Groundwater in the Colorado River basin won't run out — but eventually we won't be able to get at it, scientists warn
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Stark new satellite data reveal that the Colorado River basin has lost huge amounts of groundwater over the last few decades, with some research suggesting that this groundwater could run out by the end of the century.
But is that really the case? And if so, what could be done to prevent that happening?
While groundwater is being depleted, it's unlikely the water will ever run out completely. However, continued drainage of the basin could make the water table fall so far it's basically inaccessible, experts told Live Science.
The Colorado River snakes through seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and California) and two Mexican states (Baja California and Sonora). Some 40 million people, including those in Phoenix and Las Vegas, depend on it for their water needs. But as supplies of this surface water have dried up over the past two decades — reaching record lows — more and more people have been pumping groundwater from far below the surface, mainly for agricultural use.
To get a better idea of how much groundwater is being extracted, Jay Famiglietti, director of science for the Arizona Water Innovation Initiative at Arizona State University, and his colleagues turned to data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and GRACE Follow-On satellite missions. These satellites track changes in Earth's gravity field to measure shifts in the amount of water above and below the ground, and when combined with data on snowpack, surface water and soil moisture, this information can allow scientists to estimate how much groundwater has been depleted.
The researchers estimate that since 2003, pumping from wells has drained about 28 million acre feet (34 cubic kilometers) of groundwater from the Colorado River Basin. This is akin to the capacity of Lake Mead, the largest U.S. reservoir, which sits behind the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River. The study was published May 27 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
About three-quarters of the groundwater depletion is happening in the river's lower basin, largely in Arizona, where water is pumped from desert aquifers to irrigate farmland, according to the study. In these largely rural areas, farms aren't usually hooked up to municipal water systems, and instead rely on water pumped from wells on the property. Because the wells are private, there is often no municipal, county- or state-level measurement of how much water they are drawing up.
Famiglietti and his colleagues estimate that annual groundwater losses in the basin averaged more than 1.2 million acre-feet (1.5 cubic kilometers) and if the trend continues, it could lead to water shortages and limit food production.
"We're passing a critical point where it is getting more and more expensive to go deeper into the aquifer, and the water quality is dropping," Famiglietti said.
Dozens of wells have dried up in the area. Collapsing aquifers have caused land subsidence, and created fissures.
Ryan Mitchell, chief hydrologist at the Arizona Department of Water Resources, who was not involved in the new study, told Live Science that he welcomes the paper's findings and is concerned about the levels of estimated groundwater depletion in some areas. However, he takes issue with a sentence in the paper that suggests that an Arizona Department of Water Resources simulation indicated "complete depletion by the end of the century." He said the simulations don't indicate complete depletion of groundwater at all, let alone by the end of the century.
The groundwater won't run out, he said, but neither GRACE satellite data nor measurements of water use will tell us exactly how much water is left in aquifers.
"It's almost like it's an unknowable number in the same way that if someone said how many grains of sand are on the beach, you could make some assumptions and make some guesses but you can never actually know the exact amount of sand grains," Mitchell said.
Bridget Scanlon, a research professor in the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin, and her team recently used GRACE data to assess the implications of drought in the Colorado River basin. They saw similar patterns, finding that there was a period of high groundwater use as irrigation expanded between the 1940s and 1970s. Then, the amount of groundwater recovered during a wet period in the early 1980s and 1990s.
Related: Atlantic ocean currents are weakening — and it could make the climate in some regions unrecognizable
But since then, the picture has differed depending on how areas are managed. In "active management areas," or areas where water use is monitored, the levels of groundwater have stayed roughly level. In these areas, groundwater is pumped, but based on how much is drawn up, management agencies can divert more water to the depleted area to filter back down to the aquifer.
In unmanaged areas, no agency tracks how much groundwater is pumped, so agencies don't know when to replenish the aquifers. High extraction in unmanaged areas is driving the overall draining of groundwater, Scanlon told Live Science.
"We can't manage what we don't measure," he said. "It shows that if you have rules in place and you keep a close eye on water use and you actively manage it, you can kind of keep it at a sustainable level."
One thing is for sure: Waiting for precipitation to end the drought and replenish aquifers won't be enough. Studies imply that the flow of the Colorado River is expected to continue to decline thanks to climate-linked reductions in snowfall and rainfall — and that means there will be less surface water to use, less water to recharge aquifers and more reason to extract water from underground.
Drilling deeper wells is one solution, but there are problems with that, Famiglietti said. At some point, it will cost millions of dollars for a deep-enough well that will have high energy costs to pump water, he said, and that water is likely to require treatment.
"As you go deeper into the groundwater, that water has been sitting around in contact with soil and rocks for a long time, so it's dissolving solids and salts," Famiglietti said. This can lead to water that is salty, poor-tasting or that contains high levels of arsenic. "And because these are often refilled by agricultural water, they [are] collecting higher concentrations of pesticides and fertilizer," Famiglietti said.
Another option is to reduce water use, by, for example, changing what is farmed, to shift from water-intensive crops like alfalfa, Famiglietti said. "It can't be business as usual," he said. "We have to think about what our priorities are for water use."
"I'm as concerned about tomorrow as I am about 100 years from now," he said. 'It's very clear that we need more groundwater management in the lower basin, which is mostly in Arizona. Only 18% by area is managed, and there's an awful lot of depletion happening outside of those areas."
Every expert Live Science talked with suggested that extending the area covered by active water management areas would help — first, by keeping tabs on what is being used where, and then trying to replace what is used.
As part of such schemes, water could be brought in from elsewhere, Scanlon said. For example, this already happens when San Antonio buys water and pipes it from East Texas more than 150 miles (240 kilometers) away.
RELATED STORIES
—Atlantic ocean currents are weakening — and it could make the climate in some regions unrecognizable
—Over half of the world's largest lakes and reservoirs are losing water
—'Precipitation, the source of all fresh water, can no longer be relied upon': Global water cycle pushed out of balance 'for 1st time in human history'
"Groundwater is a finite resource," Mitchell said. "You need to be able to let it recharge naturally or be able to replenish what you use. He said Scanlon's research shows that "we're doing OK in the active management areas, and we're not doing so hot in the areas where we don't have some kind of framework in place."
A legislative bill to extend the areas that are actively managed has been proposed in Arizona, but similar ones have stalled after facing opposition. Those opposed say restricting water doesn't protect existing agricultural use of groundwater and will stifle economic growth. Some also object to water use being decided at the state level when they would prefer smaller water districts with locally elected directors.
"We're not trying to spy on anyone; we just want to know what the water uses are," Mitchell said. "But it's hard because trust in governments is at an all-time low. We are trying to put things in place to help the mom-and-pop domestic wells — those folks who can't afford to drill 2,000-foot [600 meters] wells because it's just too deep and too expensive. We want to try to help them protect their water resources."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
MIT joins group of universities suing the DOD over funding cuts
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has joined a lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD) over funding cuts related to indirect costs for military-based research. The institution joins a group of 11 other universities, including Brown University in Rhode Island, and three higher education organizations that filed the complaint against the DOD on Monday. Boston University supported the lawsuit as a member of the Association of American Universities. As of Tuesday, a federal judge had approved a temporary restraining order to halt the implementation of the cuts. 'We underscore that MIT drives US national security through its cutting-edge research, defense innovation and substantial contributions to military leadership,' said Kimberly Allen, a spokesperson for MIT, in an email. DOD declined to comment because it is ongoing litigation. Boston University didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. 'DOD's latest action would have an immediate and dire effect on our national security by disrupting research designed to help our military,' the group of those suing said in a statement released Monday. Read more: MIT sues federal science agency over cuts to 'crucial research' The lawsuit comes in response to the DOD's announcement that it would limit facilities and administrative reimbursements to a 15% cap for all DOD research grants. Facilities and administrative costs include maintenance and administrative staff, research facilities and safety expenses, among others, which the group cites as being essential costs in maintaining the country's status as a leader in military technology research. Initially proposed by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in a memo sent on May 14, the cuts are set to save the DOD $900 million per year, according to Hegseth. According to court filings, MIT received $107 million in funding from the DOD in the 2024 fiscal year. They estimate that a 15% cap on Facilities and administrative expenses by the DOD would result in an estimated loss of $21 million annually. MIT has expressed it intends to apply for new funding awards from the DOD in addition to pending funding proposals. MIT is also involved in lawsuits against other federal organizations over cuts to indirect costs in other departments, namely the National Institute of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Science Foundation. 'Far reaching consequences' — UMass Amherst sounds the alarm amid federal uncertainty As federal funding cuts hit Harvard, a private investment firm and other donors step up 20 NIH grants restored to UMass system after judge rules against Trump admin Trump admin asks court to rule against Harvard without a trial Federal judge orders Trump admin to reinstate hundreds of NIH grants Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Nineteen US colleges are among the best global universities, US News says
Nineteen United States institutions nabbed top positions in the top 100 global universities, according to 2025-2026 U.S. News and World Report rankings. Of those, Harvard University earned first place and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology took second. Stanford University was third, followed by the University of California, Berkeley in sixth, the University of Washington, Seattle in eighth, Yale University in ninth and Columbia University in 10th. Outside of the top 10, were the University of California Los Angeles (13), Johns Hopkins University (14) and the University of Pennyslvania (15). Cornell University, Princeton University, the University of California San Francisco all took 16th place. Beyond those were: the University of California San Diego (21), the University of Michigan (21), California Institute of Technology (23), Northwestern University (24), the University of Chicago (26) and Duke University (27). Read more: 'Far reaching consequences' — UMass Amherst sounds the alarm amid federal uncertainty The ranking includes 2,250 top institutions, spread across 105 countries. The rankings are evaluated by Clarivate™, which creates a group of 2,346 universities that are used to rank the top 2,250 schools. Then the institutions were ranked based on 13 indicators, which included global and regional research reputation, publications, books, conferences and international collaboration. The publication said the list provides 'insight into how U.S. universities — which U.S. News has been ranking separately for nearly 40 years — stand globally," according to its website. 'Far reaching consequences' — UMass Amherst sounds the alarm amid federal uncertainty MIT joins group of universities suing the DOD over funding cuts As federal funding cuts hit Harvard, a private investment firm and other donors step up 20 NIH grants restored to UMass system after judge rules against Trump admin Trump admin asks court to rule against Harvard without a trial Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starship's 4th straight rocket explosion is the latest public setback for Musk's Mars dreams
SpaceX's Starship rocket exploded during a test at its Texas Starbase campus. The explosion is the fourth failure for SpaceX's Starship rockets this year. SpaceX uses failures to improve — but it's supposed to put astronauts on the moon by 2027. SpaceX's flagship rockets keep blowing up. On Wednesday night, one of the Elon Musk-run space technology company's latest rockets erupted into an inferno on the launchpad. The explosion, which enveloped a portion of SpaceX's Starbase campus in Texas in fire and smoke, was meant to be a routine test ahead of a launch for the company's Starship program. The company plans to use Starship rockets — the successor to its Falcon models — to conduct missions to the moon, and eventually, Mars. Wednesday's explosion marks the fourth consecutive failure for SpaceX's Starship rockets this year. In May, a Starship rocket successfully made it through the Earth's atmosphere — but failed to release a payload of practice satellites into space and then spun out of control on its trip back to the planet. Starship rockets also exploded on two other trips this year. SpaceX has embraced its failures, using data collected from explosions and missteps to improve future products. Wednesday's explosion was intended to be a "static fire test," where the engines fire while the rocket is held on the launchpad with clamps, rather than launched into the atmosphere. Musk brushed off the mishap as "just a scratch." He said that preliminary data showed the failure was related to a container of pressurized nitrogen in the payload bay. "If further investigation confirms that this is what happened, it is the first time ever for this design," Musk wrote on X, formerly Twitter. A representative for SpaceX didn't immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment. On X, the company said the test experienced "a major anomaly." It said all of the company's personnel were safe and accounted for. This year's string of failures marks a stark departure from last year, where the Starship program had better success, proving that its rockets could be reused and even land vertically after a trip to space. Although SpaceX is a private company, Musk had come under scrutiny from Tesla shareholders earlier this year over his role in President Donald Trump's administration. A number of major shareholders have complained that Musk had been spending less time operating the company while he oversaw the Department of Government Efficiency. SpaceX is heavily reliant on government contracts, and has one with NASA for the Starship to put astronauts on the moon by 2027, before Trump's term ends. Musk left the administration earlier this month and exchanged verbal volleys with Trump, accusing him without evidence of blocking the release of government documents related to the now-dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The White House called Musk's comments "unfortunate." SpaceX typically conducts test launches frequently and has a high tolerance for failure, knowing the next test is just around the corner. The strategy has worked well for the company's Falcon rocket program, which in over a decade has launched hundreds of flights. On Monday, the company successfully launched a Falcon 9 rocket into space. The rocket sent more than two dozen Starlink satellites into orbit. "SpaceX's philosophy is 'fail fast, learn faster' and usually is undeterred by failures like this one," wrote space policy analyst Marcia Smith of the Starship explosion. Read the original article on Business Insider