The indiscriminate and irresponsible “buy and dry” deals are hurting the new communities they serve and the farmers they leave behind and must end
Dry years like this one take on a special meaning in Colorado water policy. What we once called a “2002 year” or a “2012 year” will now be described as a “2026 year,” a year when the snow failed to fall, and summer monsoons offered only brief, scattered relief.
Now imagine receiving that same paltry water supply every year, not because of drought, but because of something completely avoidable.
Many Colorado communities know firsthand that “buy and dry,” the permanent transfer of agricultural water to urban uses, can have damaging effects when that water is moved to distant communities. The loss extends far beyond the farm where the water was historically used.
Water is more than an asset tied to an individual farm. Rather, it is a vital building block of the community where it has historically been used, supporting farms, businesses, jobs, the tax base, wildlife habitat and the broader local economy. When that water is permanently exported, those benefits leave with it, while the economic, environmental and social impacts remain.
A story published by The Colorado Sun and Fresh Water News (“Aurora Water set to buy up more historic farm water in Lower Arkansas Valley,” Sept. 9) noted the potential for, yet again, a permanent water transfer from farm properties in the Arkansas River Basin to the city of Aurora. It would not be the first such transfer, and likely not the biggest.
In fact, during the same time that Aurora has been acquiring farmland in the Lower Arkansas Basin, it has been equally busy pursuing land and water assets in northern Colorado. The recent reporting highlights a concerning trend that should sound the alarm for every rural community in the state.
For decades, many metro area water providers have been claiming to work with agriculture in a way that allows cities to thrive, while protecting agriculture. What they describe as “water sharing” frequently involves nondisclosure agreements and working with faceless third parties that quietly accumulate farm assets. Assets are later sold to cities, often to the surprise of local communities when deals are daylighted.
Only after the water and land are under control of the cities are they interested in talking to farmers about how it will be divided between historic and future uses. Although the word “sharing” implies some level of equity between agricultural and municipal parties, the transfer of power has already occurred: It is the cities that end up with ultimate control, leverage and say in how, where and when water will be used.
In the 1930s, Colorado leaders recognized the need for additional water supplies on the Front Range and beyond, and they passed legislation that created water conservancy districts to look out for those who needed additional water — but they also required them to mitigate damages that occurred if water was going to cross from the Colorado River Basin to points beyond.
In the case of three of those users, they paid for or contributed to the costs of building Green Mountain Reservoir in Summit County, Wolford Mountain Reservoir in Grand County and Ruedi Reservoir, which straddles Pitkin and Eagle counties. If those sound familiar, it’s because they have provided valuable water storage and supplies throughout their life spans, and especially this year.
The concept of mitigating impacts when developing water projects is not new, but thus far has been inadequate in the context of transfers from agriculture to urban uses. While progress continues to be made as it relates to issues like revegetating formerly irrigated lands, progress is too slow and our rural communities are bearing too great of a burden for decisions made along our urban Front Range corridor.
When agricultural water is exported to distant communities, those who receive the long-term benefits of that water should also bear responsibility for meaningfully mitigating the resulting social, environmental and economic impacts suffered by the communities losing that water.
The closer we look at these recent and ongoing water export plans, the more we see an unwillingness by many metro area communities to look beyond themselves. Colorado has been having conversations about balancing growth and preserving irrigated agriculture for decades as memorialized in the Colorado Water Plan, which states, “Water supplies for Colorado’s urban growth should not come at the expense of our rural communities through indiscriminate buy and dry methods.”
Yet these indiscriminate and irresponsible transfers continue, and with each one, more agricultural water and the communities it supports are permanently diminished, if not totally sacrificed.
It is time for Colorado to come together and ask a fundamental question: At what point is enough, enough? How much agricultural water can we permanently transfer before we acknowledge that we are permanently dismantling the character, economy, and food-producing capacity of our state?
Colorado’s water future belongs to all of us, and so does the responsibility to decide what we are willing to sacrifice to meet the growing demands of the metro area.
Joe Frank, of Merino, is the general manager at Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District which serves residents in Morgan, Washington, Logan and Sedgwick counties.
Jack Goble, of McClave, is the general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, which serves residents in Pueblo, Crowley, Otero, Bent, and Prowers counties.
Leann Noga, of Pueblo, is the executive director at Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which serves residents in Chaffee, Fremont, Pueblo, El Paso, Crowley, Otero, Bent, Prowers and Kiowa counties.
Brad Wind, of Loveland, is the general manager of Northern Water, which supplies water to more than 1 million people in northeastern Colorado.
Print