Are carbon emissions from the top 122 largest fossil fuel producers (known as the Carbon Majors), responsible for extended drought conditions?

A new peer-reviewed study published Tuesday in Nature’s Communications Earth and Environment journal by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and University of California, Merced (UC Merced) quantifies how the world’s largest climate polluters are responsible for nearly 50% of the climate change-driven impacts on the western United States water crisis; due to heat-trapping emissions since 1950.

This study is the first of its kind to evaluate how worsening drought conditions they say are attributable to “Carbon Majors,” the world’s 122 largest fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers.

Multiple so-called carbon majors, which were tracked by the Carbon Majors Database for historical fossil fuel production, operate or extract resources in the Cowboy State.

The authors of the study claim climate change impacts in the western United States made people, especially farming communities dependent on water for food production, more vulnerable to drought by contributing to shrinking snowpack, decreasing stream flows and increasing irrigation demands. 

“Emissions traced to the Carbon Majors are intensifying an already dire water crisis across the western United States,” said Dr. Angel Fernández-Bou, co-author of the study and senior climate scientist at UCS. “Taxpayers, states, municipalities and communities are paying for the harms and costs associated with these climate impacts, and our study’s findings provide further scientific evidence on how the fossil fuel industry is responsible for those harms.”

The authors are claiming their research used climate and hydrological models and found that west of the Continental Divide, Carbon Majors’ emissions since 1950 have led to a reduction in snowpack and warm season streamflow that totals a loss of more than 40 million acre-feet of water, a volume comparable to nearly six times the annual water use of all of California’s cities. Similarly, a 2.4% increase in irrigation demand due to higher temperatures led to additional water consumption.

The timing of water flows is also changing substantially due to these emissions, creating a growing divergence between supply and demand. The study found that on average, the midpoint of annual streamflow now occurs more than five days earlier in basins across the region and up to 30 days earlier in some mountainous regions. This creates challenges particularly for agricultural communities that depend on reliable water access to accurately time planting and harvesting.

“People living in the western United States have been paying the price for climate-change-fueled droughts and fires with their health, livelihoods and wallets,” said Dr. Emily Williams, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral scientist at UC Merced. “In particular, our dwindling snowpack and hotter, thirstier summers have spelled disaster for our water resources. These corporate climate emissions are bleeding us dry.”  

The authors claim the fossil fuel industry has known since the late 1950s how their products would devastate the climate.

“They chose to launch a decades-long coordinated campaign to deceive the public, deny the science, and delay climate action,” the authors said in a Tuesday press release. Communities in California and Oregon have increasingly sought to hold these companies accountable for the harms caused by their disinformation campaign, and now the fossil fuel industry is lobbying Congress for protection from prosecution.

However, In an effort to protect energy extraction companies from lawsuits, Wyoming U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in April introduced the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026 to protect American energy from “leftist legal crusaders punishing lawful activity.” 

“States passing so-called ‘climate superfund’ laws, along with climate liability lawsuits, threaten to undermine American energy dominance by litigating producers out of business,” the spring release stated.

Hageman said state Legislatures and environmental extremists are trying to “scapegoat the same producers who keep America running with fines and lawsuits over legal production in the past, lawful activity in the present, and imagined transgressions in the future.” 

The Act would shield energy producers from attacks, the senatorial candidate asserts. And, according to industry officials, climate liability lawsuits seek to hold energy companies financially or criminally liable, but superfund laws can result in multi-billion-dollar penalties for past emissions and other alleged contributions to climate change. 

Vermont and New York passed first-of-their-kind climate superfund laws in 2024, while legislators in at least nine other states, including California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia, are considering similar proposals. 

The Trump administration sued Vermont and New York last May Day, bringing separate suits against both alleging that the states’ “climate Superfund” statutes are unconstitutional on multiple grounds.

In two practically identical complaints, the federal government argues that New York and Vermont’s statutes are preempted by the Clean Air Act, violate due process, violate the interstate and foreign commerce clauses, and infringe on the federal government’s authority over foreign affairs. These suits came less than a month after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May titled “Protecting American Energy From State Overreach” which calls out climate superfund laws and directing the U.S. Attorney General to identify and halt enforcement of state laws that “burden energy production and may be preempted by federal law or are otherwise unconstitutional.”

The order specifically cites New York and Vermont for passing “climate change extortion laws.”

“These state laws and policies try to dictate interstate and international disputes over air, water, and natural resources; unduly discriminate against out-of-State businesses; contravene the equality of States; and retroactively impose arbitrary and excessive fines without legitimate justification,” the Order reads.

The gap between an Order and an Act is pretty wide. A presidential executive order is a directive from the president to federal agencies on how to enforce laws, while a congressional act is a permanent law passed by Congress.

The Stop Climate Shakedowns Act (H.R.8330 in the House and, as a companion bill, S. 4340 in the Senate) prohibits retroactive climate liability lawsuits and other proceedings to implement or enforce an energy penalty law, dismisses pending lawsuits and proceedings on the date of the bill’s enactment, voids state energy penalty laws and affirms that the federal government maintains the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and other interstate environmental standards. 

Energy producers and lobbyist were thrilled with the proposed legislation.

“We thank Sen. Cruz and Rep. Hageman for introducing legislation to stop a growing patchwork of state laws and lawsuits that threaten American energy and risk raising costs for consumers,” said American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) President and CEO Chet Thompson and American Petroleum Institute (API) President and CEO Mike Sommers in a joint statement. “These efforts to retroactively penalize companies for lawfully meeting consumer demand are misguided and counterproductive. Congress should act decisively to reaffirm federal authority over national energy policy and end this activist-driven state overreach.”

Rep. Hageman has been encouraged by the number of co-sponsors she’s received for the bill.

“I am pleased with the more than 20 co-sponsors and numerous outside associations that support the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act,” she said. “The deliberative pace of the committee process and regular order is what creates strong, meaningful legislation. I will continue seeking the support of my colleagues and advancing this policy that will have a positive impact on our energy producers and consumers.” 

Not much has happened since the bill was introduced in the House on April 16. That day it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and then introduced by Hageman to the House “to prohibit liability against those engaged in the mining, extraction, production, refinement, transportation, distribution, marketing, manufacture, or sale of energy for damages or injunctive or other relief from the use of their products, and for other purposes,” the House Bill reads.

Every Congress since 1989 has averaged roughly 380 bills enacted into law over a full two-year term. That average is likely going down after the 119th Congress is finished, which has only passed about 104 bills into laws this term — only about 27% of the average.

Hageman has recently spoken about the slow moving entity, saying she is “frustrated” with the speed at which Congress acts. And, if the House and Senate majorities change in November, the bill is unlikely to see a vote.

One coauthor of the western states study said legislation and lawsuits are critical in holding big polluters accountable and are essential pathways to justice that must be protected.

“Communities deserve the opportunity to recoup the costs of climate change inflicted by fossil fuel companies that prioritize profits over people and the planet,” said Dr. Carly Phillips, study co-author and senior scientist at UCS.