Skip to main content

February 14, 2026

Seven states miss deadline; feds take control of Colorado River

Upper Colorado River Commission
Environmental Defense Fund
Colorado River Science
Colorado Sun
Eos (American Geophysical Union)
+45

The seven states of the Colorado River Basin — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California — missed their Feb. 14, 2026, federal deadline to agree on how to manage the river after 2026. This was the second missed federal deadline in more than two years of negotiations. Without a consensus, Interior Secretary Doug BurgumDoug Burgum announced on Feb. 14 that the federal government will proceed independently to finalize new operating guidelines by Oct. 1, 2026.

The Bureau of Reclamation released a 24-month forecast the same week showing Lake Powell's water-year inflow at just 52% of average. The reservoir stood just eight feet above the 35-foot buffer that, if crossed, would trigger emergency responses to protect hydroelectric operations. Scientists project Lake Powell could reach its minimum power pool — 3,490 feet elevation — as soon as December 2026, which would shut down Glen Canyon Dam's electricity generation entirely.

If Lake Powell drops further to 3,476 feet by March 2027, it would set the lowest reservoir elevation on record since the dam first filled in the 1960s. At that level, Glen Canyon Dam's ability to release water downstream would be severely constrained — a crisis that affects not just electricity but the physical delivery of water to millions of people. Water managers estimate the basin is overallocated by roughly four million acre-feet per year, more than a quarter of the river's average annual flow.

The 1922 Colorado River Compact — the foundational legal agreement governing the river — divided water between Upper and Lower Basin states based on flow estimates that climate scientists now know were far too optimistic. The compact obligates Upper Basin states to deliver an average of 8.25 million acre-feet annually to the Lower Basin and Mexico, even in drought years when the river produces less. Persistent drought since 2000 has cut average river flows by roughly 20%, turning a guaranteed obligation into a near-impossible math problem.

The central dispute comes down to who takes the cuts. Upper Basin states — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico — argue that their water supplies already fluctuate with snowpack and that they can't accept mandatory basin-wide reductions on top of natural shortages. Lower Basin states — California, Arizona, and Nevada — have made major conservation investments in recent years and want any new rules to require proportional cuts from all seven states. Colorado's lead negotiator Becky Mitchell put it plainly: the Upper Basin is being asked to solve a problem it didn't create with water it doesn't have.

The 30 Tribal Nations in the Colorado River Basin hold senior water rights to roughly 25% of the river's average annual flow — rights that were established before those of most cities and farms. But none of the 30 tribes were included in the original 1922 Compact negotiations, and 11 tribes still have legally unresolved water rights claims. Tribal leaders have spent years demanding formal seats at the negotiating table and protection of their water rights in any new operating rules, warning that any deal struck without them won't hold.

Imperial Irrigation District in Southern California holds some of the oldest and most senior water rights on the river — 3.1 million acre-feet per year dating to 1901, including 2.6 million acre-feet of present perfected rights. Under the Law of the River, those senior rights are satisfied first when supplies fall short, meaning junior water users — including many farms and some cities — absorb cuts before the Imperial Valley does. The Imperial Valley directly supplies roughly two-thirds of the nation's winter vegetables, so its water security has national food system implications.

Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who helped broker the 2007 interim rules, told the Los Angeles Times that Burgum should not try to impose a long-term solution unilaterally. Babbitt called for a fresh start — a much more inclusive, public process — warning that a top-down federal decree would trigger years of expensive litigation that doesn't actually change the river's hydrology. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has already stated publicly that Colorado is prepared to litigate to defend its water rights if necessary.

🏛️Government🌱EnvironmentEnergy📋Public Policy

People, bills, and sources

Doug Burgum

Doug Burgum

U.S. Secretary of the Interior

Becky Mitchell

Colorado water commissioner and lead negotiator

John Hickenlooper

U.S. Senator (D-CO)

Phil Weiser

Colorado Attorney General

Bruce Babbitt

Former U.S. Secretary of the Interior (1993-2001)

Lorelei Cloud

Vice Chairman, Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council

Brad Udall

Senior water and climate research scientist, Colorado Water Center

What you can do

1

civic action

Contact your senator or representative about Colorado River water policy

Congress has authority over the Law of the River and federal water allocation. The next operating rules will shape water access for 40 million people, 5.5 million acres of farmland, and 30 Tribal Nations. Congressional pressure can push Interior toward a more inclusive process and away from unilateral decisions that trigger costly litigation.

I'm calling to urge Senator [Name] to push for meaningful Tribal inclusion and a transparent public process in the Colorado River post-2026 negotiations. The seven states missed the Feb. 14 deadline, and the federal government is now moving to impose rules unilaterally. That risks litigation, not solutions. We need the senator to support a negotiated outcome that protects both existing water rights and the long-term viability of the river. Can you tell me the senator's current position on the Bureau of Reclamation's draft Environmental Impact Statement?

2

civic action

Submit a public comment on the Bureau of Reclamation's draft Environmental Impact Statement

The Bureau of Reclamation released a draft EIS evaluating five alternatives for managing Lake Powell and Lake Mead after 2026. Federal law requires public comment periods under the National Environmental Policy Act. Your comment becomes part of the official record and can influence which alternative Interior selects as its final rule.

I'm submitting this comment in support of an alternative that protects Tribal water rights, maintains minimum flows for ecological health, and requires proportional reductions from both Upper and Lower Basin states. The current draft EIS must explicitly protect the senior water rights of the 30 Tribal Nations in the basin who were excluded from the 1922 Compact. I urge Reclamation to finalize rules that guarantee Tribal access to water they legally own.

3

civic action

Contact your state water board or water authority to demand transparency about local impacts

Water cuts under any new federal plan will be implemented through state water agencies and local water districts. Residents in the seven basin states have a right to know how their local water supply will be affected and what their water authority is doing to prepare. Most water boards hold public meetings where citizens can speak directly.

I'm a ratepayer asking about this district's contingency plan if Lake Powell drops to minimum power pool in late 2026. Specifically: How much of our local water supply comes from the Colorado River? What cuts have we already made, and what additional cuts would be required under each of the five federal alternatives in the draft EIS? And has this district formally submitted comments to the Bureau of Reclamation?