President Trump moves to nix Public Lands rule; Alfalfa exports data dump: Also re-upping and freeing-up a piece on political violence and rhetoric — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org)

This field is irrigated with water from the Roaring Fork River, under a senior water right. CREDIT: BRENT GARDNER-SMITH/ASPEN JOURNALISM

Click the link to read the article on The Land Desk website (Jonathan P. Thompson):

September 12, 2025

🌵 Public Lands 🌲

It’s not a surprise, but it’s a bit disappointing and maddening nonetheless: Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have officially moved to rescind the Biden-era Public Lands rule that aimed to put conservation on a par with other uses on federal land, such as energy development, grazing, mining, and recreation. 

For a quick review, the main provisions of the rule are:

  • It directs the agency to prioritize landscape health in all decision making;
  • It creates a mechanism for outside entities (tribes, states, nonprofits) to lease public land for restoration projects, and allows firms to lease land for mitigation work to offset impacts from development elsewhere;
  • It clarifies the process for designating areas of critical environmental concern, or ACECs, where land managers can add extra regulations to protect cultural or natural resources.
  • And it directs the agency to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into decision-making, particularly when considering ACECs.

The rule was hailed by some conservationists as a “generation-defining shift” in public land management, and lambasted by Sagebrush Rebel-wannabes as a “misguided land grab meant to prevent oil and gas production … <and> … an attack on our ranchers and farmers that will end grazing on federal lands and will also prevent Coloradans from accessing their public lands.” 

I would say it is neither of those things, and did and would do little if anything to block drilling or grazing, and certainly hasn’t stopped anyone from accessing public lands. After all, it’s been in effect for over a year, and I certainly haven’t heard of anyone taking any significant actions under it, and I bet Burgum hasn’t either. In the end, the rule is essentially a reminder to the BLM that their job is not just to bend over for corporate and extractive interests, but to actually care for the land that belongs to all Americans. It is simply reinforcing the multiple-use charge Congress set forth when it passed the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act back in 1976. 

But Burgum’s and the Trump administration’s entire raison d’etre a la public land policy is to bend over for corporate and extractive interests, so I guess they’ve got to throw this rule out along with all of the other environmental protections. 

📈 Data Dump 📊

By this time of year most hay farmers have had multiple cuttings, have scrambled to get the hay baled and bucked and under cover before the monsoon hits, and maybe sold a bunch. So I figured it was a good time to check in and see how hay exports are doing this year. The answer: Not so hot, at least compared to other years.

There are various reasons for this — exports from Colorado River Basin states, especially California, have been falling for the last couple of years, perhaps in part because some farmers are being paid to stop irrigating, which cuts into overall production. But Trump’s tariffs — and the retaliatory tariffs our trading partners hit back with — are certainly having an effect. 

If you’ve wondered where your state’s hay is going and how much it’s worth, we’ve got the answer in this series of charts. I just included Colorado River states, and left out New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming because exports were negligible. Keep in mind that these figures are thousands of U.S. dollars, meaning that in 2022, for example, California exported just over $200 million worth of hay to China, alone. Also, this is for all types of hay, including alfalfa. But most exported hay goes to dairy cattle, and so is mostly alfalfa. And, finally, the scales are different for each state. California exports far more hay than anyone else.


On the tragic occasion of the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, the right-wing commentator, I point you to a piece I wrote last year after the attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump’s life. (Kirk was killed in Utah and lived in Arizona, making this a sort of Western story). The situation, the rhetoric, the players, and the reaction are so similar that to write about it again would be just to repeat myself. So here it is, removed from behind the paywall so even you free-riders can take a gander (but maybe you’ll consider upgrading to paid so you can see ALL the archives all the time!).

A few thoughts on this fraught moment in time — Jonathan P. Thompson


📸 Parting Shot 🎞️

An apt poem from Richard Shelton. This appeared in Selected Poems 1969-1981.

Competing interests debate sale of historic #ColoradoRiver rights during marathon hearing — Shannon Mullane (Fresh Water News) #COriver #aridification

This historical photo shows the penstocks of the Shoshone power plant above the Colorado River. A coalition led by the Colorado River District is seeking to purchase the water rights associated with the plant. Credit: Library of Congress photo

Click the link to read the article on the Water Education Colorado website (Shannon Mullane):

September 18, 2025

State water officials debated a controversial proposal to use two powerful Colorado River water rights to help the environment, weighing competing interests from Front Range and Western Slope water managers.

Almost 100 water professionals gathered in Durango this week for a 14-hour hearing focused on the water rights tied to the Shoshone Power Plant, owned by an Xcel Energy subsidiary. Members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board were originally set to make their final decision on the proposal this week, but an eleventh-hour extension pushed their deadline to November. 

Board members peppered presenters with questions during the hearing, weighing thorny issues like who has final authority to manage the environmental water right and how much water is involved.

Their decision could make a historic contribution to the state’s environmental water rights program and impact how Colorado River water will flow around the state long into the future. 

“It’s pretty hard to anticipate all of the ways that ‘in perpetuity’ may play out,” said Greg Felt, who represents the Arkansas River on the board. “Building in representation for flexibility … is not a bad idea for an acquisition like this.”

The Shoshone Power Plant, next to Interstate 70 east of Glenwood Springs, has used Colorado River water to generate electricity for over a century. 

Graphic credit: Laurine Lassalle/Aspen Journalism

In May, the Colorado River District, representing 15 counties on the Western Slope, shared a proposal to add another use to the water rights: keeping water in the Colorado River channel to help the aquatic environment.

The change requires approval from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which runs the state’s environmental water rights program, and other entities like water court and the state’s Public Utilities Commission.

The Colorado River District wants to add the environmental use as part of a larger plan to maintain the “status quo” flow of water past the power plant, regardless of how long the power plant remains in operation.

Western Slope communities, farms, ranches, endangered species programs and recreational industries have become dependent on those flows over the decades. 

What we’re presenting here today is an offer of a historic partnership,” Andy Mueller, Colorado River District general manager, said. “We believe that this sets the state up for a truly collaborative future on the Colorado River.”

But any change to Shoshone’s water rights could have ripple effects that would affect over 10,000 upstream water rights, including those held by Front Range water groups, like Denver Water, Northern Water, Colorado Springs Utilities and Aurora Water. 

These water managers and providers are responsible for delivering reliable water to millions of people, businesses, farms and ranches across the Front Range. 

They raised concerns in the hearings about how their water supply could be impacted by the Western Slope’s proposal. 

For board member John McClow, who represents the Gunnison-Uncompahgre River, one key question came down to authority.

“I just want to make sure we have adequate legal justification for doing what you suggest we should do,” McClow told CWCB staff during the hearing. 

When the Colorado River is too low to meet Shoshone’s needs, its owner, Public Service of Colorado, a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, can call on upstream water users with lower priority water rights to cut back on using their water so that Shoshone has enough. 

Whoever manages this “call” impacts thousands of upstream users, including Front Range providers. 

Under the proposal, the Colorado River District will own the water rights. The district has an agreement with Xcel to buy the rights for about $99 million. 

Generally, the Colorado Water Conservation Board is supposed to be the sole manager of environmental water rights under state law. 

The Colorado River District says it should have a say, giving examples of other agreements with similar arrangements between the water board and water rights owners. 

Northern Water said the state should have exclusive authority. This is the most important issue for the conservation district, Kyle Whitaker, water rights manager for Northern Water, said Thursday. 

If the state agency hands over any amount of control, then the district would push for the water court to approve a smaller amount of water available to Shoshone. That would send less water to Western Slope communities.

If the River District controlled the environmental right, they could conceivably max out the amount of water passing by the power plant year-round, which would impact upstream water rights.

“We have to protect our systems under all future potentialities,” Whitaker said. “This will have a chilling effect on collaboration and cooperation amongst all involved and is likely to result in an outcome that is not only less desirable but also less beneficial to the Colorado River.”

The River District has said it plans to maintain these flows without changing how other water users are impacted.

For board members, this question of authority is just one of many sticky legal and management issues they have to weigh as they make a decision about the Shoshone water rights while tasked with representing the interests of the entire state. 

“As far as I’ve been able to understand it, I agree with you about what the statute and the rules say we may do,” Felt told CWCB staff. “I believe we’re here to determine what we should do.”

This is a developing story and may be updated.

More by Shannon Mullane

Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

A stormy meeting in #Yuma about water — Allen Best #RepublicanRiver #OgallalaAquifer

Center pivot south of Holyoke. Photo credit: Allen Best/Big Pivots

Click the link to read the article on the Big Pivots website (Allen Best):

September 18, 2025

Cumulus clouds towering over the Great Plains on Tuesday afternoon inspired visions of Greek gods casting bolts. In McCook, Neb., the storm dumped five inches of rain accompanied by hail that ranged from the size of golf balls to baseballs.

McCook is located along the Republican River, which originates on the eastern plains of Colorado far distant from mountain snows. Despite summer thunderstorms, it’s a dry area with an average annual precipitation of about 17 inches. The water in the river that flows into Nebraska comes almost entirely from the Ogallala Aquifer, much of that water deposited millions of years ago.

In Colorado, the North Fork of the Republican River flows through Yuma. It stormed there on Tuesday night, too, lightning flashing occasionally through the windows. But the storm inside a room at the Yuma County Fairgrounds was of an entirely different sort.

The simple question was how did those farmers who pump water from the underlying Ogallala aquifer wish to tax themselves? For Colorado to honor its compact commitments to Nebraska and hence Kansas, both of them downstream, it has to make changes.

Those who spoke loudest said they did not want to be taxed based on the volumes of water they use. Some questioned the need for any fees. Some questions suggested a denial that any problem exists. Just let us keep pumping the aquifer as we have!

The meeting was the finale of six meetings held across the Republican River Basin in recent weeks. Like the others, it was well attended. At least 75 people showed up, many wearing the cap and blue jeans they had worn earlier in the day while working in their fields of corn and other crops.

Republican River Basin. By Kansas Department of Agriculture – Kansas Department of Agriculture, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7123610

In November, directors of the Republican River Water Conservation District must decide exactly how they want to move forward. To stay in compact compliance, the district wants to expand a well field that has allowed them to do so, if sometimes with narrow margins.

A 1942 compact among Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas specified how much water the upstream states must allow to flow downstream. That wasn’t an issue until the massive application of high-capacity pumps and then center-pivot sprinklers in the 1960 and 1970s allowed farmers to mine the aquifer in the Republican River Basin. In Colorado, more than a million acre-feet of water were pumped in peak years.

This has had the effect of reducing flows in downstream states. Kansas sued Nebraska, and then Nebraska sued Colorado. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, as all interstate compacts must.

The upshot is that Colorado agreed to toe the line. The Republican River Water Conservation District was created in 2004 with the principal function of keeping Colorado in compact compliance.

That’s a tall order. Rod Lenz, the president of the board of directors, said that farmers in the district need to figure out how to reduce their pumping to extract an average of 600,000 acre-feet a year. They have averaged 700,000 acre-feet in recent years.

The warming climate has not helped. Drought most definitely does not. In 2022, a hot and dry year, farmers pumped 940,000 acre-feet.

By reducing pumping to 600,000 acre-feet, farmers in the basin will have a longer glide path as they figure out more sustainable ways to farm.

Pumping at current rates will cause some areas to lose water in 25 years, although other areas will have water for many more decades. Yuma lies in one of the more water-flush areas.

“We’re not here to regulate,” said Lenz at a meeting in Joes the prior week. “We’re here to stay in compact compliance.”

That’s a thin distinction but one suggestive of the tricky line being negotiated by directors. Change must occur, but change is rarely welcomed except by babies with soiled diapers.

The district’s directors have adopted a two-pronged strategy for keeping Colorado out of the courtroom with Nebraska. One strategy, which was initiated in 2016, involving taking land out of irrigated production. By early 2025, more than 17,000 acres had been removed from irrigation, almost entirely within the river’s south fork area. The Ogallala in that area around Cheyenne Wells, Burlington, and Idalia never was as thick, the reservoir of water amid the underground rocks never as plentiful. In many places, the aquifer has been drained.

The second strategy to ensure compact compliance has been to mine water from north of Wray, where the aquifer has greater quantities of water, to deliver at the Nebraska border to ensure compact compliance. Those wells have produced 98,519 acre-feet in the first 10 years.

All of this has not come cheaply. More than $123 million has been spent by the district so far, a combination of federal and state funds along with assessments by the Republican River district of irrigated lands. Those assessments began at $5 an acre but have elevated to $30 an acre.

At the meeting in Yuma, as they had the week before in Joes, Lenz and other directors outlined their thoughts and choices. Foremost in their current strategy is to continue to pay landowners enough money to take land out of production to achieve the goal of 25,000 acres before the end of 2029. The district has about 8,000 acres to go. Landowners are paid for full or partial retirement of land from cultivated agriculture.

More controversially, they also want to expand the well field that allows water to be pumped and then delivered to Nebraska. They plan eight more wells at an estimated cost of $11 million.

Beyond that, they envision even more wells, elevating the total cost to more than $165 million to keep in compliance. That would allow the farmers now mining the Ogallala to continue to mine it without drastic alteration.

The immediate question is whether to stay with the existing assessment of $30 per acre of land. Another approach would be to adopt a fee, half of it to be based on amounts of land being irrigated and half on the amount of water pumped. The third option is the amount of land being irrigated and a tiered rate based on amount of water used, with those using more water paying more.

These latter two proposals would have the effect of encouraging conservation. Directors say they would keep the district’s budget at $15 million annually. However, it’s not clear what impact expanding the well field will have on that budget.

A show of hands at the Yuma meeting showed little appetite for changes in the fee structure. Some questions from audience members suggested rejection of the need for change. Do you really need this money? And is this expensive expansion of the well field needed? Might just two wells, not eight, suffice?

One speaker even challenged whether Colorado had to comply with the compact.

The short answer is that yes, it must. It’s that or agree to spend considerable money in litigation that would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has already twice.

The question beyond that question is what would be the stance of Colorado’s governor and attorney general in 2030 if Colorado were to choose to violate the compact? The state water engineer — an appointee of the governor — has authority to shut down all wells in the basin as necessary to comply. Would the state water engineer do so?

That strategy would be risky, responded Randy Hendrix, the river district’s engineering consultant. Wells could be shut down for multiple years.

A few audience members, however, did acknowledge the difficult challenge. “I want to thank all you guys for the hard work. This is a hard job, hard subject,” said one audience member.

What can be said with certainty is that directors of the district who fielded questions managed to keep their cool in the face of the sometimes hard questions and statements.

At their quarterly meeting in November, directors must figure out how to move forward. Or, as some suggested, just ignoring Nebraska and the state engineer and letting those chips fall where they may.

Ogallala Aquifer. Credit: Big Pivots