Back in May, Lake Mead had already dropped to 1,050 feet above sea level, which was 25 feet below its critical level of 1,075 feet. The huge reservoir, held in place by Hoover Dam, was just below 1,040 feet as of August 13. When the lake level falls to 1,035 feet, Hoover Dam will have to cut its power generation by 70 percent.
Upstream on the Colorado River, Lake Powell, held by Glen Canyon Dam, is at 3,520.37 feet, 179.63 feet below full. The lake holds just 22.6 percent of full capacity and is predicted to remain at near historic lows. The water level is just 30.37 feet above the minimum depth below which Glen Canyon Dam would have to restrict generating hydroelectric power.
Glen Canyon Dam’s eight generators normally provide about 5 billion kilowatt-hours of electric power (as much as 1,320 megawatts) to about 5 million people, including 53 tribes, across six states. Hoover Dam’s generators serve about 1.3 million people and businesses in California, Arizona, and Nevada.
Lake Mead provides irrigation and municipal water that supports about 30 million people and supports crop production across more than 5 million acres of farmland that helps grow food for an estimated 60 percent of the United States.
As Lake Powell is primarily a storage reservoir that releases water downstream, most direct large-scale irrigation diversions happen downstream via river intakes, canals, and projects. The combined contents of Lakes Powell and Mead have not been this low since before Glen Canyon Dam began filling in 1963; since 2000, water use has exceeded total system inflow in most years.
The dual water-power crisis prompted the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement on July 31 that designates a preferred course of action for future management of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The Bureau admits that drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin over the past 25 years, combined with expectations of continued dry conditions, make development of future operating guidelines particularly challenging.
When the Colorado River Compact was created in 1922, 7.5 million acre-feet (maf) was apportioned to both the Upper and Lower Basins based on estimated pre-compact average inflow (1906-1921) of 18 maf. Inflows from 2000 to 2024 averaged only 12.9 maf, and the unregulated inflow into Lake Powell (based on 7 months) for 2026 is estimated to be just 3.5 maf.
During 2020-2024, average consumptive use in the Colorado River Basin was 13.1 maf, of which 1.4 maf went to Mexico, 1.4 maf was lost to evaporation, 6.5 maf (49 percent) went to the Lower Basin, and 3.8 maf (about half its original allocation) went to the Upper Basin (29 percent). Simply put, the West has a water problem that has also created a power generation threat.
The Bureau’s preferred alternative establishes an adaptive decision framework for developing operating guidelines to ensure reliable operations in the basin while maintaining flexibility to respond to changing conditions through 2036. The Bureau left room for the states to work towards consensus agreements that could be incorporated into future operations.
Sideboards in the proposed framework (key thresholds and ranges) provide for annual releases from Lake Powell between 5.0 and 12.0 maf, lower Basin shortages of up to 3.0 maf, the ability to store up to 8.0 maf (Lake Powell) and 3.0 maf (Lake Mead) of conserved water for future use, and the opportunity for voluntary Upper Basin conservation up to 200,000 acre-feet. Operating guidelines would be revised biennially in the absence of consensus-based agreements.
The Bureau’s action did not please Arizona and Nevada officials, upset that the proposal included up to 3 maf in annual Lower Basin water usage reductions – a move that (while perhaps necessary) could severely impact California farmers (and food prices).
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen said that, while Arizona recognizes the inflow shortfalls, “What we will not accept is a federal plan that protects some states while placing a devastating and disproportionate burden on Arizona.” Negotiations among Compact states have failed repeatedly to meet deadlines, prompting several states (including Arizona) to build legal teams for potential litigation over the river’s water sharing.
By contrast, the Colorado River Board of California was sanguine about the proposal. Board chair JB Hamby said that communities and economies in impacted states have already grown while using less Colorado River water. “California’s use has fallen to its lowest level since 1949,” but the state and communities served by the river have grown to 19 million people and a $1.6 trillion Southern California economy.
The impacted states are not the only critics of the Final EIS. John Berggren, a spokesperson for Western Reserve Advocates, said “I’m glad Reclamation is doing something,” even though “it’s not the silver bullet.” Berggren had hoped for a “holistic, robust set of guidelines that puts the Colorado River on a sustainable path,” but called the proposal “a good step in the right direction.”
Despite Hamby’s optimism, California farmers could be forced to reduce acreage, switch from high-water-use crops (almonds, rice, some fruits) to less water-intensive crops, or let fields lie fallow. Livestock producers could face higher feed costs if hay and forage supplies tighten. Reduced yields and acreage could also lower farm revenues, especially for small and medium-sized operations and lower production could impact regional and national commodity prices.
CalMatters water reporter Rachel Becker called the Bureau’s plan a “band-aid, not a cure, that leaves states guessing every 2 years.” The plan suffers from the reality that, while the Interior Department can force cuts in water allocations to Lower Basin states, it has no comparable authority to impose cuts in Upper Basin states. “This,” concluded Becker, “isn’t the long-term plan that California’s water suppliers were hoping for.”
Should water levels fall further, forcing cutbacks in power generation at Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams, utilities will have to rely on more expensive fuels and would likely raise electricity prices – and electricity reliability — for millions of customers. Longer-term shortfalls could force utilities to invest in energy storage, transmission upgrades, and alternative generation.
This article originally appeared at Town Hall
California needs to finally deal with the Delta Smelt
The boutique beliefs of the elite are coming home to roost, aren’t they? I would guess that rather than deal with realities, they will try one more cycle of climate change anxiety and the need to eliminate reliable energy generation.
My Grandfather would go down to the Lake Michigan shore and catch about a million smelt and Grandma would fry them, and he’d eat them-just strip the meat off the bone. Maybe Cali could can them like sardines or something and maybe make a few bucks?
Delta Smelt are probably extinct, so water diversions to protect them are futile
Last wild delta smelt was seen in 2017. None in 2018. Functionally extinct.
The cause isn’t climate change. Their main predator was invasive striped bass, introduced into the delta from the east coast as a sport fish about a century ago.
As a boy, my family used to go catch stripers where the Potomac entered into Chesapeake Bay. Big fighters, and delicious eating. Used small shrimp or chopped up blue crab as bait.
Blue crab – YUM!
I reckon they’re the best-tasting shellfish in the whole world.
I’ve heard that, so let’s eat’m.
I suspect that it’s not just the Delta Smelt that they need to deal with. There was this quote from an article:
It’d be really nice to hold California’s feet to the fire, so to speak, and force them to actually capture and store the excess water that they alone have as a resource.
If I remember correctly, California pushed hard to get some of the excess power from the the NW, forcing the sale and building a large DC power transmission line from the NW to California. If it’s good for the goose it’s good for the gander… force California to build and fill reservoirs by putting a date certain on when they will lose access to their Colorado River allocation.
And they are getting rid of fossil fuels and nuclear and destroying the energy base that is needed to help solve the water problem. They have spent more than enough on green energy emissions reduction, that only doubled it and sent it to China, more than enough to build some nuclear power or coal power desalinization plants to replenish the water supply.
Some idiots in Sacramento are still talking about shutting down Diablo Canyon which is producing 9% of the electricity used in the state. Without Diablo, California would be importing over 35% of their electricity. If the hydro power is curtailed, rolling black outs are likely.
Glen Canyon Dam’s eight generators normally provide about 5 billion kilowatt-hours of electric power (as much as 1,320 megawatts)
Nothing about Hoover Dam generation. And the author seems a little confused about power and energy.
Hoover Dam, when operating, produces 4 million megawatt hours per year (4 billion kilowatt hours).
So are many of the possible sources he might have used.
1320 MW is the spec capacity.
5E9 KW-hr over 1 year is running at about 43% capacity.
It is always worth considering what the water situation would be right now if the dams had not been built–which is my answer to those who claim ‘See?–those dams have not guaranteed the manufacture of endless water supply and should never have been built–tear them out’. Numerous articles on this site have presented the river flow volumes that demonstrates that there is little average long-term change; the present problem is solely caused by the rising demand curve crossing the relatively constant supply curve. Alarmists simply refuse to recognise that one of those curves is flat.
I remember renting a boat at Hite Crossing marina when the lake was full and boating up to the head of Cataract Canyon, which was part of the lake then. I guess that will never happen again in my lifetime.
Does anyone know why Las Vegas has been permitted to dig a ‘bathtub drain’ out under the lowest part of the lake to take the last drop?
El Niños can influence Pineapple Expresses that also can bring rains to Powell and Mead basins. This current El Niño is being called very strong. Not long ago, Lake Travis (outside Austin) looked almost hopelessly low until recently and today it’s 97.2% of conservation; down just 1.64′. Powell and Mead will come back.
I agree, but still don’t expect full lakes for decades as the extraction has become so high and nobody wants to agree to take less. Over 40 million acre feet of inflow minus some 14 million acre feet annual outflow is required to fill them both and weather patterns are unlikely to last long enough.
I did look up Lake Travis; I do hope everyone recognises that it’s not the same Colorado River. The most humorous story suggests that there was strong, if maybe not the wisest, support for Donald Trump in Texas.
On September 5th, 2020, a boat parade took place in support of Donald Trump. The Travis County Sheriff’s office reported that they had received multiple calls involving boats in distress, and that several boats had sunk.[8][9][10] The weather was calm, but the boats generated significant wake as they began to move together, which subsequently sank at least five boats.[11] The hashtag#dumbkirk trended on Twitter following the incident.[12]
That’s wild about the boats sinking in the MAGA wakes.
BTW, Austin is a liberal city.
Actually, Lake Powell never extended much beyond the confluence with the Dirty Devil River at Hite. It never included Cataract Canyon, but you could boat up the Colorado River past Dark Canyon, almost to the lower rapids of Cat.
Powell was near Full Pool in 1999. I ran the river through Cataract that year.
I, and Perplexity, have to disagree. However I should have stated ‘near’ the head, not to the head, of Cataract Canyon. But I remember boating in Cataract Canyone, in still, deep, water.
How far up Cataract Canyon did it extend?At full pool (3,700 ft), Lake Powell inundated roughly 200 miles of the Colorado River, including all of Glen Canyon and about half of Cataract Canyon. More specifically:wwa.colorado
At full pool the lake is 186 miles long. It did almost overflow the dam in 1983, so I stand corrected that it reached farther at one point.
When you said it reached the “head” of Cataract Canyon I took exception since I would call the head the top and the bottom as the foot.
In 1999 we were breaking shear pins on the motor on gravel bars approaching Dark Canyon though it was deep enough for ski boats several miles before the bridge at Hite.
On one trip we boated up the Dirty Devil, but in a small inflatable with an electric motor. The canyon wall at water level was full of hemispherical holes where concretions (or at least spherical less-cemented pockets) had weathered out. A powerboat went by us, and when the noise abated the remaining waves played quite the tune as they topped the myriad of sizes of pock-marks. It was so enjyable that we spent a fair time rocking the boat to produce more waves. Sounds were much like a human popping their hand onto an open mouth, but all different notes because of size differences. I remember feeling sympathy for the people in power boats as they had alerted us to it but missed it all.
Sweet. Sadly, the last time we ran Cataract, we could not take out at the Hite boat ramp. Had to do it across mud at the mouth of the Dirty Devil. We hiked a ways up that canyon. Now there is no easy take-out.
What a mess. It is clear we are using more water from the Colorado than it can sustainably provide. We can’t just hope that goes away. The scary thing is the federal government is almost certainly the only one with the power to enforce change. I shudder at the thought. No matter how much it hurts every user must cut back a little, no exceptions. I can’t believe that if everyone gave up a little there wouldn’t be improvement. We shouldn’t try to fix it all at once, that would be disastrous. Once we see improvement we can take a little more but it is the water levels that will determine that. Anyone caught cheating will be punished severely, no exceptions.
“since 2000, water use has exceeded total system inflow in most years.”
Hmmm. I guess reality does not convince the entities scrapping over the outflow. Reminds me of something…
Nothing rewards or punishes like money does. Use more, pay more. Use less, pay less. Economics 101.
As part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with potential water shortages, California is rushing to build the Sites Reservoir, the first reservoir planned to be built by California since 1980. They started planning for it in 2010. Based on the rapid progress California has made, current schedules indicate it could reach completion and start operation as early as 2033. Due to the headlong progress being made, it was reported on August 24, 2025 that progress was “…keeping the project on track for a groundbreaking in 2026.” It’s worth noting that I post this comment on August 23, 2026. Also worth noting, it was recently announced that due to the amazing progress the Authority has made, construction could start as early as late 2027. I could find no explanation why the project has been able to make such progress.
Purely as an aside, based on the project’s achievements posted thus far, California may have selected the same management that has maintained the breakneck speed of construction observed on the high-speed rail project.
It should be obvious, but FYI: /sarc off.
I believe that the “progress” is a Gavin Newsom mind trick. Gavin is also telling us that track has been laid for the California High Speed Rail, when in reality the only rail installed has been in a storage yard.
Glen Canyon Dam was finished in 1964. That year, the combined population of metros Phoenix and Las Vegas was about 825k. Last year it was about 7.8 million.
Plus, the largest crop in Arizona by both tonnage and value is now water thirsty alfalfa hay, much exported to Saudi Arabia.
Self inflicted wounds. Nuff said.
Free markets are once again the best mechanism to allocate scarce resources.
Let the farmers with rice crops bring in this year’s harvest, and then let someone else pay them enough for their water rights that they can afford for those fields to go fallow for a year or three.
The alfalfa growers can buy water rights to finish up the last few years of their alfalfa life cycle, and then sell their rights to the almond growers that have much longer life cycle investments.
If all of the farmers get bought out by city folks using the water for residential purposes, then that is still allocating the water to the highest value usage.
If residential water costs in some communities reach $10,000/year, then growth with slow and some city populations may eventually decline.
The plan above is much worse than the “utopian” solutions that many politicians will propose. However, I suspect it will be much better than any of the actual alternative solutions.
“growth WILL slow”
Edit due to fat fingers and a slow brain.
Longer-term shortfalls could force utilities to invest in energy storage, transmission upgrades, and alternative generation.
Just make sure there aren’t the same issues with storage rather than coming up with more of what you actually need-
Batteries have flattened the solar duck curve, and their profit margins at the same time
Here in the UK, we have a similar problem. Being blamed on climate change etc, but we have had no new reservoirs in the last 30 years. In that time our population has increased by 20 million people.
Oh for an effective government.
Keep dreaming.
So another weather dependent energy source shows itself to be less than reliable on a long timescale.
That would imply that the definition of ‘reliable’ is that a source can be relied upon to magically produce whatever humans demand of it. I’ve often told an orebody to hold more gold, but that never worked either.
The obvious answer is to build more reliable sources of electricity. Yes, ratepayers will have to cough up more. To some extent, all users of that water will need to pay more.
Cry me a river.
The water story of most of the west has been overallocation of water resources. Promises made when water was plentiful cannot be kept when it is not. The big mistake was not curtailing water use when the flow was reduced–now the curtailment has to be extreme just to protect the most essential uses. This is true across the west. The good news is that water quantities will increase sometime in the future.
Remember what Yogi said about predicting the future…
You mean to say that they will increase sometime in the future from where they are at present. This year is exceptionally dry so there is a high probability that your prediction will pan out.
The bickering over water that doesn’t actually exist will be entertaining, though.
I’ve seen stories that blame Lake Mead’s problem on upstream reservoirs, Powell, Flaming Gorge, Fontenelle … keep finding one excuse after another for failure.
Flaming Gorge and upstream reservoirs are low. I would suspect, however, that they are less of a problem than lower basin water overuse. I recall visiting the Flaming Gorge area 15 years ago, late May. Our son explained that the reservoirs were low–especially Fontenelle–because the mountain snow melt hadn’t hit them yet. They seem to be much less subject to water overuse, and more subject to seasonal snow melt. Fontenelle is probably mostly a flood control system.
And yes, I did mean that water quantities will increase from where they are now. It wasn’t many years ago that there was plenty of water, and that will happen again.
The solution to both problems (fresh water and power) is plentiful nuclear power. Use nuclear reactor powered pumps and desalination plants to convert ocean water into fresh water for farming and people.
yeahbut-its California…that would make too much sense.
I will point out a reality here that wasn’t appreciated in 1922 despite being found in the biblical story of the seven fat years followed by seven lean.
All storage systems that have a stochastic component behave alike — food, water, energy, and even munitions for your military. It is extremely difficult to figure out how big the storage reservoir has to be to protect against all eventualities. And, if the stochastic element does not obey the law of large numbers (i.e. power law distributions) then one will never know the needed storage.
Take a look at the fairy tales told in every utility’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) ever written about battery storage. They have no idea…
The technical staffs inside the utilities certainly know the score. They themselves have to know that their utility’s IRP’s are fairy tales.
But if the technical people speak up in front of management — or heaven forbid, in some outside forum — they are dead meat.
The same thing is seen inside the technical staffs of the public service commissions. Speak up in front of a commissioner with your honest opinion and you are toast.
Does this mean less watermelon production in southern California and less extravagant water fountains in Las Vegas? Or does this mean reporters will discover the saline aquifer under Phoenix that is less salty than sea water? At any rate water prices will never get a mention.
I noticed this post repeats a phrase I have seen several places, including in the AP’s climate
articlespropaganda – “…drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin over the past 25 years…” Per drought.gov (NOAA), drought is defined as “a deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time (usually a season or more), resulting in a water shortage.”The term “deficiency” implies there is some “normal” amount of precipitation that drought conditions are compared to. Shouldn’t “drought conditions … over the past 25 years” redefine “normal” to a drier condition?
The Southwest does not have a water problem.
It has a people problem.
In 1909 there were 25 (yes, just 25) people in the Las Vegas valley.
Today that figure stands at approximately 2.5 million and climbing at a rate of 1.65%/yr.
It’s called the “DESERT SOUTHWEST” for a reason.