COLORADO RIVER (INDIRECTLY) DRIES UP OWENS VALLEY

The Colorado River is dying, which could also ring the death knell of multiple dreamy scenarios centered on Los Angeles drastically reducing the amount of water it pumps, moves and exports from the Eastern Sierra. With the city’s supply of Colorado River water shrinking and likely to shrink further in the years to come, the value of Eastern Sierra water supplies only increases, which will stall if not forestall any fundamental changes to the LA Aqueduct system. 

The Colorado has been shrinking and shriveling for decades, but thanks to this year’s warm, dry winter, the snowpack feeding the river’s massive watershed hit some of the lowest levels on record. With the current water deal between seven Western states expiring, the federal government (the Bureau of Reclamation) stepped in and announced reductions in the amount of water Southern California and Los Angeles will be getting from the Colorado River. 

The exclamation point on the Colorado River crisis was delivered this week when water levels in Lake Mead, the feeder reservoir for the entire West, dropped to record lows. The lake hasn’t been this low since river water started backing up behind Hoover Dam in the 1930s. Same for Lake Powell. Both big, shrinking reservoirs are close to hitting water levels that would stop hydro power generation, which helps keep the lights on in SoCal and the West. 

The future doesn’t look any wetter: since 2020, the river flow has averaged 32% less than in the 20th century, according to federal data. No one expects that trend to be reversed. And please don’t throw a Pollyanna Hail Mary about a Super El Nino saving the day. The two reservoirs are a bit above 20% of their capacity. One wet year is a drop in the bucket, as it were. 

The federal deal forced on the seven states and 35 million people relying on the Colorado will cut supplies to Nevada, Arizona and California by about 3-million acre feet over the next two years. Arizona and Nevada, latecomers when it came to soaking up Colorado River water, will be soaked more than California. 

California will cut its use of Colorado River water by about 12% through 2028, meaning at least a reduction of about 200,000 acre feet going to the Metro Water District, which doles out water to SoCal cities, including LA. 

Arizona will take about 31% less and Nevada 28% less. Both states have lawyers on speed dial. Meanwhile, the four upper basin states, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, escaped any cutbacks, since they noted less runoff means less water for them. (The unspoken undercurrent: We have the snow, you desert states can go pound sand.) 

The Colorado River leg of Los Angeles’ three-legged water stool is getting shorter, and the city has minimal control over that source. It is at the mercy of national and regional politics and legal battles. The other leg, the California Aqueduct, is a tad less precarious, but it’s still a statewide political and environmental battle every year. 

Then there’s the LA Aqueduct. The city has pretty much absolute control over the Aqueduct system, making it reliable as long as the snow and rain keeps falling. 

Which brings us to cold hard cash. 

Part of the chants demanding LA cut its Aqueduct exports point to “local” sources in the LA basin. Namely, groundwater, recycled water and storm runoff. Conservation is on the list but it will likely see slower growth (here we bring out the hoary reality of the city using less water than in 1970 with millions more people thanks to conservation, which represents the low-hanging water fruit, so to speak). 

Back to cash. 

The LA Aqueduct serves the cheapest water to Los Angeles. By millions. Clearly, the less water LA gets from the Colorado River, the more valuable Eastern Sierra water becomes. No LA politician will impose higher water rates on LA citizens by curtailing, much less abandoning the city’s cheapest source of water for pricier options.  

A highly detailed, 22-page report lays out what the Los Angeles Department of Water pays for water. The item in question is named, “Estimated Water Supply Cost, Water Quality Improvement, and Owens Valley Regulatory for January 1, 2026 Through December 31, 2026,” which was duly approved by LADWP board. The LADWP 2025-26 Owens Valley Operations Plan provided the total amount of water used in the city by source. 

Water isn’t cheap. LADWP will spend roughly $510 million to secure about 457,000 AF of water this year. 

The LA Aqueduct is estimated to carry about 227,000 AF of water to Los Angeles, about 47% of the city’s annual water supply, at a cost of $108 million ($1.2 per hundred cubic feet (HCF)). 

Water purchases from the Metro Water District will deliver about 37% of the city’s water, at a cost of $245 million ($4.1 per HCF).

Pumped LA basin groundwater will deliver about 13% of the city’s needs, for $95 million ($3.4 per HCF).

Recycled water and stormwater capture will generate about 3% of the city’s needs, for about $30 million ($6.8 per HCF).

Water Conservation measures are budgeted for $32 million, with no estimate on how much “savings” will be generated to offset consumption.  

Not much analysis or interpretation needed on the financials. 

Or the reason LA is happy to endure all the teeth-gnashing, finger-pointing, appeals to environmental justice, and general grief the Eastern Sierra can dish out to keep its cheapest source of water flowing. 

Jon Klusmire of Bishop is always surprised about what lurks in the corners of the LADWP webpage. 

 

*Final Note: “What about Owens Lake, dude?” You are correct. The ongoing, 2026 operating costs for LADWP’s dust control and other work on Owens Lake and the Lower Owens River Project cost about $48 million, with another $27 million for Owens Lake capital costs. However, those costs are in a separate accounting column, not the LA Aqueduct/Water column, and LADWP is able to “recover” those expenses, thanks to its ratepayers. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.