The Colorado River Abundance Act: Long-Term Insurance

The Colorado River Abundance Act, introduced by the Blue Ribbon Coalition in late 2026, is not an operating-rule proposal — it is an infrastructure proposal. The pitch is simple: build enough desalination and conveyance capacity to deliver 2 to 7 million acre-feet of new water per year into the Colorado River system, delivered to Lake Mead or directly to Lower Basin users. That water offsets releases Powell would otherwise have to make, so Powell stays higher. Same lake, more water, fewer releases needed.

It is the long-run complement to operating-rule reform. Where post-2026 operating rules change how we release water from what we have, the Abundance Act changes how much water the system has.

What the Act proposes

The Act authorizes a Colorado River Augmentation Project with three staged buildout milestones, paired with financing, public-private partnerships, and streamlined permitting to accelerate construction:

• Phase 1 (IOC, 2 MAF/yr): Initial Operating Capability — first plants online by 2045, delivering 2 million acre-feet per year. Scale comparable to Israel's entire national desalination fleet.
• Realistic buildout (3 MAF/yr): A phased expansion through 2065, enough to close the Lower Basin's structural deficit.
• Full buildout (7 MAF/yr): The Act's full vision — 7 MAF/yr online by 2055. Roughly 10-13% of current global seawater desalination capacity, concentrated on one coast.

Our simulator implements each level as an augmentation overlay on top of whatever operating rule the user selects. For the scorecards below, we used the current 2007 Guidelines as the operating-rule baseline so the effect of augmentation is isolated.

The scorecards

Same stress test as every other plan we evaluate: last-10-years inflow, 2,000 Monte Carlo iterations, 40-year horizon.

What the data shows

1. In the first decade, augmentation does almost nothing.

The 10-year medians are barely different from the baseline (difference <1 ft). That is not a failure of the model — it is the timeline. First plants don't come online until 2045 at the earliest. Between now and then, the Act gives the system nothing new. This is the honest cost of long-lead-time infrastructure.

2. By 20 years, the effect starts to show.

Phase 1 adds 14 ft to the 20-year median. Realistic adds 12 ft. Full adds 44 ft. Not dramatic yet, but the trajectory is bending upward.

3. By 40 years, the effect is large.

Full buildout lifts the 40-year median from 3514.8 ft to 3593.9 ft — about 79 feet of elevation, added purely by manufacturing new water. Even the Realistic scenario adds ~69 feet. This is the case for augmentation as long-term insurance against growing demand.

4. The worst-case floor is still dead pool.

Every augmentation scenario's p10 worst case still floors at 3,370 ft (dead pool). Why? Because augmentation takes 15-20 years to come online. In the bottom 10% of bad-luck futures — long consecutive runs of dry years starting soon — the lake can reach dead pool before the new plants are delivering water. Augmentation is a long-run lift, not a short-run rescue.

Strengths

• Additive to any operating rule. Augmentation works with the existing 2007 Guidelines, any DEIS alternative, or whatever comes next. No conflict with other reform.
• Scales with demand. The Southwest's population is projected to keep growing. Every other plan assumes we divide a shrinking pie. This one builds a bigger pie.
• Preserves Compact and Treaty obligations. The Act is explicit that Replacement Water is additive — it does not alter Mexico's Treaty allocation or shift Compact obligations between Upper and Lower Basins.
• Long-run elevation lift is real. 40-year medians above 3,590 ft under the Realistic and Full scenarios, even under last-decade stressed inflows.

Weaknesses

• Timeline. First capacity comes online ~2045. The Carlsbad desal plant (50,000 AF/yr) took about 15 years from concept to operation. 7 MAF/yr means roughly 140 Carlsbads worth of capacity — a scale no coast has ever built.
• Delivered cost. Estimated $2,500–$4,500 per acre-foot delivered to Lake Mead or Powell. Current Colorado River water costs roughly $270/AF. Cost is worth it if the alternative is an empty reservoir, but the gap is real.
• Energy demand. Full buildout at 7 MAF/yr would require 42–63 TWh/yr — about 8–12% of the Southwest's total electricity generation, or ~50% of Arizona's. The Act calls for dedicated renewables; whether that infrastructure can be built at pace is an open question.
• Cannot rescue the near term. For the next 15-20 years, the Act contributes nothing to Powell's elevation. Only operating-rule reform can help in that window.

Verdict

The Abundance Act is a long-term play — and a strong one. It does not compete with operating-rule reform; it complements it. The right path forward is both: adopt the best-performing operating rule for the post-2026 period, and support the Abundance Act framework for long-run infrastructure. The operating rule protects the reservoir in the near term. Augmentation keeps the system ahead of demand growth in the long term.

If you have to pick one, pick the operating rule — the simulations are clear that augmentation alone cannot save the worst-case bad-draw futures. But supporting both is strictly better than supporting either alone. The Abundance Act is the most optimistic vision on the table for what the Southwest's water future can look like, and the math works: with enough time and investment, we can build our way to a reservoir that refills.

---

Read the head-to-head verdict on which operating rule to pair this with, or start from the real problem isn't drought — it's math.