Colorado River flow dwindles as warming-driven loss of reflective snow energizes evaporation

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | February 20th, 2020

The sensitivity of river discharge to climate-system warming is highly uncertain and governing processes are poorly understood, impeding climate-change adaptation. A prom

The sensitivity of river discharge to climate-system warming is highly uncertain and governing processes are poorly understood, impeding climate-change adaptation. A prominent exemplar is the Colorado River, where meteorological drought and warming have been shrinking a water resource that supports more than US$1 trillion per year of economic activity. Monte-Carlo simulation with a radiation-aware hydrologic model resolves the longstanding, wide disparity in sensitivity estimates and reveals the controlling physical processes. We estimate that annual-mean discharge has been decreasing by 9.3% per °C of warming due to increased evapotranspiration, mainly driven by snow loss and consequent decrease of reflection of solar radiation. Projected precipitation increases likely will not suffice to counter fully the robust, thermodynamically induced drying. Increasing risk of severe water shortages is expected.

Colorado River Insights, 2025: Dancing with Deadpool

Colorado River Research Group | December 3rd, 2025

The Colorado River Research Group (CRRG) was formed in 2014 to bring scientific insights to Colorado River system management, inspired in part by the salient role played

The Colorado River Research Group (CRRG) was formed in 2014 to bring scientific insights to Colorado River system management, inspired in part by the salient role played by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists in the Murray-Darling Basin—a similar, drought-stricken region in Australia. It was established as an independent, knowledgeable voice insulated from political constraints, sectoral alliances, and other pressures that might impede the full consideration of relevant ideas and viewpoints. Originally, the CRRG was launched with ten members, all academics with long, well-established involvement in Colorado River scholarship. In 2021 the group was expanded to 14 active members, while four original CRRG members transitioned to emeritus status. CRRG members serve as individuals, rather than as representatives of their universities or other organizations. The administrative home of the CRRG is the Getches-Wilkinson Center at the University of Colorado.

Colorado River Shortage FAQs

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) | August 1st, 2022

Colorado River Storage Project of 1956

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | April 11th, 1956

Colorado River water supply is predictable on multi-year timescales owing to long-term ocean memory

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | October 9th, 2020

Skillful multi-year climate forecasts provide crucial information for decision-makers and resource managers to mitigate water scarcity, yet such forecasts remain challen

Skillful multi-year climate forecasts provide crucial information for decision-makers and resource managers to mitigate water scarcity, yet such forecasts remain challenging due to unpredictable weather noise and the lack of dynamical model capability. Here we demonstrate that the annual water supply of the Colorado River is predictable up to several years in advance by a drift-free decadal climate prediction system using a fully coupled climate model. Observational analyses and model experiments show that prolonged shortages of water supply in the Colorado River are significantly linked to sea surface temperature precursors including tropical Pacific cooling, North Pacific warming, and southern tropical Atlantic warming. In the Colorado River basin, the water deficits can reduce crop yield and increase wildfire potential. Thus, a multi-year prediction of severe water shortages in the Colorado River basin could be useful as an early indicator of subsequent agricultural loss and wildfire risk.

Comment Letter on the Draft Water Resilience Portfolio for the State of California

Pacific Institute | February 7th, 2020

This comment letter conveys summary comments and suggestions on the draft Water Resilience Portfolio released by California state agencies, drawing on the considerable ex

This comment letter conveys summary comments and suggestions on the draft Water Resilience Portfolio released by California state agencies, drawing on the considerable experience Pacific Institute has around themes of water efficiency, stormwater management, and the Salton Sea. The letter was authored by staff at Pacific Institute and directed to the Governor’s Water Portfolio Program at the California Natural Resources Agency.

Comments on and Protest of Temporary Urgency Change Petition Regarding Delta Water Quality

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | February 17th, 2023

Community and Grower Engagement in Multibenefit Land Repurposing

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | June 10th, 2022

Community estimate of global glacier mass changes from 2000 to 2023

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | February 19th, 2025

Glaciers are indicators of ongoing anthropogenic climate change1. Their melting leads to increased local geohazards2, and impacts marine3 and terrestrial4,5 ecosystems, r

Glaciers are indicators of ongoing anthropogenic climate change1. Their melting leads to increased local geohazards2, and impacts marine3 and terrestrial4,5 ecosystems, regional freshwater resources6, and both global water and energy cycles7,8. Together with the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, glaciers are essential drivers of present9,10 and future11,12,13 sea-level rise. Previous assessments of global glacier mass changes have been hampered by spatial and temporal limitations and the heterogeneity of existing data series14,15,16. Here we show in an intercomparison exercise that glaciers worldwide lost 273 ± 16 gigatonnes in mass annually from 2000 to 2023, with an increase of 36 ± 10% from the first (2000–2011) to the second (2012–2023) half of the period. Since 2000, glaciers have lost between 2% and 39% of their ice regionally and about 5% globally. Glacier mass loss is about 18% larger than the loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet and more than twice that from the Antarctic Ice Sheet17. Our results arise from a scientific community effort to collect, homogenize, combine and analyse glacier mass changes from in situ and remote-sensing observations. Although our estimates are in agreement with findings from previous assessments14,15,16 at a global scale, we found some large regional deviations owing to systematic differences among observation methods. Our results provide a refined baseline for better understanding observational differences and for calibrating model ensembles12,16,18, which will help to narrow projection uncertainty for the twenty-first century11,12,18. Click here for more about the Glacier Mass Balance Intercomparison Exercise 

Community Perspectives on SGMA Implementation

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 13th, 2019

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic opportunity to achieve long-term sustainable groundwater management and protect th

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic opportunity to achieve long-term sustainable groundwater management and protect the drinking water supplies of hundreds of small and rural low-income communities that rely on this shared resource, especially in the San Joaquin Valley. Prior research, however, indicates that few of these communities are represented in the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) formed to implement the new law. This raises questions about other forms of community involvement, and concerns about the extent to which small and rural drinking-water interests are being incorporated into the process. This report details the results of twenty-three interviews with thirty-one representatives of small, low-income communities who rely on groundwater for their drinking-water supplies. The findings suggest community stakeholders are highly interested in SGMA and desire to be involved in its implementation, which many deemed indispensable for the future of their communities. Many are actively participating or following the process, including by serving on boards and committees, attending meetings and workshops, and monitoring meeting minutes and agendas. The experience of small and rural communities with SGMA is predictably diverse. Some interviewees have had very positive experiences thus far and are hopeful about the ways SGMA could benefit their communities and regions in the future. Others have felt overlooked or intentionally excluded. Yet many similarities also arose across the interviews including six common challenges and concerns about SGMA implementation: 1. Resource constraints to participation: Lack of staff, small budgets, in-house experts and an inability to pay for outside services/support limited communities’ formal participation in GSA governance and attendance and involvement in SGMA meetings. 2. Accessibility: Additional factors limiting the accessibility of the SGMA process included day-time meetings, language barriers, the proliferation of board and committee meetings, and irregular and unclear meeting schedules and notices. 3. Transparency: A lack of transparency in GSA decision-making as well as limited access to the data and information being used to develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) were common concerns for interviewees. 4. Lack of formal representation: The relegation of communities to advisory, rather than decision-making, roles in the SGMA process was also a common concern. 5. Limited opportunities to provide meaningful input and feedback: Whether participating as a decision-maker, committee member or as a member of the public attending meetings, many were frustrated at the lack of opportunities to provide meaningful input into decisions or on draft documents due to short turnaround times, not being provided necessary background or materials, and limited opportunities for public comment and open discussion. 6. Lack of addressing drinking water interests and priorities: Overwhelmingly, interviewees reported that drinking water interests, especially water quality and domestic wells, were not part of their local SGMA conversations, leading many to be skeptical that SGMA would have drinking-water benefits. Best practices detailed by interviewees with particularly positive experiences and suggestions and recommendations from all of the interviewees, however, demonstrate ample opportunities to address these issues and increase the integration of drinking-water stakeholders and interests into sustainable groundwater management. Targeted efforts to reduce barriers to participation, improve communication and transparency, and promote diverse representation could go a long way to ensuring the “consideration” and “active involvement” of this important, historically marginalized, stakeholder group. For example, communities can educate their GSA about drinking-water priorities and the variety of regulations and requirements public water systems must comply with and coordinate with other small and rural communities to elevate and advocate for drinking water needs. GSAs should incorporate available public data into Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) while developing plans to fill data gaps, provide ample time for feedback on staggered and sequential GSP sections and streamline and increase interaction with stakeholders in meetings. State agencies should consider requiring or incentivizing collaborative community projects be included in GSPs, and community representation in GSP development and implementation as well as provide funding to support meaningful community involvement in all phases of SGMA implementation.