The No Action Plan: Doing Nothing Is the Worst Option
Keep the 2007 Guidelines past their 2026 expiration with no changes. Earns a D at 40 years.
The No Action plan in the post-2026 Draft EIS is just what it sounds like. Keep using the 2007 rules past their 2026 expiration. No new coordination. No elevation-based tweaks. No new tools. This plan mainly exists as a baseline. It is what happens if Congress and Reclamation fail to agree on anything.
Lake Powell elevation under the driest decade on record. The median line shows the most likely path. The worst-10% line shows the bottom 10% of bad-luck futures.
The scorecard
We tested this plan the same way we test every plan. We used inflows from the last ten years — the driest decade on record. We ran 2,000 Monte Carlo trials for 40 years. The starting point and inflows stay the same. Only the operating rule changes.
| Year mark | Median ending | Worst 10% floor | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 years | 3495.7 ft | 3370 ft | D |
| 20 years | 3488.6 ft | 3370 ft | D |
| 40 years | 3481.5 ft | 3370 ft | D |
Strengths
- Simple. No new legal framework. No deal between the basins.
- Easy politics. It is easier to block change than to pass change.
Weaknesses
- Worst outcome of any plan we tested. Under the last-decade stress test, the median ends near 3,482 ft at 40 years.
- Worst 10% floor hits dead pool (3,370 ft). In the bottom 10% of futures, the lake is basically empty.
- Ignores what we have learned since 2007. Back then, rules were built for a wetter world.
Verdict
If you remember one thing from this series, remember this: doing nothing is not safe. No Action is the worst option on the table. Every other plan — even ones we don't recommend — ends up better than the status quo. The choice is not whether to change. The choice is which change to pick.
See all plans side by side in the head-to-head verdict, or read about why the real problem isn't drought — it's math.