Colorado Bill Sets Revegetation Rules for Farm Water Transfers, Eyes Expansion to Other Basins
Why It Matters
Colorado’s long-running “buy-and-dry” conflicts — in which Front Range cities purchase agricultural water rights and leave former farmland vulnerable to erosion, invasive weeds, and economic decline — are at the center of a new state law that farmers and rural communities in southeastern Colorado say finally creates meaningful accountability for water buyers.
House Bill 1340, which Gov. Jared Polis is expected to sign after his Department of Natural Resources testified in favor of the measure, establishes revegetation and reclamation obligations on any entity that permanently removes irrigation water from farmland for other uses.
What Happened
The legislation, championed by the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, passed the Colorado legislature and now awaits the governor’s signature. It targets conditions along the Lower Arkansas River but contains provisions that could eventually influence water policy across other river basins in the state.
Jack Goble, general manager of the Conservancy District, said the law marks a first for Colorado. “For the first time in Colorado, this new law establishes that when irrigation water is permanently removed from farmland for other uses, the responsibility to properly revegetate and reclaim that land belongs to the entity removing the water,” Goble said in public remarks.
Goble added that the measure “sets clear expectations, creates accountability and helps protect the land, neighboring landowners and rural communities that are left behind when water leaves.”
Southeastern Colorado advocates made concessions during the legislative process. The original version of the bill would have capped water use transfers at 50 percent of purchased water until half the affected farmland had been successfully revegetated. The final version removes that hard percentage cap, instead giving water agencies flexibility to comply through options such as posting a bond or negotiating terms during local permit applications.
An earlier provision requiring a mandatory five-year water court oversight period after any rights transfer was also softened. Courts now have discretion to impose oversight, but only when there is, in Goble’s words, “a substantial risk that reclamation could regress.” Reclamation agreements with cities must still be written into formal change-of-use decrees following negotiation through an intergovernmental agreement.
By the Numbers
- 50% — the water-use transfer threshold in the original bill, removed in the final version
- 5 years — the mandatory court oversight period in the original bill, made discretionary in the final version
- 1988 — the year Aurora Water opened a full-time office in Rocky Ford, Colorado, dedicated to revegetation and land stewardship after water removal
- 3+ years — the length of time Colorado Springs Utilities spent negotiating water project terms with Bent County
- Thousands of acres — the scale of water rights purchased by the city of Thornton in Weld and Larimer counties, where similar land reclamation questions have arisen
Reactions From Water Agencies
Aurora Water, one of the Front Range utilities that has acquired agricultural water rights in the Arkansas Valley for decades, expressed measured support for the legislation while signaling resistance to any statewide expansion. Spokesperson Shonnie Cline said the bill “was largely modeled after practices Aurora Water has implemented in the region” and that the agency does not expect significant changes to its current operations.
However, Aurora Water raised concern about applying similar requirements to other parts of Colorado, warning that such expansion “could unintentionally harm existing dryland farming operations or create disincentives for farmers who are successfully operating under dryland agricultural practices on converted lands.”
Colorado Springs Utilities, which has faced criticism for past dry-ups that left parts of Crowley County severely degraded, said revegetation of formerly irrigated lands is “a fundamental requirement for any water transfer.”
Zoom Out
The buy-and-dry tension is not confined to the Arkansas River basin. Thornton’s large-scale water rights acquisitions in northern Colorado have drawn scrutiny from Weld and Larimer counties, where officials have sought commitments on revegetation and responsible dryland farming. The broader question of how Colorado balances agricultural heritage against growing urban water demand has intensified as the state’s population grows and drought conditions persist.
Recent water purchase agreements in places like Bent County have included limits on consecutive years of water diversion and other provisions aimed at cushioning the economic impact on rural communities — reflecting a gradual evolution in how cities and farming regions negotiate these transfers.
What’s Next
With the governor’s signature anticipated, implementation will fall to water courts and county governments, which will now have formal authority to incorporate local revegetation criteria into change-of-use decrees. Advocates in the Lower Arkansas Valley say they will monitor enforcement closely and are watching whether the legislature moves to extend similar protections to other river basins — a prospect that major Front Range water utilities have already indicated they will oppose. Colorado’s broader political landscape may shape how aggressively state leadership pursues that expansion.