Western Slope lawmakers: We’re all in this together when it comes to #COWaterPlan

When planning suburban neighborhoods, for instance, a developer might buy land to set aside as habitat in exchange for encroaching on existing habitat. Image Credit: Roger Auch, USGS.
When planning suburban neighborhoods, for instance, a developer might buy land to set aside as habitat in exchange for encroaching on existing habitat. Image Credit: Roger Auch, USGS.

From The Colorado Statesman (State Sen. Ray Scott and state Rep. Don Coram):

As state senators and representatives from the Western Slope, we believe three policies must be given priority in the forthcoming Colorado’s Water Plan and this month we (along with Republican state Sens. Ellen Roberts and Randy Baumgardner and Republican state Reps. J. Paul Brown, Bob Rankin, Dan Thurlow, Yeulin Willett) sent a letter outlining these priorities to Gov. Hickenlooper on behalf of our constituents:

Keep Western Slope rivers healthy and flowing to protect the economic, environmental, and social well being of our communities. The Colorado Water Plan cannot place Front Range development interests over the autonomy, heritage and economy of Western Slope communities. New transmountain diversions of Western Slope water to the Front Range will damage our recreation-based economy, agriculture and the environment. The Front Range must demonstrate a commitment to effective conservation measures and exhausting its own available water supplies.

Prioritize water efficiency and conservation in Colorado’s cities and towns, including a municipal water conservation goal. Aggressive conservation and efficiency measures are necessary to stretch Colorado’s finite water supply, minimize agricultural buy-and-dry, and reduce the need for any additional transmountain diversions from the Western Slope. Many West Slope communities are already working to set high conservation standards. Setting municipal water conservation goals will reduce urban dependency on rural water rights, improve stream health, and protect water on the Western Slope.

Continue efforts to build consensus on creating voluntary flexible water-sharing agreements between farmers, ranchers and other water interests, while respecting property rights. The Colorado Water Plan discusses alternative transfer methods in some detail, although it mostly calls for further research and data measurement. We must find low cost solutions to voluntary actions that minimize litigation and water court costs, and facilitate the promotion of water-sharing agreements to minimize permanent water transfers from agricultural use.

These three water priorities mirror a consensus of many major Western Slope groups and others across our state. Club 20, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water Quality/Quantity Committee, the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, the Grand Valley water users, and the Western Slope Basin Roundtables have recognized agriculture, recreation and tourism as critical attributes to life on the Western Slope, and named conservation a top priority.

The Colorado Water Plan can be a much-needed blueprint for our water policy in the coming decades. The plan’s release later this month will mark only the beginning of a dialogue among Colorado residents and leaders about how best to implement that plan.

As we proceed with collective decisions to answer the needs of the Western Slope, our shared environment, and the state of Colorado, may all of us who love being here make our guiding principle an ever-present awareness that “we are in this together.”

State Sen. Ray Scott and state Rep. Don Coram were joined by state Sens. Randy Baumgardner and Ellen Roberts and state Reps. J. Paul Brown, Bob Rankin, Dan Thurlow, and Yeulin Willett in signing a letter to Gov. John Hickenlooper outlining these priorities for the Colorado Water Plan.

Here’s an interview with James Eklund director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board via Colorado Public Radio (Ryan Warner):

Eklund on why the plan sets a specific conservation goal for cities but not for agriculture:

“The reason we don’t set a conservation goal for agriculture is because the [agricultural] user has got to produce a crop. And if you’re asking them to conserve water, that means they are fundamentally diverting less water and growing less crop. That is a private property right in Colorado. So, if you want to ask them to get more efficient on the other hand, they can amortize that out over time, that investment to move from, you know, flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation, they can absorb that cost over time and make a business case as to why they should improve their efficiency.”

On how the plan tries to protect flows in rivers across the state:

“We have about 1.5 percent of our rivers under some sort of a management plan… it’s very small… Yet that is where we find ourselves with watershed health and stream flow management. We’ve got to get better at that and we need to do it really rapidly, so that we know where we need to spend our money on environmental projects.”

On why the plan does not include penalties for falling short of the goals it sets:

“You look just to the West… California ended their year at 5 percent average snowpack, so we know that if you have to plan in a crisis, you sometimes have a really hard time at making everybody happy… Our plan, we believe, does quite a bit with the carrot approach.”

On what he hopes will happen after the plan’s release on Thursday:

“The challenges that we face as a state on water are so large that we have to really be hitting on all cylanders.” Eklund says that includes pushing for new legislation and executive rulemaking, starting with his request for more flexibility in how the Colorado Water Conservation Board can spend the money it gets in appropriations from lawmakers each year.

Leave a Reply