February 9, 2026
Hello everyone,
Today’s topic is Reclamation’s draft Environmental Impact Statement for post 2026 Operations
The draft consists of 4 chapters, 15 supporting appendices and 19 technical appendices. You can go to their website to have a look. Be forewarned – it’s not an easy read. If you wish to make comments, you have until March 2, 2026.
The draft EIS sets the stage for Reclamation imposing cutbacks for water delivery to the States. The basin remains in an extended, multi-decadal drought. As of January 4, 2026, snow accumulation was at 4.8 inches, which is 73% of the 30-year median.
Will this impact boating? In short, not much. We can expect the lower flows to continue – any chance for high flow experiments? Hard to say. Here is a synopsis:
There are four alternatives for operating Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Each quantifying the shortages or cutbacks based on reservoir elevations. The numbers apply to sections in the relevant chapters with the associated cutbacks in million acre-feet (maf).
2.5 Basic Coordination Alternative – 1.48 maf
2.6 Enhanced Coordination Alternative – 3.0 maf
2.7. Maximum Operational flexibility Alternative – 4.0 maf
2.8. Supply Driven Alternative – 2.1 maf
Technical Appendix No. 14 discusses impacts on recreation. Per the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan’s Record of Decision, minimum flows are 5000 and 8000 cfs for different times of the day. Modeling carried out to 2060 quantified the occurrence of releases for each alternative. We’ve distilled the results in the table below.
|
Alternatives |
for 5000 cfs |
for 8000 cfs |
|
Enhanced Coordination |
98 % |
14 % |
|
Supply Driven |
97 % |
86 % |
|
Basic Coordination |
80 % |
81 % |
|
Maximum Operational Flexibility |
57 % |
42 % |
|
No Action |
78 % |
69 % |
The Supply Driven alternative appears to best favor boating. GCPBA will submit comments to Reclamation. We won’t go into great detail in this newsletter. However, it is remarkable the extent that hydropower dictates the operation of the two reservoirs. There are repeated references to Glen Canyon Dam’s “critical infrastructure” without explaining what that is. All the alternatives are developed to ensure that this “critical infrastructure” is protected. We are conversant with the dam’s design and construction. There is no “critical infrastructure.” Without stating so, Reclamation is referring to the dam’s 8 turbines to ensure that hydropower is not curtailed.
Each alternative is designed so that Lake Powell’s elevation stays above Elevation 3490 to guarantee the production of hydropower. As result, 4 million acre feet of storage is negated as it represents the reservoir volume between the intakes and the river outlet works – on par with the level of cutbacks.
Might there be lawsuits when cutbacks are imposed? When legislation was enacted in 1956 to authorize the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), “…generation of hydroelectric power is incident to the delivery of water.” Be interesting to see.
Although the draft EIS will not impact boating to a large degree, we do have concerns. The hydropower interests argue against High Flow Experiments because revenue is foregone when releases are made thru the river outlet works and, as we well know, the daily fluctuation of flows continues. All to the detriment of the health of the river corridor. So, we will submit comments, full well knowing that it is akin to rowing against the wind.
Best of luck in the lottery,
John Vrymoed, President
Grand Canyon Private Boaters’ Association