Why can't Lower Arkansas Valley growers just help CO Springs more? Rio Grande Dam is done, but the enviros say promises haven't been kept. And now the Dems start on your ammunition.
Why can't Lower Arkansas Valley growers just do more to help Colorado Springs work better?
The article linked at bottom comes from CPR and details a Colorado Springs City Council meeting where they voted to annex more development into the city.
Quoting the article, "The so-called flagpole annexation connects most of the additional acreage to the city via a long thin strip of land along Bradley Road. The proposed development could eventually lead to the construction of about 6,500 new homes as well as commercial and other mixed uses."
There is a lot in the article and I highly recommend reading it. In particular, I point you to the remarks made by both the Lower Arkansas valley farmers quoted, the quotes from Mr. Goble of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, and the spokeswoman for the Colorado Springs Utility. They will give you a good sense of some of the perspectives here.**
One perspective that bears special mention, however, is that of the Colorado Springs Councilman David Lienweber. Quoting the article again, with the link left intact, "Councillor David Lienweber noted that more than 80 percent of the state’s total water usage goes to agriculture and asked why more farmers aren’t moving away from flood irrigation and adopting water conservation practices like drip irrigation. 'You can't go and tell me that you're a conservationist if you think flooding the field is an appropriate way to use a resource,' he said. 'I'd like to see more cooperative opportunities of investment in trying to use the water that we have more efficiently.'”
have heard this canard before by many in the Front Range, politicians sadly among them. "Ag uses [fill in the blank] percent of water" is used as a way to indicate that water use and scarcity is largely a problem that agriculture created and should solve, as implied here by Mr. Lienweber.
This is beyond frustrating to me. The attitude is part of it. No sense of shared struggle for shared problems, it's just the usual "can't farmers do more to make the cities work?" we've all come to know so well lately.
Beyond the attitude, however, there is also the ignorance. Drip irrigation is not cheap at farm scales. It requires a substantial capital investment. It also has performance issues. Tiny pipes and dirty ditch water don't make for good flow, where the tinier the pipe, the worse the problem (and, yes, this can happen even with filtration).
We cannot eat computer jobs. We cannot eat office jobs. We cannot eat the information economy. I'm glad that our state has great opportunities for high-paying jobs. Our state, our country, needs food. We have to eat and we have to grow our food here. To not do so is to put ourselves at great risk. Food security is national security.
If we let the urban areas of the Front Range buy up and dry up all the food production in this state, we might end up solving Mr. Lienweber's temporary problem of making sure cities like the Springs don't want for water, but we risk a MUCH bigger problem.
Solving the water crisis should demand equal sacrifice.
**I got to sneak one in here. Quoting, "[Farmer and Ag research scientist Mike] Bartolo said all water users are facing shortfalls. 'There is no magical crop that is going to free up water so you can get extra water …You (Colorado Springs) ran out of your moral water supply decades ago.'"
https://www.cpr.org/2025/01/29/colorado-springs-annexation-approved-but-water-and-other-concerns-remain/
Related:
A bill was introduced to force local governments to come up with some sort of policy limiting turf installation.
More in the article below.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/01/31/colorado-turf-bill-residential/
Rio Grande Dam construction is 4 years done, but the environmentalists say promises haven't been kept.
According to some environmental groups, the operators of the Rio Grande Dam (near Creede, CO) got a state grant to help update/repair the dam making promises to work with them to do things like release water downstream for the health of the river and things living in it. Then, they didn't and haven't.
Quoting the article linked below (with links intact):
"The San Luis Valley Irrigation District received some $30 million in state loans and grants from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to repair its failing dam in the upper Rio Grande Basin near Creede. The work was completed four years ago, and was part of a high-profile project widely touted as an important example of modern-era, multipurpose water projects designed to benefit Colorado growers, streams and fish. But promises that were made while the loans and grants were being considered have not been honored, according to environmental groups who monitor the river’s health and locals who rely on the river to support their guiding, kayaking and fishing businesses."
I get the sense in reading that the dam operators are saying they need more money to keep up with their commitments.
The San Luis Valley Irrigation District (SLVID) didn't respond with comment in the article, but they've put in more grant requests to the state saying the money requested would allow them to update equipment to release water in the winter (part of the original plan when they got the $30 million--the releases of water to keep river levels higher and help the fish).
I get the sense too that there would have been legal action here--the environmental groups seem pretty sore--but for the fact that specific performance details about water releases etc. were not written down in any agreements. A reminder, if ever there was one, that if it's not written down it doesn't exist.
I am left wondering how big a part the environmental promises played in getting the state grant. Let's say no promises were made. Would the state have told the SLVID to go pound sand and let the dam further degrade? Would the environmentalists here have supported that?
On the other hand, if you make a promise, you should keep it. You should keep it even if no one can find documentation of that promise. One's word is one's word.
What do you think? I would especially love to hear from some locals down there who may know more of the story than a single article can provide.
And now they’re coming for ammunition.
Colorado Democrats are at it again with another gun control bill, further eroding your rights.
HB25-1133, linked first below, raises the minimum age to purchase ammunition up to 21 year old.
Whether you are 21 years old or not, stand up and speak up against this latest effort. It will do nothing to make you safer. It's just another bite at fundamental freedoms from the party that has made a cottage industry of doing just that with regard to guns.
HB25-1133 will be up for committee next week on the 13th in front of the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee at 1:30 PM. I linked to that committee below.
If you live in the district of any of the committee members, please call or email your rep and tell him or her to vote no on this bill. If you live in the district of any of the sponsors, give them a call and tell them to drop this effort.
There are other ways we can make ourselves safer without impinging on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Stand up for your rights. Speak up for them.
If you don't you may find them gone one day.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1133
https://leg.colorado.gov/committees/business-affairs-labor/2025-regular-session