Disentangling climate and policy uncertainties for the Colorado River post-2026 operations.

Bowen Wang, Benjamin Bass, Alex Hall, Stefan Rahimi, Lei Huang

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Revisiting the application of variable infiltration capacity (VIC) model in the Colorado River Basin using SMAP and GRACE.Scientific reports · 2026
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bowen WangDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. bowenwang23@g.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-7460-4452

Benjamin BassDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. benb0228@g.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8283-8226

Alex HallDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Stefan RahimiDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-4462

Lei HuangDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

California Energy Commission EPC-20-006United States Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) NA23OAR4310633

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lakes Mead and Powell in the Colorado River Basin underpin water and hydropower supply for the western United States. While the policies currently regulating the basin will expire by 2026, planning remains challenging due to intertwined climate variability and policy uncertainties. Based on streamflow projections from 10 dynamically downscaled CMIP6 global climate models and unique methods that add and remove internal variability, we evaluate future conditions at Powell and Mead under existing and alternative policies. Due to projected streamflow declines, under existing policy, both reservoirs will face substantial risks (>80% likelihood) of reaching dead pool before 2060. Adopting recently proposed alternative policies reduces but doesn't eliminate such risks. All policies also exhibit tipping points where reservoir levels can change rapidly with a slight change in streamflow. A sustainable policy may require larger reductions to further reduce the reservoirs' dead pool risks and provide better buffers from sudden changes.

Identifiers

PMID41022724

DOI10.1038/s41467-025-63635-4

PMCPMC12479936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.