
