Two weeks ago I sent the following letter to the Interbasin Compact Committee, demanding that they take action on mitigation for water transfers.

Dear Inter-Basin Compact Committee:

As you know, I recently sponsored House Bill 10-1159. The purpose of HB1159 was to require agreements for the mitigation of economic and ecological impacts associated with the removal of water from one water division for use in another. The parties to the agreements would have been the applicants seeking to transport the water and the conservation or conservancy districts serving the area from which the water would be removed.  If the parties could not reach an agreement then the water judge would apply mitigation based on standards from the 1937 Water Conservancy District Act.

Virtually all parties, including those opposed to HB1159, agreed that mitigation should occur when water is transferred.  However, during the debate, opponents of the bill consistently made one argument; they stated that the bill was unnecessary because the Inter-Basin Compact Committee (IBCC) was charged with and, in fact, was already dealing with the issue.  During the Agriculture Committee hearing, several witnesses from, both, metro water providers and rural communities testified that my water mitigation bill was duplicative of the work that the IBCC is conducting.  Some people making this argument were members of the IBCC.  When the bill reached the House floor, several legislators continued this line of argument.

I believe that the IBCC is doing great work and is creating trust between parties that have historically been rather adversarial. However, I am unaware of specific proposals from the IBCC regarding proposed statutory changes to ensure mitigation of impacts resulting from the movement of water.  After the debate on HB1159, it is safe to now say that most legislators believe this work is being conducted by the IBCC.  I would appreciate any information you could provide as to the IBCC’s discussions regarding appropriate mitigation when moving water between water divisions.  If the IBCC is not working on any such plan, I would suggest that the IBCC start these discussions, if for no other reason than that is what most legislators believe you are working on.  Finally, if you could make every effort to conclude these discussions prior to the next legislative session, I would be happy to sponsor any legislation needed to implement your recommendations.

Thank you for your consideration,

Water’s Role in Rural Economic Development

Water is essential to economic development.  In 1891, what was then called the Colorado Canal began delivering water to nearby Crowley County.  Prosperity followed.  Cantaloupes grown there were shipped on rail lines that were built to Crowley County. The National Sugar Company built a factory in Sugar City.

Water brought success.

However, by the 1970s, most of the water shares in Crowley County were sold to large municipalities. Of the original 50,000 shares of water in the Twin Lakes Canal, only a couple thousand remain in the county today.  Sadly, today Crowley County has the highest poverty rate in the state and the lowest per capita income.

When water leaves a community so does the opportunity to attract companies, build homes, draw business or grow crops.  When water leaves a community, so does a community’s future opportunity for prosperity.  We’re facing tough economic times, but we need to ensure that when we rebound, that we rebound together as an entire state – urban and rural.

That is why I am running House Bill 1159 at the General Assembly to require that mitigation plans must be a part of any large transfer of water from one part of the state to another.

When a farm shuts down operations, the tractor repairman or the fertilizer salesperson will soon close their doors.  Under current Colorado water law, there is no legal consideration for the permanent loss to the economy that is felt when water is transferred permanently out of a community.  However, a bill passed by Rep. Buffie McFadyen (D-Pueblo West) to allow the water judge to consider water quality, set precedent that other factors beyond just injury to senior water rights owners should be considered in a transfer.

My bill, also sponsored by Sen. Dan Gibbs (D-Summit County), uses a carrot and stick approach.  The Carrot: the bill would give applicants in water court an opportunity to work in a collaborative fashion with the water Conservancy and Conservation districts from where the water was moved from to craft a mitigation agreement to address the economic and ecological effects of the water transfer.  The stick: if the parties cannot reach a consensus then the water judge would apply the mitigation unilaterally.

Both parties – the purchasing entity (metro areas) and the area of origin (rural communities) – would have an incentive to sit down and work collaboratively together.  If either party refuses to negotiate in good faith, then the other could pull out of discussions, and roll the dice with the water judge, losing all control over what is included in the mitigation plan.

House Bill 1159 also allows for public meetings and comment on the mitigation agreements, which would be the first time in water law that citizens would have any legal standing to express their opinions about prospective water transfers.  The special interest opponents of my bill don’t think that the citizens of Colorado are smart enough to be able to provide public comment and testimony.  However, I know that statewide water decisions affect every citizen; so every citizen deserves a voice.

A half decade ago the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC) was created to encourage different basins of the state to work collaboratively.  My water bill has the same mission – to encourage cooperation between communities and encourage the basins to reach consensus on mitigation agreements.  The Arkansas Basin Roundtable worked hard on a blueprint for mitigating Ag to urban water transfers, which could serve as an ideal starting point for future mitigation negotiations if my bill is passed.  So, the IBCC process should run parallel to my water bill.

I am proud that the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Trout Unlimited and the Colorado Environmental Coalition support HB 1159.  However, not surprisingly, my bill is facing stiff opposition from metro water providers – even those who have secured enough water rights for any potential future growth.  Over twenty former legislators, including Congressmen John Salazar and Scott McInnis have proposed similar bills in Colorado’s history.

So, I’m well aware of what I’m up against.  Metropolitan area water providers argue that this policy will make their life more difficult and add to their costs.  The reality is that those metro leaders aren’t listening to their constituents.  According to a Ciruli & Associates poll, Coloradans in every county agree that they don’t want to see future sprawl at the expense of rural communities. In this matter I think that the citizens of Colorado are correct and the special-interest metro-area developers are dead wrong!