The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has released the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Post-2026 Colorado River Operational Guidelines. The Colorado River provides water and electricity to millions of users across the Western United States and feeds many reservoirs including Lake Powell and Lake Mead which local economies heavily rely on for recreation, tourism and hydrological power. This EIS has been long awaited as the future of water in western deserts like Las Vegas and Phoenix depend on it. The new operational guidelines will manage the Colorado River Basin through 2060. The comment period on the proposals will be open until March 2, 2026.
Below is a summary of the alternatives that BOR is considering in this EIS. BOR used a Colorado River Simulation System to project potential water levels, releases and Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) situations to give an understanding of what each alternative would do and how it would affect infrastructure and states usage across the Colorado River Basin.
The alternatives consider releases from Lake Powell and Lake Mead and deliveries from upper basin states to lower basin states. The Colorado River Basin States have yet to reach an agreement on preferred management objectives due to declining water levels, shortages and mandatory conservation cuts within their states. Determining which states should take on the bulk of water cuts when water is becoming less and less has been a pain point for the states and the Bureau of Reclamation.
The main differences between alternatives is the amount of water being released from Mead and Powell and the coordination levels. Typically coordination in NEPA documents refers to the federal agency coordinating with state and local governments. In the case of this DEIS, coordination refers to the coordinating efforts between Lake Powell and Lake Mead water levels and sustaining both reservoirs at an operational level.
Alternatives
No Action Alternative: The Colorado River would continue to be operated based off of pre-2007 operations. A standard release from Lake Powell of 8.23 million acre-feet (maf) per year was generally the baseline when conditions allowed. If storage forecasts indicated more water was available, releases could be increased. The criteria directed the Secretary to try to maintain active storage in Lake Mead roughly equal to Lake Powell to support consistent downstream use and hydropower generation.
Basic Coordination Alternative: Includes operational triggers for when to release water, depending on storage levels at the two key reservoirs. This alternative does not require basin states to reach any type of consensus. Releases from Lake Powell could be above or below 8.23 maf on a year-by-year basis depending on hydrologic conditions and operational needs. There would be a minimum release of 7.0 maf from Lake Powell each year. Reclamation would maintain authority to operate Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Upper Initial Units above Lake Powell (e.g., Blue Mesa, Navajo) as necessary to protect critical infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam and manage inflows.
Enhanced Coordination Alternative: Enhanced Coordination introduces formal balancing concepts that adjust Powell releases based on both Powell and Mead conditions, not just Upper Basin obligations. If Lake Mead is declining rapidly, Powell releases may be adjusted earlier. If Lake Powell is approaching critical elevations, releases are reduced even if Lower Basin demand remains high. The objective is to avoid catastrophic outcomes at either reservoir, even if that means accelerating shortages
Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative: This alternative gives BOR the broadest operational discretion to manage inflows and outflows of the reservoirs to maintain critical infrastructure. This alternative allows BOR to release less water based off of water projections and current storage levels of Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Modeled releases commonly range from ~6.5 to 8.23 maf. 8.23 will not be the minimum release amount. “We will adjust releases and deliveries as aggressively as necessary, when necessary, to keep the system functioning — even if that breaks from historical norms and expectations.”
Supply Driven Alternative: This alternative is based on what the hydrology actually is on the ground and not based off of historical data. Operations are governed by forecast-based rules such as, projected natural inflows, projected reservoir storage, evaporation and system losses and minimum operational thresholds. Each year available supply is calculated, releases from Lake Powell are set as a function of that supply and deliveries from Lake Mead are reduced proportionally if supply is insufficient. Releases are directly tied to Upper Basin inflow forecasts. In dry scenarios, modeled releases are often below 8.23 maf, frequently in the ~6.5–7.5 maf range
The table below highlights the differences between each proposed alternative. The draft EIS also recognized BlueRibbon Coalitions’ path to 3588′ Plan and the comments received by our members and supporters. This alternative was considered but not analyzed in this EIS and according to the Bureau of Reclamation:
This alternative was not carried forward because a recreation‑focused target elevation does not fully meet the purpose and need of the Post‑2026 action. Focusing solely on boating would risk noncompliance with water delivery obligations and operational requirements, which would be inconsistent with Reclamation’s policy objectives. However, maintenance of higher Lake Powell elevations, as feasible, is integrated into the range of alternatives, primarily the Enhanced Coordination Alternative and Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative. These operations were designed in recognition of their potential to benefit multiple resources and uses, including recreation. With respect to minimum flows below Glen Canyon Dam, targeting specific releases from Lake Powell at the sub-annual level is outside the scope of this NEPA effort, which is focused on annual releases.
We never intended our plan to suggest that recreation should take priority over water delivery and operational requirements, and we appreciate that they developed several alternatives that were designed to benefit recreation where possible.
| Alternative | Coordination Level | Lake Powell – Modeled Annual Release | Lake Mead – Modeled Annual Release / Deliveries | Key Operational Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Action | Low | ~8.23 maf baseline under LROC; may drop below 8.23 in drought | ~9.0–9.6 maf total deliveries (Lower Basin + Mexico), subject to ad hoc shortage decisions | No structured post-2026 rules; relies on pre-2007 Long-Range Operating Criteria and annual discretion |
| Basic Coordination | Moderate | ~8.23 maf baseline; minimum ~7.0 maf in dry conditions | ~8.5–9.6 maf, reduced as Mead elevation triggers shortages | Federal-authority fallback; no new conservation storage or negotiated shortage sharing |
| Enhanced Coordination | High | ~7.0–8.23 maf, adjusted to balance Powell–Mead storage | ~8.0–9.6 maf, with earlier and more coordinated shortage reductions | Explicit balancing of Powell and Mead to reduce risk of critical elevations |
| Maximum Operational Flexibility | Very High | ~6.5–8.23 maf depending on system stress | ~7.5–9.6 maf, with aggressive reductions in dry years | Most adaptive; prioritizes infrastructure protection and system resilience |
| Supply-Driven | Moderate–High | Tied to hydrologic supply; often below 8.23 maf in dry scenarios | Directly linked to inflow forecasts; shortages deepen earlier | Operations respond primarily to forecasted water availability |
Shortages and Cuts
Arizona takes the most amount of cuts early on with Nevada not far behind and California is protected the longest. Mexico will still get their required amount of water based off of the treaty. Upper basin states cuts are based off of Lake Powell releases. The more water released out of Powell, the more cuts the upper basin states have to make from their own water consumption to keep Powell at a sustainable level.
| Alternative | Arizona | Nevada | California | What Triggers Cuts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Action | Very early, very deep (reactive) | Early, moderate | Very late; only in crisis | Ad hoc response to Mead decline |
| Basic Coordination | Early, deep | Early, limited | Late; largely protected | Lake Mead elevation tiers |
| Enhanced Coordination | Early, sustained | Early | Earlier than history; moderate | Mead elevation + system balancing |
| Maximum Operational Flexibility | Earliest, deepest | Very early | Early and significant | System stress & infrastructure risk |
| Supply-Driven | Immediate, proportional | Immediate, proportional | Earlier than history; proportional | Forecasted water supply |
| Alternative | How Upper Basin Is Affected | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| No Action | Powell drawn down to meet deliveries | Late, severe |
| Basic Coordination | Powell releases near historical levels | Late |
| Enhanced Coordination | Reduced Powell releases | Earlier |
| Max Flexibility | Aggressive Powell release reductions | Earliest |
| Supply-Driven | Powell releases tied to inflow | Immediate |
BlueRibbon Coalition supports a post-2026 Colorado River operating framework that responds realistically to hydrologic conditions while preserving recreational access wherever possible. We believe any final decision, whether a single alternative or a blend of the, Enhanced Coordination, Maximum Operational Flexibility and Supply-Drive Alternatives, should base release levels on actual water availability, including low reservoir elevations, shortage conditions, and reduced inflows, rather than on outdated assumptions about supply. By prioritizing operations that retain the most water in the system during dry periods, decision makers can reduce the risk of catastrophic reservoir declines while maintaining viable lake levels for recreation, access, and the communities that depend on them. Protecting recreation is not incompatible with responsible water management; it is a necessary part of sustaining healthy, resilient reservoirs for the long term.
While updating these guidelines is a necessary step for the short-term management of the Colorado River System, it is unlikely that even the most aggressive alternatives for holding back water under the post-2026 operating guidelines can account for prolonged drought combined with already low water levels. BlueRibbon Coalition introduced the Colorado River Abundance Act to offer a long term solution for stabilizing the system and creating new sources of water for the Colorado River Basin. To restore the long term health of these reservoirs, we also encourage you to learn more about this proposal.
Add your comments to the Post-2026 Colorado River Operational Guidelines below. Comments are accepted through March 2, 2026.
