Western Water Policy Program

The Kawuneeche Valley Restoration Project: Reflections from Beaver Creek

Annie Carlozzi — Tue, 28 Jul 2026 20:07:49 +0000

The Kawuneeche Valley Restoration Project: Reflections from Beaver Creek Annie Carlozzi Tue, 07/28/2026 - 14:07

Anneka Lambert , Emilia Endara and Mallory Tope

On July 8, the Getches-Wilkinson Center visited the Kawuneeche Valley restoration site at Beaver Creek in Rocky Mountain National Park. Upon arriving at Beaver Creek, the team met with Isabel de Silva Shewell, the lead ecologist on the project with a background in riparian restoration, who gave us a tour of the restoration site.

The 30-acre area is located at the headwaters of the Colorado River, and is surrounded by an exclosure fence tall enough to prevent moose and elk from jumping over. While we were fortunate enough to meet with Isabel and receive a guided tour, members of the public are welcome to enter through the gates and see the restoration efforts firsthand.

The Kawuneeche Valley Restoration Project/Beaver Creek Site Description

The Kawuneeche Valley restoration project is an effort to restore the ecosystem impaired by human activity and the climate-driven stressors such as an unpredictable snowpack and overbrowsing by moose.

Nestled at the base of the Never Summer Mountains, Beaver Creek is one of four tributaries to the mainstem of the Colorado River included in the project’s restoration efforts. Since the 1950s, there has been a loss of 94% of surface waters associated with beaver ponds, and a 77% loss of tall willow acreage since 1999. As a result, the Kawuneeche Valley has transitioned from its historical beaver-willow wetland ecosystem with a high water table, that supported hydrophilic vegetation and was dominated by tall willow.

These changes have been driven by human diversion of water, the effects of climate change, and the loss of tall willow due to the influx of large populations of moose. The once-booming beaver population in the area declined with the loss of suitable habitat. Without beaver dams, the water saturation in the soil became insufficient to support a stable riparian buffer. Beaver Creek became loaded with sediment, and water quality declined. The site has been identified as a major contributor of sediment to the mainstem of the Colorado River.

The Impacts of Moose and Elk at Beaver Creek and Potential Solutions

In 1978-1979, moose were re-introduced into Rocky Mountain National Park on the west side. https://www.nps.gov/articles/moose-research-in-rocky-mountain-national-park.htm. Initially, only 24 moose were released and largely remained on the west side of the park. Id. Moose are typically solitary animals; however, warmer, shorter winters allowed moose to congregate and populations to boom. Id. Easier passage facilitated the movement of moose across the continental divide to the east side of the park. Id.

As of 2025, there were 240 moose estimated to be in the park. Id. Willows are a primary food source for moose. However, willows, whose stems only grow about six inches per year, do not regenerate quickly enough to support such a large moose population. Today, the site is marked by what Isabel referred to as “zombie willows,” or willows that have been chewed down by moose, leaving only the woody stems of the plants.

Evidence of the former beaver-willow ecosystem is found throughout the site. Depressions indicate where beaver dam surface waters had existed in previous decades; willows that had been chewed down to woody stubs have new growth, and wetland vegetation such as sedges dominate the area.

In addition to constructing beaver dam analogs, the park service is attempting to address moose populations. Exclosure fences have been successful in keeping moose and elk from entering the restoration site. However, this is only one component of long-term population management measures. Discussions of potential solutions include measures put in place in 2008 by the Elk and Vegetation Management Plan (EVMP). In addition to exclosure fences, these efforts also include the culling of individual moose. Hunting is not permitted in the park, and moose have no natural predators in the area to keep populations in check. Therefore, such measures may be necessary to restore balance to the ecosystem.

Beaver Dam Analogs

The main tool utilized to restore the site to a functioning beaver-willow wetland ecosystem are beaver analogs. Beaver analogs are wooden structures that span the creek in a manner that mimics beaver dams. They raise the water table upstream, increase channel complexity, promote resilience to high runoff in the snowpack, trap fine sediment, and store water across the floodplain. The analogs were built using lodgepoles from the surrounding area to mimic the natural ecosystem sourced from fuel-mitigation events in the park.

Restoration efforts are already yielding encouraging results. Groundwater quantity is continuously monitored at the site. Since the installation of the analogs in 2024; levels have slowly and steadily risen. Water quality at the site has improved, and benthic microorganisms highly sensitive to water quality have reappeared in the creek.

With the diminishment of willows over the years, invasive plant species such as the Canada Thistle flourished. Since the start of the project, Isbabel said there has been an evident decrease in Canada Thistle, leaving more room for willows to grow.

Takeaways and Further Information

Overall, the GWC would like to thank Isabel and all those at RMNP and the Kawuneeche Valley Restoration Project for this fantastic opportunity. The team greatly enjoyed seeing the site first-hand, looking at the impact of overbrowsing, and how the ecosystem has begun to heal. Being on the headwaters of the Colorado River was a reminder of all the components that go into maintaining a healthy, thriving river that can support the surrounding habitat and those downstream.

If you are interested in more information about the Kawuneeche Valley Restoration Project, please visit their website at: https://www.nps.gov/romo/the-kawuneeche-valley-restoration-collaborative.htm

If would like to help out, please consider volunteering at a future event. Previous volunteer opportunities have included revegetation efforts such as willow staking. There is potential for volunteers to help build and maintain materials for dam infrastructure at events in the future. More information can be found here: https://www.nps.gov/romo/getinvolved/volunteer.htm

For updates on the Kawuneeche Valley, you can sign up for their newsletter at: https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/sl/WKvPewd

Off

Traditional

White

Low Point for Colorado River Storage

Annie Carlozzi — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:45:07 +0000

Low Point for Colorado River Storage Annie Carlozzi Wed, 07/15/2026 - 07:45

Jack Schmidt , Anne Castle , John Fleck , Eric Kuhn , Kathryn Sorensen , Katherine Tara

July 12, 2026 marked the date that the combined storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell reached a new all time low. Stored water reserves in the two reservoirs are now less than they were before Lake Powell was constructed. The last time the combined total live storage in these two workhorse reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin was this small was May 23, 1957, almost 70 years ago, when water was stored only in Lake Mead. Our ability to offset consumptive use that exceeds natural supply with reservoir releases is not infinite and is speedily diminishing. Water use must be reduced.

A Significant Moment in the Colorado River Water Supply Crisis

Off

Traditional

White

Thirst for Data: State Responses to Data Center Water Use

Annie Carlozzi — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 23:11:18 +0000

Thirst for Data: State Responses to Data Center Water Use Annie Carlozzi Thu, 07/09/2026 - 17:11

Daniel Anderson

Thirst for Data: State Responses to Data Center Water Use is a new Getches-Wilkinson Center report on Artificial Intelligence, water, and legal reform. AI is fueling a data center development boom—but what does it mean for our water future? Data centers consume large amounts of water, are increasingly located in the arid West, and are projected to grow exponentially in the coming years. With the federal government standing aside, states are struggling to respond swiftly and effectively to their citizens' concerns. This new paper examines emerging state legislation across the country, identifying four major water policy approaches: reporting, conservation, incentives, and prior appropriation requirements. Whether you're a policymaker, researcher, industry leader, or concerned citizen, this analysis offers a timely snapshot at one of the fastest-evolving intersections of technology and water policy.

Report authors: Daniel Anderson, J.D., Getches-Wilkinson Water Law Fellow and Sydney Stellato, Colorado Law Student, Conscience Bay Company Western Water Policy Fellow

Read Thirst for Data: State Responses to Data Center Water Use

Off

Traditional

White

Aug 21: The Colorado River's Uncertain Water Future Explained with Brad Udall

Annie Carlozzi — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 15:57:10 +0000

Aug 21: The Colorado River's Uncertain Water Future Explained with Brad Udall Annie Carlozzi Thu, 07/09/2026 - 09:57

Brad Udall presents an engaging look at the Colorado River in an era of climate change. Discover the challenges facing the river and the choices that will shape its future.

This event is co-hosted by Colorado Mountain Club �ֲ��ý Group and Getches-Wilkinson Center.

Friday, August 21, 2026
6:00-7:30 p.m. (Mountain Time)
Wolf Law Building, Wittemyer Courtroom

In person only. Zoom will not be offered for this event.

Free and Open to the public

Register Here

Brad Udall

Bradley H. Udall is a Senior Water and Climate Research Scientist / Scholar at Colorado State University’s Colorado Water Center. His expertise includes hydrology and related policy issues of the American West, with a focus on the Colorado River. Brad was a co-author of the 2009 and 2018 National Climate Assessments and a contributing author to the 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5^th Assessment. He has published numerous peer-reviewed articles on the causes of the 21^st century declining Colorado River flows and on the ongoing aridification of the Western United States. Brad has testified in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives on the impacts of climate change on water resources and provided input to multiple National Academy of Science panels. Brad was formerly the Director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy and Environment at the University of Colorado Law School and Director of the University of Colorado - NOAA Western Water Assessment. In 2024 he was awarded the David Getches Flowing Waters award from the Colorado Water Trust. Brad has an engineering degree from Stanford and an MBA from Colorado State University.

Off

Traditional

White

The Colorado River Water Supply Crisis in a Few Graphs: Part 1

Annie Carlozzi — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 17:25:18 +0000

The Colorado River Water Supply Crisis in a Few Graphs: Part 1 Annie Carlozzi Thu, 06/18/2026 - 11:25

Jack Schmidt , Anne Castle , Eric Kuhn , Kathryn Sorensen , Katherine Tara

We almost always focus on just Lake Powell and Lake Mead, but there are 46 reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin. This new paper by Jack Schmidt and the usual suspects looks at the state and trends of total Basin storage and the “Ratchet Effect” when we consistently use more water than Nature supplies.

The Colorado River Water Supply Crisis in a Few Graphs: Part 1

Off

Traditional

White

UPDATE: Colorado River Basin Storage Continues Slide Toward System Crash

Annie Carlozzi — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:39:02 +0000

UPDATE: Colorado River Basin Storage Continues Slide Toward System Crash Annie Carlozzi Mon, 06/01/2026 - 10:39

Anne Castle , Jack Schmidt , Eric Kuhn , Kathryn Sorensen , Katherine Tara

Stored water reserves in the Colorado River system continue to decline. The mismatch between natural supply and overall Basin water use is having the inevitable effect on Basin-wide storage. This paper analyzes the impact on storage in the system’s major reservoirs under two scenarios – a wet year and a dry one. Another dry year brings the system dangerously close to crashing (i.e., run-of-the-river operations), and a wet year provides only a temporary reprieve. Without significant reductions in use throughout the Basin, water users will no longer derive any benefit from the extensive and expensively-constructed Colorado River reservoir system, intended to bring reliable water supplies and associated prosperity to the southwestern United States.

Authors: Anne Castle, Jack Schmidt, Eric Kuhn, Kathryn Sorensen, and Katherine Tara

UPDATE: Colorado River Basin Storage Continues Slide Toward System Crash

Off

Traditional

White

Rethinking How the United States and Mexico Share the Colorado River

Annie Carlozzi — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 16:35:06 +0000

Rethinking How the United States and Mexico Share the Colorado River Annie Carlozzi Mon, 03/30/2026 - 10:35

Eric Kuhn , Anne Castle , Carlos de la Parra , John Fleck , Jack Schmidt , Kathryn Sorensen , Katherine Tara

With the existing Colorado River operating rules set to expire in nine months, the relationships among the Basin States have been the focus of much discussion and analysis, but the agreements between the US and Mexico governing their relationship are terminating at the same time. Discussions between the two countries are just ramping up, and there is a window of opportunity for new, creative arrangements that better reflect conditions on the River and make Mexico less dependent on what appears to be inevitable litigation in the US. This paper looks closely at the hydrology and hydrogeography of the Colorado River and suggests a shift from a fixed volume delivery obligation to one that equitably shares whatever water exists on a percentage basis.

Authors:
Eric Kuhn, Anne Castle, Carlos de la Parra, John Fleck, Jack Schmidt, Kathryn Sorensen and Katherine Tara

Rethinking How the United States and Mexico Share the Colorado River

Off

Traditional

White

Considerations for Assigned Water after Expiration of the 2007 Guidelines

Annie Carlozzi — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 21:34:41 +0000

Considerations for Assigned Water after Expiration of the 2007 Guidelines Annie Carlozzi Mon, 01/26/2026 - 14:34

Assigned Water programs in the Colorado River system, like Intentionally Created Surplus and Mexican Water Reserve, have created valuable flexibility in the Lower Basin. These programs mitigate the disincentive for conservation or saving water inherent in the prior appropriation system of water rights, the "use it or lose it" phenomenon. They have proved to be critical to managing volatility in water supplies and were an essential component of the 2019 Drought Contingency Plan.

During the two decades that Assigned Water has existed in the Colorado River, we have learned more about both the benefits of these programs and some of the problems with the specific rules through which they have been implemented. A group of Colorado River policy experts, dubbed the Traveling Wilburys of the Colorado River, has published a new paper discussing the advantages and drawbacks of existing Assigned Water programs and providing recommendations for designing a better system for the future, including a potential conservation pool in the Upper Basin.

An executive summary of the work is provided here, together with the complete discussion and rationale for specific recommendations.

Authors:
Kathryn Sorensen, Sarah Porter, Anne Castle, John Fleck, Eric Kuhn, Jack Schmidt, Katherine Tara

Executive Summary and Recommendations

Considerations for Assigned Water after Expiration of the 2007 Guidelines

Off

Traditional

White

Colorado River Continues to Bring Unlikely Parties Together at CRWUA

Annie Carlozzi — Mon, 29 Dec 2025 15:51:40 +0000

Colorado River Continues to Bring Unlikely Parties Together at CRWUA Annie Carlozzi Mon, 12/29/2025 - 08:51

Image by Lex Padilla

Daniel Anderson

Image by Lex Padilla

The Colorado River Water Users Association annual conference met in Las Vegas last week. Each year, over a thousand government officials, members of the press, municipal water district leaders, water engineers, ranchers, and tribal members meet to discuss the management of the mighty Colorado River. Hanging over the three-day conference was a stalemate between the upper and lower basin states over how to manage the Colorado River after current operational guidelines expire at the end of 2026.

Throughout the conference, the states’ inability to reach a consensus deal produced ripple effects. The stalemate held back progress on both near term shortage concerns (experts predict that Lake Powell will be only 28% full at the end of the ’25-’26 water year) and long-range planning, such as the development of the next “Minute” agreement between the United States and Mexico.

The closing act of CRWUA 2025 was an orderly (and familiar) report from each of the basin states’ principal negotiators that their state is stretched thin but remains committed to finding a consensus agreement. This final session had no discussion or Q&A. The basin states now have until February 14th to provide the Bureau of Reclamation with their consensus deal, which would presumably be added to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) draft that is expected to be released in early January. With time running short, many worry that public participation in the EIS process – vital to informed decision-making – will be greatly reduced.

Still, as Rhett Larson of Arizona State University said on the first day of the conference, “Desert rivers bring people together.” Tribal governments continue to innovate in the areas of conservation and storage, even in spite of ongoing challenges to meaningful access of federally reserved tribal water rights. For instance, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, or CRIT, shared news of a Resolution and Water Code recently passed by their Tribal Council which work together to recognize the Colorado River’s personhood under Tribal law. This provides CRIT with a holistic framework for on-reservation use and requires the consideration of the living nature of the Colorado River in off-reservation water leasing decisions. John Bezdek, who represented CRIT at the conference, put it this way: “If laws are an expression of values, then this tribal council is expressing to the world the importance of protecting and preserving the lifeblood of the Colorado River.” Among others, Celene Hawkins of The Nature Conservancy and Kate Ryan of the Colorado Water Trust also shared about the unique, and often unlikely, partnerships formed to protect stream flows and the riparian environment across the Colorado River basin.

Notwithstanding the basin states’ current deadlock, one theme rang true at CRWUA 2025: Despite the dire hydrologic and administrative realities facing decision-makers today, the Colorado River continues to bring unlikely parties together.

Off

Traditional

White

The Shoshone Instream Flow Acquisition: Public Process Carves a Path Forward

Annie Carlozzi — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:00:00 +0000

The Shoshone Instream Flow Acquisition: Public Process Carves a Path Forward Annie Carlozzi Mon, 12/15/2025 - 08:00

Daniel Anderson

On November 19^th, a rapt crowd gathered both in Denver and online for a six-hour public hearing and deliberation by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) board members. CWCB was meeting to consider a proposed deal to acquire and protect the water rights for the Shoshone hydropower station in the Colorado River as an “instream flow” (ISF). Perhaps more fascinating than the CWCB board members’ approval of the ISF agreement, however, was the open process built on shared values that led to this decision.

The non-consumptive Shoshone water rights, which have been generating power at the Shoshone generating station in Glenwood Canyon for nearly a century, have considerable importance on the Colorado River. Under the proposed ISF agreement, once Public Service Company (PSCo) stops generating hydropower under these Shoshone rights in the future, the water will continue to flow downstream rather than become available to junior users, like those on Colorado’s Front Range. A collection of West Slope entities, CWCB, and (presumably) the federal government will chip in to pay $98.5 million to purchase the water rights and then donate them to the CWCB in perpetuity. The goal: improve the environment on the 2.4-mile stretch in Glenwood Canyon where water currently is diverted out of the Colorado River to generate power before being returned. Importantly, acquiring these water rights would also maintain the fragile status quo for municipalities, irrigation districts, endangered species, and recreation downstream.

Some Front Range municipal water users, like Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern), opposed technical and legal elements in the agreement to change these significant water rights for use as instream flows. After several hours of thoughtful questioning and tinkering with words like “shall” and “may,” the CWCB board members ultimately approved the monumental ISF agreement on terms substantially similar to the proponents’ proposal. The legal transfer of the water rights contemplated in the agreement now heads to Colorado water court (25CW3177). There, the water court process should lead to a decree that ensures the exercise of these water rights matches historical use, and therefore, no injury comes to other Colorado River users.

Characterizing public decision-making processes as wasteful and inefficient is in vogue. Just eight days before CWCB’s approval of the Shoshone ISF agreement, the seven Colorado River basin states failed to meet a deadline on how they plan to manage Colorado River operations after 2026 – all after years of primarily closed-door negotiations. But the CWCB’s process during the Shoshone water rights acquisition facilitated both collaboration and compromise – two critical elements that appear to be missing from the present negotiations regarding the Colorado River’s post-2026 operations. The Shoshone example demonstrates that a public process rooted in shared values can lead to fair, durable, and flexible solutions in complex water management problems.

Finding Compromise through Effective Public Process

Despite the high stakes, the November 19^th CWCB hearing that decided the fate of the Shoshone ISF agreement was remarkably open and fluid. In fact, this hearing was actually an extension from a roughly fourteen-hour opposition hearing that took place September 17^th-18^th pursuant to the public process required by 2 CCR 408-2 (specifically, ISF Rule 6m). The two-day September hearing concluded with a request by CWCB board members to both sides: earnestly pursue mediation with former water court judges to reach a negotiated settlement before the next regular CWCB board meeting on November 19^th-20^th. Two months later, the parties brought back competing redlined versions of the ISF agreement (and even competing bluelines due to fractures among the opposers). Despite returning without a complete settlement, CWCB staff and the Colorado River District (CRD), the named proponents of the ISF agreement, incorporated solutions to some of the opposers’ major concerns. For example, their proposed version provided a mechanism to continue a 2007 agreement that allows Denver Water to jump the seniority queue for Colorado River water using the Shoshone rights under defined “drought” conditions.

Despite this progress, a few issues lingered during the November 19^th hearing. It became evident three hours into the hearing that neither side would surrender on a few aspects of the ISF agreement. And the CWCB board members, representing every major water basin across the state, seemed uncertain whether they really needed to reach a decision that day. But their hesitation was not due to a lack of decisiveness or entrenched positions. Rather, the hesitation reflected concerns with how future generations might look upon this acquisition long after these decision-makers were gone. CWCB board members wrestled with these concerns on hot mics, prefacing questions and statements with their unique expertise and regional perspective.

For instance, Denver Water and Northern warned the CWCB board members that under the proponents’ ISF agreement, the CWCB would cede their statutory authority to CRD in perpetuity due to Section 7B, the collaborative process created for voluntary ISF call reductions. CWCB board members asked clarifying questions of both sides to understand the details of 7B. In limited circumstances, 7B allows CWCB and CRD to jointly decide whether to voluntarily reduce the amount of water flowing downstream under the Shoshone water right. This voluntary reduction was not required by law or any previous agreement but was included by CWCB and CRD to provide opportunities for public input and adaptive action if unforeseen challenges threatened future Coloradans across the state. Rather than shy away from an innovative process due to an unresolved legal argument over CWCB’s exclusive authority, CWCB board members shifted their attention to adjusting 7B’s language to fairly accomplish the aims of such a voluntary call reduction. During final edits on the ISF agreement, CWCB board members ensured that any “affected water user” – not just current opposers – could request this voluntary reduction. They also changed language so CWCB and CRD could make these voluntary call reductions based on future circumstances beyond the already-extensive list of factors found in 7Biii.

The hearing was time-consuming and a bit unstructured, but in the end, quite productive. Ultimately, the hearing officer suggested projecting the proponents’ updated ISF agreement for all attendees to see, then collectively reviewing and editing the ISF agreement live. Under the leadership of Chair Lorelei Cloud, the CWCB board members agreed to this approach. At the end of the night, a modified version of the ISF agreement containing compromise, flexibility, and creative joint decision-making mechanisms was approved by the CWCB board members. The transfer of these rights still needs to clear other hurdles, but in time, CWCB will hold this substantial water right in perpetuity to preserve and improve the natural environment on the Colorado River.

Shrouded Colorado River Negotiations

Compare this with the cycle of closed-door negotiations taking place between the seven basin states over the Colorado River. For the last few years, state negotiators have engaged in clandestine meetings, often in undisclosed locations, at undisclosed times. The public often hears only a few rumors of what is being discussed. Publicly, basin representatives repeat the legal positions that reinforce their proposed management alternative but also commit to continuing the difficult discussions off-the-record. Then the cycle repeats.

This heightened level of confidentiality might be prudent for settlement negotiations involving a sensitive private matter, such as a business dispute. But 40 million people across the American west depend on the Colorado River for their livelihoods. And this closed-door approach centered on the basin states largely excludes Native Nations, many of which cannot meaningfully benefit from their significant reserved water rights to Colorado River water. The current approach further constrains their sovereignty and their relationship with the river.

This opaque method of deciding the shared fate of the Colorado River has understandably generated frustration across the basin. At the Getches-Wilkinson Center’s Colorado River Conference this past June, Jim Lochhead, Colorado’s former top water negotiator, described the current process like “waiting for the black smoke or the white smoke to come out off the seven-state negotiating room.” So far, this conclave-like strategy has been ineffective: the states recently blew through another deadline on November 11^th.

Public Process and Binding Values in Effective Decision-making

It’s fair to say that there are just as many differences as similarities between Colorado River basin management and the Shoshone ISF agreement approval by the CWCB board members. The latter is just one step in the process to change ownership and use of water rights within Colorado law. Once the Shoshone generating station shuts down, this ISF right will improve the natural environment in the 2.4-mile stretch of Glenwood Canyon while largely maintaining the existing downstream flow regime. On the other hand, Colorado River negotiations currently take place between seven states (and impact the interests of two national governments and thirty sovereign tribal governments). That’s a whole lot more cats to herd than the seven major river basin representatives on the CWCB board who undoubtedly have more in common as a headwater state.

But take a step back from those differences, and the potential benefits of embracing a transparent and mission-driven process emerge. At least on November 19^th, that approach ultimately led to a thoughtfully crafted decision to preserve crucial flows in the Colorado River into perpetuity. Such a public process may provide more incentives for negotiators to move off sticky legal arguments and consider reasonable compromises that include everyone with a stake in the Colorado River.

While opening the Colorado River’s management to a more public process could help, the success in the Shoshone ISF acquisition also required shared values. In CWCB’s Shoshone acquisition, even the opposers applauded the efforts to preserve this water for environmental reasons for future generations. To be sure, the opposers still have more chances in water court to question the CWCB’s authority to share some decision-making and quibble with the historical use volumes of the Shoshone generating station. But they also recognized the factors by which the CWCB were making their decision (ISF Rule 6e). And the Colorado legislature gave the CWCB a clear mission: “to conserve, develop, protect, and manage Colorado’s water for present and future generations.” (See also, C.R.S. 37-60-102). While broad, this mission empowers CWCB to balance competing interests in Colorado's rivers and streams, which is exactly what happened during the Shoshone proceedings.

No comparable shared mission glues parties together in the Colorado River Compact of 1922 with equal clarity. There, the major purposes found in Article I are to “provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water; to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin… To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two basins…”. The Compact divided the basin in half and adopted a rigid allocation system in the hopes of preventing future conflict once and for all. Nonetheless, a century of controversies has followed, limiting the options available to future leaders entrusted with managing the Colorado River.

Despite good intentions when drafting the Compact, the basin states lack a body with executive authority and technical staff like the CWCB. Where no such body is directed to carefully weigh collective gains that can be shared by an entire basin, river, or region, the opportunities for creative compromise narrow. Conversely, Colorado statutes require the CWCB to act with all Coloradans in mind, and disagreements by the parties involved in the Shoshone ISF acquisition hearing were frequently couched in this unitive framework. In terms of water management decisions, this led to a relatively fast, inexpensive resolution.

Some deadlines will surely be missed when many parties are involved in making difficult, lasting choices. In the case of the Shoshone ISF agreement, extending the final decision one time after the September hearing was arguably a feature of a functioning, flexible process. Parties reported at the November 19^th hearing that they spent the past two months meeting together. These efforts led to major modifications, incorporating the concerns of various stakeholders while also making concessions that may pay dividends to the entire Colorado River basin.

While certainly not a silver bullet, Colorado River basin states should take a step back to orient around shared values to drive a more inclusive, public process. Armed with these values, Colorado River decision-makers would be empowered to realign their positions from adversaries to allies. This realignment could then inform a new approach, like creating an inter-sovereign commission that serves as a public forum or even updating the compact with a modern water allocation scheme. Future generations will thank today’s leaders for taking that risk.

For Further Reading

Final Shoshone ISF Agreement.

Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2025 Shoshone ISF Acquisition (last visited Dec. 10, 2025).

Matthew McKinney, Jay Weiner & Daryl Vigil, First in Time: The Place of Tribes in Governing the Colorado River System, 63 Nat. Res. J. 153 (2023).

Colorado River Research Group, Colorado River Insights: Dancing with Deadpool 55 (Dec. 2025).

Up Next

Stay tuned for an upcoming piece discussing the CWCB’s authority to share management of its instream flow rights – and what that means for future streamflow protection in Colorado.

Off

Traditional

White