By David Boyer
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing various decision-making frameworks and their impacts on the management of Lake Powell and Lake Mead and the greater Colorado River Basin (collectively referred to as the Basin). The Final EIS outlines Reclamation’s preferred alternative that will guide the management of the Basin beginning October 1, 2026, along with several other decision-making frameworks that were considered but not adopted. On August 21, 2026, the Department of the Interior issued a Record of Decision adopting the preferred alternative’s Decision Framework and, pursuant to that framework, issued the first set of operating guidelines, which govern operating years 2027 and 2028.
Factual Background
The Basin supplies water for roughly 40 million people and approximately 5.5 million acres of agricultural land across seven states in the western United States, 30 Tribal Nations, and Mexico. For the past 26 years, the Basin has experienced severe drought conditions resulting in low runoff and reservoir levels. Notably, the combined contents of Lake Powell and Lake Mead have reached lows unseen since Lake Powell began filling in 1963. Consequently, Reclamation has taken unprecedented measures to combat the drought that included the release of up to an additional one million acre-feet of water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir and a reduction in releases from Lake Powell to the Lower Basin. However, these novel actions have been insufficient to halt the Basin’s declining hydrologic conditions.
In 2022, the Department of the Interior (Department), along with Reclamation, began engaging the public in an effort to develop new operating guidelines, working extensively with the Basin States, Basin Tribes, and other interested parties affected by the Basin’s management. Despite the engagement, the Department and Reclamation were unable to develop consensus-based, long-term operational guidelines for the Basin.
The Department published a draft EIS in January 2026 because new management operations and guidelines must be in place by October 1, 2026. The draft EIS did not identify a preferred alternative; the preferred alternative later analyzed in the Final EIS fell within the range of alternatives the draft EIS had considered. During this time, the Department and Reclamation continued to engage in negotiations with entities operating in the Basin in hopes of reaching a consensus. Ultimately, consensus was not reached, and the Department was required to complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to have new management solutions ready for the October 1 deadline.
Reclamation’s Preferred Alternative
Broadly, the Secretary and Reclamation analyzed a range of management strategies and the tradeoffs associated with selecting a particular approach. Reclamation and the Secretary identified as their preferred alternative an adaptive decision framework that will allow the Department to develop and maintain consensus-based guidelines for operating years 2027 through 2036.
The Final EIS analyzed several management strategies: the No Action Alternative, the Basic Coordination Alternative, the Enhanced Coordination Alternative, the Maximum Operational Flexibility Alternative, the Supply Driven Alternative, and the Preferred Alternative. The Department selected its preferred alternative as the decision-making framework to guide the management of the Basin for the next decade. The decision-making framework of the preferred alternative establishes operational principles, key thresholds and ranges for operational elements, and a process that would govern the development and issuance of operating guidelines that would be implemented in two-year intervals unless a consensus-based agreement provides for a longer duration. The preferred alternative did not establish specific operating guidelines for managing the Basin; rather, it provides a structure within which operating guidelines can be developed, reviewed, and implemented through 2036.
Operating principles for the Department’s preferred alternative center on several management priorities, including the following: operations should be responsive to hydrology, critical federal infrastructure must be protected through practical and deliberate operations, operating guidelines should implement the Long Range Operating Criteria while also providing direction to address extraordinary circumstances, and operating guidelines should prioritize consensus-based recommendations.
The Department concluded that no singular decision-making framework could maximize the protection of critical water level elevations, minimize reduction in water deliveries, and maximize hydropower generation all at once. However, the Department found that its preferred alternative appropriately balances tradeoffs across key metrics and provides protection under hydrologic conditions drier than those of the current drought. Additionally, the Department concluded that the preferred alternative protects critical infrastructure and maintains a moderate balance of performance among reservoir elevations, shortages, and Glen Canyon Dam releases, even in the driest hydrologic conditions.
Overall, the Department’s position is that the preferred alternative appropriately balances inherent system tradeoffs and constitutes a practical approach to “robust protection of critical infrastructure while considering adverse impacts to water users and avoiding unnecessary impacts to other resources.”
Conclusion and Implications
The Department and Reclamation’s selection of the preferred alternative signals a continued emphasis on the creation and implementation of consensus-based management strategies to combat the drought in the Basin. While the framework does not itself prescribe long-term operating guidelines, the preferred alternative makes clear that the Department and Reclamation are focused on creating a flexible decision-making framework that may accommodate any future consensus-based agreements.
The flexibility afforded by this framework may allow management decisions to better balance the differing needs of those who use and rely on the Basin. However, the lack of consensus highlights the difficulty surrounding the Basin’s management over the past several decades. Despite a concerted effort from all parties, a long-term consensus on Basin-wide water management strategies has yet to be reached, meaning the solutions discussed in the Final EIS are meant to function in the interim. Without a long-term agreement, management of the Basin may remain unsettled, potentially affecting those who rely on finalized guidelines and key metrics in the Basin’s management. For more information, see:https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/final-eis/index.html. The Record of Decision and the 2027–2028 Operating Guidelines are available at: https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/post2026/decision-doc/index.html.
![Federal District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Over Shasta Dam Operations, Upholding U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Water PlanThe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied three environmental organizations’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to modify its 2026 operations of Shasta Dam and Reservoir. The court classified the requested relief as a mandatory injunction and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened standard applicable to such relief. [San Francisco Baykeeper v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, ___F.Supp.4th___, Case No. 2:26-cv-00671-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2026).] Background On March 2, 2026, San Francisco Baykeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the River filed suit against Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and several federal officials. The broader lawsuit alleges that the federal defendants violated the federal Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act in connection with Reclamation’s operation of the Central Valley Project. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs contend that Reclamation failed to comply with protective measures and incidental-take limits established by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) 2024 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for winter-run chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and North American green sturgeon. The preliminary-injunction motion addressed a narrower issue: Reclamation’s operation of Shasta Dam and Reservoir during the summer and early fall of 2026. Keswick Dam prevents winter-run chinook salmon from reaching their historic upstream spawning habitat. Consequently, the survival of eggs deposited downstream depends substantially on Reclamation’s release of sufficiently cold water from Shasta Reservoir. The 2024 BiOp established a “Shasta Framework” for managing water temperature and reservoir storage while accounting for fish protection, water-delivery obligations, flood control, and other authorized project purposes. In the framework, Reclamation designated 2026 as a “Bin 2A” year based on projected end-of-April and end-of-September reservoir storage. The plaintiffs argued that the high end-of-April storage level required Reclamation to treat 2026 as a more protective Bin 1 year and preserve at least 2.4 million acre-feet of water through September unless achieving that target was impossible. Reclamation responded that the framework uses both April storage and projected September storage to make the initial classification and that the forecasts therefore supported its Bin 2A designation. The plaintiffs sued Reclamation under sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that Reclamation was operating outside the 2024 biological opinion’s Shasta Framework. The plaintiffs then sought emergency relief requiring Reclamation to reduce releases from Shasta Reservoir, prepare a new operating plan, and operate consistently with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Bin 1 requirements. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on July 9, 2026, and subsequently denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court’s Ruling Although the order is not a final ruling on the merits, it indicates that the court views Reclamation’s interpretation of the Shasta Framework as better supported by the governing documents. The court expressly stated that the plaintiffs did not appear likely to succeed on the claim advanced in the motion and failed to make the stronger showing required for a mandatory injunction. In its ruling, the District Court first rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the requested injunction would merely preserve the status quo. The proposed relief would have required Reclamation to conduct new modeling, prepare and implement a new temperature-management plan, and materially change its reservoir operations. Because the requested order would compel affirmative action, the court treated it as a mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs therefore had to demonstrate that the law and facts clearly favored their position, not merely that they were likely to prevail. Second, the court found Reclamation’s interpretation of the 2024 BiOp more persuasive. Although language in Table 25 of the BiOp supported the plaintiffs’ position, the court concluded that the underlying Proposed Action, decision tree, and operational modeling supported using both projected April and September storage to determine the applicable Bin. The court suggested that Table 25 may have inaccurately summarized the end-of-April storage ranges described in the Proposed Action. The court used the interpretive framework from Kisor v. Wilkie as guidance but did not ultimately rely on agency deference. The Court directly addressed the interpretations of the BiOp, and underlying data to support and, in doing so, made clear that the decision was not based on any level of agency-deference but, instead, based on a finding that Reclamation’s position was more factually supported and, therefore, did not assess questions of deference. Conclusion and Implications The ruling leaves Reclamation’s 2026 Shasta operations unchanged by the requested federal injunction. It does not, however, finally approve those operations or resolve the plaintiffs’ broader allegations concerning incidental take, reinitiation of ESA consultation, or the validity and application of the 2024 BiOp. Legally, the decision underscores the high threshold plaintiffs face when seeking mandatory injunction against federal agency operations, particularly when relying on narrow claims regarding BiOp framework, and addresses the importance of a fact-based assessment, while declining to address to questions of agency deference. The court’s order is available here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/baykeeper-injuction-denied-ruling.pdf (Stephanie Cook, Miles Krieger)](https://argentco.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ARTICLES-Land_Fog-230x100.jpg "Federal District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Over Shasta Dam Operations, Upholding U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Water PlanThe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied three environmental organizations’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to modify its 2026 operations of Shasta Dam and Reservoir. The court classified the requested relief as a mandatory injunction and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened standard applicable to such relief. [San Francisco Baykeeper v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, ___F.Supp.4th___, Case No. 2:26-cv-00671-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2026).] Background On March 2, 2026, San Francisco Baykeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the River filed suit against Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and several federal officials. The broader lawsuit alleges that the federal defendants violated the federal Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act in connection with Reclamation’s operation of the Central Valley Project. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs contend that Reclamation failed to comply with protective measures and incidental-take limits established by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) 2024 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for winter-run chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and North American green sturgeon. The preliminary-injunction motion addressed a narrower issue: Reclamation’s operation of Shasta Dam and Reservoir during the summer and early fall of 2026. Keswick Dam prevents winter-run chinook salmon from reaching their historic upstream spawning habitat. Consequently, the survival of eggs deposited downstream depends substantially on Reclamation’s release of sufficiently cold water from Shasta Reservoir. The 2024 BiOp established a “Shasta Framework” for managing water temperature and reservoir storage while accounting for fish protection, water-delivery obligations, flood control, and other authorized project purposes. In the framework, Reclamation designated 2026 as a “Bin 2A” year based on projected end-of-April and end-of-September reservoir storage. The plaintiffs argued that the high end-of-April storage level required Reclamation to treat 2026 as a more protective Bin 1 year and preserve at least 2.4 million acre-feet of water through September unless achieving that target was impossible. Reclamation responded that the framework uses both April storage and projected September storage to make the initial classification and that the forecasts therefore supported its Bin 2A designation. The plaintiffs sued Reclamation under sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that Reclamation was operating outside the 2024 biological opinion’s Shasta Framework. The plaintiffs then sought emergency relief requiring Reclamation to reduce releases from Shasta Reservoir, prepare a new operating plan, and operate consistently with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Bin 1 requirements. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on July 9, 2026, and subsequently denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court’s Ruling Although the order is not a final ruling on the merits, it indicates that the court views Reclamation’s interpretation of the Shasta Framework as better supported by the governing documents. The court expressly stated that the plaintiffs did not appear likely to succeed on the claim advanced in the motion and failed to make the stronger showing required for a mandatory injunction. In its ruling, the District Court first rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the requested injunction would merely preserve the status quo. The proposed relief would have required Reclamation to conduct new modeling, prepare and implement a new temperature-management plan, and materially change its reservoir operations. Because the requested order would compel affirmative action, the court treated it as a mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs therefore had to demonstrate that the law and facts clearly favored their position, not merely that they were likely to prevail. Second, the court found Reclamation’s interpretation of the 2024 BiOp more persuasive. Although language in Table 25 of the BiOp supported the plaintiffs’ position, the court concluded that the underlying Proposed Action, decision tree, and operational modeling supported using both projected April and September storage to determine the applicable Bin. The court suggested that Table 25 may have inaccurately summarized the end-of-April storage ranges described in the Proposed Action. The court used the interpretive framework from Kisor v. Wilkie as guidance but did not ultimately rely on agency deference. The Court directly addressed the interpretations of the BiOp, and underlying data to support and, in doing so, made clear that the decision was not based on any level of agency-deference but, instead, based on a finding that Reclamation’s position was more factually supported and, therefore, did not assess questions of deference. Conclusion and Implications The ruling leaves Reclamation’s 2026 Shasta operations unchanged by the requested federal injunction. It does not, however, finally approve those operations or resolve the plaintiffs’ broader allegations concerning incidental take, reinitiation of ESA consultation, or the validity and application of the 2024 BiOp. Legally, the decision underscores the high threshold plaintiffs face when seeking mandatory injunction against federal agency operations, particularly when relying on narrow claims regarding BiOp framework, and addresses the importance of a fact-based assessment, while declining to address to questions of agency deference. The court’s order is available here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/baykeeper-injuction-denied-ruling.pdf (Stephanie Cook, Miles Krieger)")
