�鶹��Ѱ�����

On November 19^th, a rapt crowd gathered both in Denver and online for a six-hour public hearing and deliberation by the�� (CWCB) board members. CWCB was meeting to consider a proposed deal to acquire and protect the water rights for the Shoshone hydropower station in the Colorado River as an “” (ISF). Perhaps more fascinating than the CWCB board members’ approval of the ISF agreement, however, was the open process built on shared values that led to this decision.

The non-consumptive Shoshone water rights, which have been generating power at the Shoshone generating station in Glenwood Canyon for nearly a century, have��. Under the proposed ISF agreement, once Public Service Company (PSCo) stops generating hydropower under these Shoshone rights in the future, the water will continue to flow downstream rather than become available to junior users, like those on Colorado’s Front Range. A collection of West Slope entities, CWCB, and (presumably) the federal government will chip in to pay $98.5 million to purchase the water rights and then donate them to the CWCB in perpetuity. The goal: improve the environment on the 2.4-mile stretch in Glenwood Canyon where water currently is diverted out of the Colorado River to generate power before being returned. Importantly, acquiring these water rights would also maintain the fragile status quo for municipalities, irrigation districts, endangered species, and recreation downstream.

Some Front Range municipal water users, like Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern), opposed technical and legal elements in the agreement to change these significant water rights for use as instream flows. After several hours of thoughtful questioning and tinkering with words like “shall” and “may,” the CWCB board members ultimately approved the monumental ISF agreement on terms substantially similar to the proponents’ proposal. The legal transfer of the water rights contemplated in the agreement now heads to Colorado water court (25CW3177). There, the water court process should lead to a decree that ensures the exercise of these water rights matches historical use, and therefore, no injury comes to other Colorado River users.

Characterizing public decision-making processes as wasteful and inefficient is in vogue. Just eight days before CWCB’s approval of the Shoshone ISF agreement, the seven Colorado River basin states failed to meet a deadline on how they plan to manage Colorado River operations after 2026 – all after years of primarily closed-door negotiations. But the CWCB’s process during the Shoshone water rights acquisition facilitated both collaboration and compromise – two critical elements that appear to be missing from the present negotiations regarding the Colorado River’s post-2026 operations. The Shoshone example demonstrates that a public process rooted in shared values can lead to fair, durable, and flexible solutions in complex water management problems.

��

Finding Compromise through Effective Public Process

, the November 19^th CWCB hearing that decided the fate of the Shoshone ISF agreement was remarkably open and fluid. In fact, this hearing was actually an extension from a roughly fourteen-hour opposition hearing that took place September 17^th-18^th pursuant to the public process required by�� (specifically, ISF Rule 6m). The two-day September hearing concluded with a request by CWCB board members to both sides: earnestly pursue mediation with former water court judges to reach a negotiated settlement before the next regular CWCB board meeting on November 19^th-20^th. Two months later, the parties brought back competing redlined versions of the ISF agreement (and even competing bluelines due to fractures among the opposers). Despite returning without a complete settlement, CWCB staff and the Colorado River District (CRD), the named proponents of the ISF agreement, incorporated solutions to some of the opposers’ major concerns. For example, their proposed version provided a mechanism to continue a 2007 agreement that allows Denver Water to jump the seniority queue for Colorado River water using the Shoshone rights under defined “drought” conditions.

Despite this progress, a few issues lingered during the November 19^th hearing. It became evident three hours into the hearing that neither side would surrender on a few aspects of the ISF agreement. And the CWCB board members, representing every major water basin across the state, seemed uncertain whether they really needed to reach a decision that day. But their hesitation was not due to a lack of decisiveness or entrenched positions. Rather, the hesitation reflected concerns with how future generations might look upon this acquisition long after these decision-makers were gone. CWCB board members wrestled with these concerns on hot mics, prefacing questions and statements with their unique expertise and regional perspective.

For instance, Denver Water and Northern warned the CWCB board members that under the proponents’ ISF agreement, the CWCB would cede their statutory authority to CRD in perpetuity due to Section 7B, the collaborative process created for voluntary ISF call reductions. CWCB board members asked clarifying questions of both sides to understand the details of 7B. In limited circumstances, 7B allows CWCB and CRD to jointly decide whether to voluntarily reduce the amount of water flowing downstream under the Shoshone water right. This voluntary reduction was not required by law or any previous agreement but was included by CWCB and CRD to provide opportunities for public input and adaptive action if unforeseen challenges threatened future Coloradans across the state. Rather than shy away from an innovative process due to an unresolved legal argument over CWCB’s exclusive authority, CWCB board members shifted their attention to adjusting 7B’s language to fairly accomplish the aims of such a voluntary call reduction. During final edits on the ISF agreement, CWCB board members ensured that any “affected water user” – not just current opposers – could request this voluntary reduction. They also changed language so CWCB and CRD could make these voluntary call reductions based on future circumstances beyond the already-extensive list of factors found in 7Biii.

The hearing was time-consuming and a bit unstructured, but in the end, quite productive. Ultimately, the hearing officer suggested projecting the proponents’ updated ISF agreement for all attendees to see, then collectively reviewing and editing the ISF agreement live. Under the leadership of Chair Lorelei Cloud, the CWCB board members agreed to this approach. At the end of the night, a modified version of the ISF agreement containing compromise, flexibility, and creative joint decision-making mechanisms was approved by the CWCB board members. The transfer of these rights still needs to clear other hurdles, but in time, CWCB will hold this substantial water right in perpetuity to preserve and improve the natural environment on the Colorado River.

��

Shrouded Colorado River Negotiations

Compare this with the cycle of closed-door negotiations taking place between the seven basin states over the Colorado River. For the last few years, state negotiators have engaged in clandestine meetings, often in undisclosed locations, at undisclosed times. The public often hears only a few rumors of what is being discussed. Publicly, basin representatives repeat the legal positions that reinforce their proposed management alternative but also commit to continuing the difficult discussions off-the-record. Then the cycle repeats.

This heightened level of confidentiality might be prudent for settlement negotiations involving a sensitive private matter, such as a business dispute. But 40 million people across the American west depend on the Colorado River for their livelihoods. And this closed-door approach centered on the basin states largely excludes Native Nations, many of which cannot meaningfully benefit from their significant reserved water rights to Colorado River water. The current approach further constrains their sovereignty and��.

This opaque method of deciding the shared fate of the Colorado River has understandably generated frustration across the basin. At the��Getches-Wilkinson Center’s Colorado River Conference this past June, Jim Lochhead, Colorado’s former top water negotiator, described the current process like “ to come out off the seven-state negotiating room.” ��So far, this conclave-like strategy has been ineffective: the states recently blew through another deadline on November 11^th.

��

Public Process and Binding Values in Effective Decision-making

It’s fair to say that there are just as many differences as similarities between Colorado River basin management and the Shoshone ISF agreement approval by the CWCB board members. The latter is just one step in the process to change ownership and use of water rights within Colorado law. Once the Shoshone generating station shuts down, this ISF right will improve the natural environment in the 2.4-mile stretch of Glenwood Canyon while largely maintaining the existing downstream flow regime. On the other hand, Colorado River negotiations currently take place between seven states (and impact the interests of two national governments and thirty sovereign tribal governments). That’s a whole lot more cats to herd than the seven major river basin representatives on the CWCB board who undoubtedly have more in common as a headwater state.

But take a step back from those differences, and the potential benefits of embracing a transparent and mission-driven process emerge. At least on November 19^th, that approach ultimately led to a thoughtfully crafted decision to preserve crucial flows in the Colorado River into perpetuity. Such a public process may provide more incentives for negotiators to move off sticky legal arguments and consider reasonable compromises that include everyone with a stake in the Colorado River.

While opening the Colorado River’s management to a more public process could help, the success in the Shoshone ISF acquisition also required shared values. In CWCB’s Shoshone acquisition, even the opposers applauded the efforts to preserve this water for environmental reasons for future generations. To be sure, the opposers still have more chances in water court to question the CWCB’s authority to share some decision-making and quibble with the historical use volumes of the Shoshone generating station. But they also recognized the factors by which the CWCB were making their decision (). And the Colorado legislature gave the CWCB a clear��: “to conserve, develop, protect, and manage Colorado’s water for present and future generations.” (See also,��). While broad, this mission empowers CWCB to balance competing interests in Colorado's rivers and streams, which is exactly what happened during the Shoshone proceedings.

No comparable shared mission glues parties together in the Colorado River Compact of 1922 with equal clarity. There, the major purposes found in�� are to “provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water; to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin… To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two basins…”. The Compact divided the basin in half and adopted a rigid allocation system in the hopes of preventing future conflict once and for all. Nonetheless, a century of controversies has followed, limiting the options available to future leaders entrusted with managing the Colorado River.

Despite good intentions when drafting the Compact, the basin states lack a body with executive authority and technical staff like the CWCB. Where no such body is directed to carefully weigh collective gains that can be shared by an entire basin, river, or region, the opportunities for creative compromise narrow. Conversely, Colorado statutes require the CWCB to act with all Coloradans in mind, and disagreements by the parties involved in the Shoshone ISF acquisition hearing were frequently couched in this unitive framework. In terms of water management decisions, this led to a relatively fast, inexpensive resolution.

Some deadlines will surely be missed when many parties are involved in making difficult, lasting choices. In the case of the Shoshone ISF agreement, extending the final decision one time after the September hearing was arguably a feature of a functioning, flexible process. Parties reported at the November 19^th hearing that they spent the past two months meeting together. These efforts led to major modifications, incorporating the concerns of various stakeholders while also making concessions that may pay dividends to the entire Colorado River basin.

While certainly not a silver bullet, Colorado River basin states should take a step back to orient around shared values to drive a more inclusive, public process. Armed with these values, Colorado River decision-makers would be empowered to realign their positions from adversaries to allies. This realignment could then inform a new approach, like��creating an inter-sovereign commission that serves as a public forum or even updating the compact with a��. Future generations will thank today’s leaders for taking that risk.

��

For Further Reading

Final Shoshone ISF Agreement.

Colorado River Research Group, Colorado River Insights: Dancing with Deadpool 55 (Dec. 2025).

��

Up Next

Stay tuned for an upcoming piece discussing the CWCB’s authority to share management of its instream flow rights – and what that means for future streamflow protection in Colorado.