Latest news with #BureauofReclamation
Newsweek
24-05-2025
- Climate
- Newsweek
Grand Canyon Flooding Move Sparks Backlash: 'We Are Failing'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Controversy has erupted after federal officials at the Bureau of Reclamation announced they don't plan to release floodwaters from Lake Powell this spring to restore the Grand Canyon because of work taking place on Glen Canyon Dam and further down the Colorado River. Newsweek contacted the Bureau of Reclamation for comment via email on Saturday outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters Since 1963 the Glen Canyon Dam has obstructed the flow of water and accompanying sand into the Grand Canyon via the Colorado River. In response the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, which falls under Bureau of Reclamation jurisdiction, has opened the dam's bypass tubes 12 times since 1996 according to local media outlet AZ Central. Critics argue that failing to flood the Grand Canyon on a regular basis causes its beaches to wash away and has a devastating impact on its wildlife. What To Know The Bureau of Reclamation has said it will not flood the Grand Canyon this spring because of ongoing work around the Glen Canyon Dam and Colorado River. In April the bureau said it would recommend Interior Secretary Doug Burgum not approve a spring flood because of work being conducted by a National Park Service contractor, which is digging a slough downstream from the dam in a bid to prevent non-native fish, such as smallmouth bass, from spawning. On May 22 the agency said it stood by this decision and that it was final. However critics have argued this could violate the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, which requires government to conserve the National Park's wildlife and ecosystem. A stock image shows the Grand Canyon being flooded via water from the Glen Canyon Dam on November 21 2004. A stock image shows the Grand Canyon being flooded via water from the Glen Canyon Dam on November 21 2004. Jeff Topping/GETTY Environmental campaigners had been pushing for a spring flood to mimic the natural movement of the river and to restore the Grand Canyon's beaches. Groups representing anglers were also in favor as tailwater rainbow trout stocks have been hit in recent years by low water in Lake Powell, which has also caused temperatures to rise. Trout Unlimited spokesperson Jim Strogen said a "deeper, colder lake" would be better for fishing. However, major power consumers had warned spring floods would cut hydroelectric energy production. Leslie James, executive director of the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, claimed a spring flood could cost between $1 million and $2 million in lost electricity output. What People Are Saying Speaking to AZ Central Ben Reeder, the Grand Canyon River Guides representatives at a technical group in collaboration with the Reclamation Bureau, said federal authorities were "looking for any excuse" not to have a flood. Reeder added: "It really kind of bothers me, honestly, that we talk about the Grand Canyon in these economic terms as if it's there for human consumption." Larry Stevens, an ecologist who represents the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council and Wild Arizona, said he was "deeply disappointed." What Happens Next The decision not to have a spring flood at the Grand Canyon could raise pressure for one later in the year, even though this wouldn't match the Colorado River's natural cycle so closely. Tensions around flooding the Grand Canyon are likely to continue between environmentalists, government and electricity producers.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As time grows short for a Colorado River deal, Trump is set to fill vacant water post
The Trump administration is preparing to announce its pick to head the Bureau of Reclamation, a crucial position in deciding the future of the Colorado River, a White House spokesperson told the Arizona Republic. The move would effectively complete the new federal team overseeing strained negotiations over one of Arizona's largest water sources. The new commissioner will take charge amid tense negotiations among the seven states that use the Colorado River, which has strained under multi-decadal drought and high water demand. Southwestern states are working on an agreement to manage the river after the current guidelines expire in 2026. Without a proposal from the states, the new administration must impose a solution and risk drawing the river into a stream of lawsuits and conflict. Experts worry that this year's poor river flows could trigger lawsuits over foundational river-management laws as soon as 2027. States only have months to reach a deal, and negotiators have not shown signs of progress. 'It's been more than a little frustrating,' Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs said during a news conference on May 13. Tom Buschatzke, director of the state Department of Water Resources and Arizona's Colorado River negotiator, has said the Trump administration is already more 'engaged in a much more meaningful way' on the Colorado River than former President Joe Biden's team and has responded to some of Arizona's long-unanswered requests in the negotiating process. Trump officials could give Arizona and the other Lower Basin states of California and Nevada a new opportunity to convince federal regulators that those states should not have to take all the cuts on the river. Biden negotiators would not call for cuts in the Upper Basin, while Buschatzke said the new administration may be more open to finding a 'collaborative' solution. Even so, Upper Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico — have continued arguing that they cannot be forced to cut their water use if climate change and drought are the causes of low flows in the river, meaning any attempts to cut their use could lead to a lawsuit. A case could drag on for years, while water levels in the reservoirs continue to drop. "We have a non-depletion obligation, not a delivery obligation," Colorado Water Conservation Board official Amy Ostdiek said at a 2024 conference. "If we were in a territory close to dropping below a certain amount over a 10-year period, it would initiate an inquiry into what made that happen." By contrast, the Lower Basin believes the Upper Basin must send a certain amount of water down the river no matter what. "The Lower Basin states believe the Upper Basin owes the Lower Basin ... roughly 83 million acre feet over a 10-year average," Buschatzke said at the May 13 briefing. "That obligation occurs regardless of how much water they use or don't use in the Upper Basin." Changing conditions: As the Colorado River is stretched thin by drought, can the 100-year-old rules that divide it still work? The White House expects to announce its nominee for Reclamation Commissioner in a matter of weeks, according to the spokesperson. The nominee will go through what could be a months-long process to be confirmed by the Senate before taking office. A confirmed commissioner will fill out the three-person federal team that governs Colorado River management along with the states. President Donald Trump chose North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum as his Interior Secretary and nominated former North Dakota Department of Water Resources Director Andrea Travnicek as Assistant Interior Secretary for Water and Science. Travnicek has completed the first step in her Senate confirmation process, clearing the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on April 30. She said the Colorado River will be among her highest priorities in office. The previous commissioner, Camille Calimlim Touton, left her position in January, along with other Biden appointees. Since then, Deputy Commissioner David Palumbo has served as acting commissioner, a typical arrangement during a transition between administrations. Scott Cameron has served as acting assistant secretary for water and science. Trump's reclamation commissioner could be the only person on his appointed Colorado River team who comes from the river basin itself. So far, two of the three major federal officials who most affect the Colorado River — Burgum and Travnicek — are from outside the basin. Anne Castle, who served as assistant secretary for water and science under President Barack Obama, said in an interview that the four previous commissioners have all come from Colorado River states. 'There has been significant experience and interest from the last several reclamation commissioners in the Colorado River basin,' Castle said. Measuring water: How much water flows down the Colorado River? The right answer is more important than ever Buschatzke said during the May 13 briefing in Phoenix that Trump's existing team has been more responsive to Arizona's concerns on the Colorado River. Specifically, Buschatzke said the bureau is helping model the potential consequences to the Upper Basin states if they don't come forward to make a deal and are seen as failing to meet obligations under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Arizona has repeatedly asked Reclamation to take that step in the past, a request that went unheeded until the arrival of the new administration. 'The federal government is helping us look at options that would show risk not only to the Lower Basin, but also to the Upper Basin, something we've really asked the government to do … when both sides feel risk, I think that creates the collaboration we need to move forward,' Buschatzke said. Still, those moves don't necessarily indicate progress toward a seven-state proposal for river management, which is necessary to avoid a federally imposed solution and possible years-long court battles. While Trump officials have been more responsive to some requests, Buschatzke said the administration has not yet heeded Lower Basin states' desires to change the federal government's list of options for managing the river after 2026. Arizona officials are not happy with the options the federal government put forward, which did not include the proposal Arizona submitted with California and Nevada (it also did not include the proposal from the Upper Basin states). 'We sent a letter saying we don't like that report … we want you to rescind that report," Buschatzke said. "That has not happened.' To avoid one of the federal government's unappealing options for the river, the basin states need to set aside their differences and agree to their own proposal this summer, at the latest. Some officials have said that the agreement needed to materialize by May. 'If there's no collaborative outcome, I believe the federal government will move forward with whatever alternative they want to analyze, and we probably won't like what they analyze,' Buschatzke said. Buschatzke said the administration has been more willing to 'tweak' the alternatives proposed for federal action and talk with states collectively about a collaborative alternative. States had hoped to agree on a shared proposal for managing the river before the change in the White House in January, but disagreements over who should take cuts in their water use during dry years dragged negotiations out. State negotiators have declined to speak together at a water conference in Boulder, Colo., in June, which some water experts see as a possible indication that talks are not going well. The fact that the Upper Basin is engaging in talks at all is a 'sign of progress,' Buschatzke said, but he would not comment on the chances of a seven-state agreement. Meanwhile, projections of worse-than-average river flows this year are only getting worse. Scientists project that the Colorado River will only produce about half of its normal summer flow in 2025, according to a May 1 outlook from the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center. Low water levels in large reservoirs could send Arizona into a new level of water cuts in 2027, even deeper than the cuts it has already taken, according to an April projection from the Bureau of Reclamation. Official projections from Reclamation also show that flows from the Upper Basin could drop below the annual average amount required to satisfy allocations to the Lower Basin and Mexico as soon as 2027, depending on changes in dam operations. Water experts see that event as a possible tripwire for litigation. The two basins disagree on the mechanics of how the 1922 Colorado River Compact divides river water, and any attempt to enforce one interpretation could lead to a lengthy lawsuit that reduces vast technical and diplomatic questions to the decision of a court. Arizona has already started arming itself for a legal struggle. Governor Katie Hobbs called for $3 million in her January budget proposal to use on Colorado River litigation. The governor reaffirmed her support for the idea at a visit to the Central Arizona Project on May 13. 'We need a signal that we're prepared to defend our water," Hobbs said, "and I think that's a strong one.' Want more water news like this? Sign up for AZ Climate, The Republic's weekly environment and climate newsletter. Arizona will likely take the largest cuts of any state, regardless of which alternative Reclamation or the states choose. All the options put forward by federal officials call for cuts exclusively from Lower Basin states. Some irrigation districts in Pinal County have already left half their acreage fallow because of Colorado River cuts, and some Arizona leaders wonder how much more there is to cut before they hit essential municipal services and national security-related industries. Central Arizona Project Board President Terry Goddard said any new cuts in Arizona's water cannot come from CAP users. The CAP, a canal system that transports Colorado River water 336 miles to supply 6 million people in the Phoenix and Tucson areas, has some of the lowest priority water rights on the Colorado River in Arizona, meaning it has taken the bulk of recent water cuts. Meanwhile, tribes and farmers in the Mohave Valley and Yuma areas have continued irrigating with their high-priority water rights or have been compensated for saving water. Goddard said it's time to set up a conversation about ways for those farmers to take on more of the burden of water shortages, because central Arizona can't cut much more. 'Not every gallon is equal, the productive use or money you can make from a gallon of water depends where it's being used, and I think we have to be able to sit down with (Yuma-area farmers) … and say, in times of emergency, we have to have a way to keep industry and tribes from going dry, and I don't think that's an unreasonable requirement,' Goddard said. A representative from Yuma-area farms was not present at the May 13 news conference to offer a response. Buschatzke said Arizona residents shouldn't expect their taps to run dry anytime soon, but they might have to change their outdoor watering practices. He said Arizonans might also take hits to their environmental areas, like riparian zones, and water restrictions could spell trouble for some economic sectors. Goddard said average Arizona water users should feel protected from water shortages in the short term, but know that there is not yet a long-term solution. 'We've cut the fat, we've cut the muscle," he said. "Now we're talking about cutting bone.' Austin Corona covers environmental issues for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Send tips or questions to Environmental coverage on and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Follow The Republic environmental reporting team at and @azcenvironment on Facebook and Instagram This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Trump administration soon to name Reclamation Commissioner nominee
San Francisco Chronicle
12-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California's largest reservoir could see controversial dam enlargement under Trump
Near the southern flank of Mount Shasta, springs and snowmelt converge to form the McCloud River. This Sacramento River tributary, held sacred by the Winnemem Wintu tribe, teemed with Chinook salmon before Shasta Dam, built in the 1940s, blocked their annual migrations. 'The winter run was the main sustenance source for the Winnemem Wintu throughout history,' said tribal member Gary Mulcahy. 'We consider them the grandfather of all salmon.' For several years, Winnemem Wintu leaders have collaborated with state and federal officials to reintroduce the critically endangered fish to this wilderness waterway in a historic effort to revitalize the McCloud and reconnect with their past. But a federal proposal to increase the height of Shasta Dam by more than 18 feet to provide more water to farmers now threatens the tribe's land and could harm salmon runs. Contemplated for decades and gaining traction among Republican lawmakers, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's proposed Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project would boost the capacity of California's largest reservoir. Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the federal government has not mounted any public effort to raise the dam. But Trump has taken several steps in that direction, including signing executive orders instructing federal officials to waive environmental rules and deliver more water to California growers. Last week, the dam project appeared to get a push in the House Natural Resources Committee's budget reconciliation bill, with a designation of $2 billion 'for construction and associated activities that increase the capacity of existing Bureau of Reclamation surface water storage facilities.' Though the budget language does not name Shasta Dam, experts say it's precisely crafted to facilitate the project. 'There's no mystery here,' said Barry Nelson, policy advisor with the Golden State Salmon Association. 'That language is designed to push the Shasta raise.' Raising the dam was the 'number-one priority' water project for the first Trump administration, Nelson said. However, U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, a Republican whose district includes Shasta and who helped draft the budget language, told CalMatters that while he endorses enlarging Shasta Dam, the reconciliation bill's 'funding is not for any specific project.' Last year, a bill that would have allocated funds for enlarging the dam while prohibiting state laws from obstructing the project died in the House. It was sponsored by 12 California Republicans, including LaMalfa. The Bureau of Reclamation estimated in 2014 that enlarging Shasta Dam would cost $1.4 billion — roughly $1.8 billion in today's dollars. Obtaining the array of state and federal permits for the dam could take years, and is likely to face court challenges. The project would provide an additional 51,300 acre-feet of water per year to recipients — mainly farmers — of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, according to a federal estimate. That would increase the amount they receive on average by less than 1%, which Ron Stork, a policy expert with the group Friends of the River, referred to as 'decimal dust.' The dam project would claim some of the Winnemem Wintu's last remaining territory and could violate the state's Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which explicitly prohibits constructing reservoirs on the McCloud's final miles before entering Lake Shasta. State officials have publicly opposed the project in the past. In 2013, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said raising the dam would have 'significant and unavoidable impacts' on the Sacramento River ecosystem. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has similarly warned federal officials that the project would restrict high-water flows and reduce fish habitat. State officials declined to comment for this story. Bureau of Reclamation spokesperson Peter Soeth also declined to comment. Stork, a longtime opponent of the dam raise, said the Trump administration is liable to ignore the state law. Trump's January executive order directed federal officials to deliver more water through the Central Valley Project 'by increasing storage and conveyance … notwithstanding any contrary State or local laws.' 'We certainly expect some serious mischief here,' Stork said. 'The president's executive order more or less says, 'Please find ways to accomplish my agenda by trying to get around state and federal law.'' Mulcahy, the Winnemem Wintu's government liaison, said Lake Shasta flooded 90% of his tribe's historical territory. 'Village sites, sacred sites, cultural gathering sites,' he said. Increasing the dam's height will do even more damage, he said, periodically inundating many important gathering places, including the Kabyai Creek burial ground, where dozens of tribal members were laid to rest after a vicious 1854 massacre by white settlers. It would also flood a cleansing pool for Winnemem men, a riverside dancing mesa and a young women's coming-of-age ceremony site called Puberty Rock. This, Mulcahy said, will fray some of the last remaining cultural threads holding together the tribe, which he said consists of about 140 members. 'We wouldn't be able to hold the ceremonies that are necessary to fulfill our spiritual and cultural needs,' he said. The Winnemem Wintu are not included on the official list of federally recognized tribes, which could limit their influence over the project. Polarizing farmers and environmentalists Like many Delta and Central Valley water supply projects, the Shasta Dam raise has polarized farmers and environmentalists in a dispute over how it would affect Chinook salmon. Environmentalists and fishery advocates say it will imperil already declining salmon populations, while project proponents, including the Westlands Water District, say it will help the ecosystem. Westlands provides water, imported mostly from the Delta, to San Joaquin Valley farmers who grow 150,000 acres of pistachios and almonds — their main crops — as well as other fruits, grains and vegetables. But General Manager Allison Febbo said the Shasta project isn't directly about water supply. Rather, she said, it's meant to help fish. Febbo explained that increasing the reservoir's volume will keep its water colder, which is essential for spawning. If the plight of the fish improves, Febbo said, regulations on water diversions might be eased — which would amount to an indirect benefit to water users like Westlands. 'We keep getting ratcheted down as the species continues to decline, so our water supply isn't going to get any better until the species gets better,' Febbo said. LaMalfa also stressed that the project would be 'a win-win' by increasing water storage and better insulating the reservoir's cold-water pool. 'More water for people and more cold water for salmon,' the congressman said. But Nelson, at the Golden State Salmon Association, said Shasta Dam has already 'been absolutely catastrophic for salmon.' 'The idea that a Shasta raise would benefit salmon — particularly under this set of federal agencies — is absurd,' he said. Completed in 1945, the dam blocked Chinook from reaching hundreds of miles of stream habitat. For the winter-run Chinook — whose unique life cycle involves residing and spawning in freshwater through summer — the ice-cold McCloud was their stronghold. 'It can be 110 degrees in the canyon there, and you can be standing in the river in waders and your legs are so cold it hurts,' said Rene Henery, California science director with the group Trout Unlimited, as he explained the importance of the McCloud to the future survival of winter-run Chinook. Today, the fish — which enter freshwater in the winter — cling to existence in a short stretch of river downstream of Lake Shasta, surviving thanks to the release of cold water stored deep in the reservoir. However, this resource frequently runs out in the summer as the fish lay and fertilize their eggs, which can lead to complete spawning failures in lethally warm water. While a more voluminous reservoir could theoretically keep its water colder for longer, Henery said the changing climate is likely to complicate this equation. Filling the enlarged reservoir in a hotter, drier future is the main problem. 'Dams don't make water, so in a low-water year, raising the dam does nothing,' he said. In wet years, he added, the enlarged dam will harm fish by capturing water that would otherwise flood vital wetland habitat downstream, like the recently restored Yolo Bypass, west of Sacramento. 'The inundation we get on the Yolo Bypass is what's keeping salmon populations hanging on in the Sacramento,' Henery said. Jon Rosenfield, science director at the advocacy group San Francisco Baykeeper, added that 'expanding the dam will capture more of the high flows (during wet years) that are now the only lifeline those fish have.' Mulcahy said he is hopeful that the project — though currently revving with Republican horsepower — will soon run out of steam. Labor and material costs are rising, he said, and the longer the project goes unbuilt, the more expensive it gets. 'They're going to try and negate state law so that they can proceed however they want,' Mulcahy said. 'But if we can last this one out, I think it may bury itself once and for all.'
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: Do environmental groups targeting Colorado River water use have their priorities straight?
To the editor: Environmental groups want to limit Colorado River water going to Imperial Valley farms, saying it's not of 'beneficial' use. What is a more beneficial use of water than growing food ("Groups call on Trump administration to curb wasteful use of Colorado River water," May 6)? In addition, no one has done more in the way of conservation on the Colorado River than Imperial Valley farmers. Since the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement in 2003, they have saved over 8 million acre-feet of water with another half million-acre feet saved every year. California is also part of a three-state plan to save an additional 1.5 million acre-feet a year to help balance the Colorado River. The groups' particular beef is with alfalfa, a foundational crop that feeds the livestock that bring us protein-rich foods like milk, cheese, meat, yogurt, ice cream and more. In this time of global uncertainty, do we really want to limit food production? Mike Wade, SacramentoThis writer is executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition. .. To the editor: Kudos to 10 environmental groups for petitioning the Bureau of Reclamation to stop wasting water from the Colorado River. In summary, the petition argues that the water levels of the Colorado River are dwindling due to climate change, and this trend is expected to persist and worsen. Soon, we will be experiencing the quip often attributed to Mark Twain: "Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over." But what Twain couldn't have seen coming is the growing number of data centers using millions of gallons of our precious water. There are now 313 data centers in California, according to Data Center Map. For their cooling systems to run their cloud and internet services, hyperscale data centers operated by companies like Google, Amazon and Meta are using 200 million-plus gallons of water annually, per Dgtl Infra. Meanwhile, wholesale and retail data centers use about 6.5 million gallons annually. To their credit, some of the hyperscalers are committed to be water positive, vowing to restore more water back to the community than they consume by 2030. But who's going to see if they are conscientious of restoring this commodity that's only going to be scarcer over the next five years as larger data centers for AI are being built? Will California agriculture and residents be at the short end of the water pipe? John Boal, Burbank This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
12-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Do environmental groups targeting Colorado River water use have their priorities straight?
To the editor: Environmental groups want to limit Colorado River water going to Imperial Valley farms, saying it's not of 'beneficial' use. What is a more beneficial use of water than growing food ('Groups call on Trump administration to curb wasteful use of Colorado River water,' May 6)? In addition, no one has done more in the way of conservation on the Colorado River than Imperial Valley farmers. Since the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement in 2003, they have saved over 8 million acre-feet of water with another half million-acre feet saved every year. California is also part of a three-state plan to save an additional 1.5 million acre-feet a year to help balance the Colorado River. The groups' particular beef is with alfalfa, a foundational crop that feeds the livestock that bring us protein-rich foods like milk, cheese, meat, yogurt, ice cream and more. In this time of global uncertainty, do we really want to limit food production? Mike Wade, SacramentoThis writer is executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition. .. To the editor: Kudos to 10 environmental groups for petitioning the Bureau of Reclamation to stop wasting water from the Colorado River. In summary, the petition argues that the water levels of the Colorado River are dwindling due to climate change, and this trend is expected to persist and worsen. Soon, we will be experiencing the quip often attributed to Mark Twain: 'Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.' But what Twain couldn't have seen coming is the growing number of data centers using millions of gallons of our precious water. There are now 313 data centers in California, according to Data Center Map. For their cooling systems to run their cloud and internet services, hyperscale data centers operated by companies like Google, Amazon and Meta are using 200 million-plus gallons of water annually, per Dgtl Infra. Meanwhile, wholesale and retail data centers use about 6.5 million gallons annually. To their credit, some of the hyperscalers are committed to be water positive, vowing to restore more water back to the community than they consume by 2030. But who's going to see if they are conscientious of restoring this commodity that's only going to be scarcer over the next five years as larger data centers for AI are being built? Will California agriculture and residents be at the short end of the water pipe? John Boal, Burbank
