The central policy question in Colorado’s long-running debate over agricultural water transfers is whether cities can obtain water without ending farm production. Colorado law requires water-court decrees that move irrigation water to municipal use to include provisions for revegetation, soil conservation and noxious-weed control on affected land. Those requirements appear in C.R.S. § 37-92-305(4.5)(a), enacted in 1992, according to the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District.
A separate approach is rotational sharing: farms continue operating while a portion of their water is transferred in selected years. House Bill 13-1248, passed in 2013, authorized water conservancy districts to pursue rotational fallowing and municipal leasing as alternatives to permanent agricultural dry-up, according to the Colorado Environmental Law Journal. A Catlin Canal pilot that began in 2015 involved six farms and 911 acres; participating farms could fallow as much as 30% of their land annually while supplying leased water to Fowler, Fountain and Security, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.
Why the valley remains wary
The Lower Arkansas Valley has already experienced extensive farmland loss. Since 1997, irrigated acreage has declined 35.2% in Otero County, 90% in Crowley County and 60.2% in Pueblo County; Colorado statewide has lost 32%, according to data reported by The Colorado Sun. A separate account citing the period from 1978 through 2022 said nearly 44% of irrigated farmland within the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District had been removed from production because of municipal acquisitions, according to Coyote Gulch.
The region’s most prominent example is Crowley County, where irrigated cropland fell from more than 50,000 acres to fewer than 5,000 after Front Range municipalities acquired water connected to the Colorado Canal system during the 1970s and 1980s, according to Water Education Colorado. The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, created in 2002 across Pueblo, Otero, Crowley, Bent and Prowers counties, has challenged earlier purchases by Aurora Water and Colorado Springs, according to The Colorado Sun. District general manager Jack Goble has said farmers need options other than selling their agricultural water outright to municipalities, the Sun reported.
Aurora’s proposed arrangement
Against that background, The Colorado Sun reported that Aurora Water is negotiating to purchase land and water rights from two historic Lower Arkansas Valley farms, then lease both back to the existing family operations. The farms are not publicly identified because the parties have nondisclosure agreements. The Sun reported that Hanagan Farms of Swink, which grows melons, chiles and other produce, is one of the farms involved, and that Eric Hanagan said pursuing the arrangement is important to the operation’s future.
The proposed structure would differ from Aurora’s 2024 purchase, which cost $80 million and covered nearly 5,000 acres and more than 6,500 acre-feet of associated water. Under that agreement, Aurora can use the water in three of every 10 years, leaving it on the farms during the other seven; about 4,000 acres would be dried intermittently when the city uses the water, according to The Colorado Sun.
For the new negotiations, Aurora is not proposing a fixed three-years-in-10 schedule. The amount transferred could vary from roughly 10% of a farm’s water in some years to about 35% or 40% in others, with the intended annual share averaging roughly 30% while the remaining water supports continued farming. Alex Davis, Aurora Water’s assistant manager for supply, told the Sun that the city is attempting to share water with agriculture while supporting municipal and local needs. The utility also said it would make payments in lieu of taxes, as it has under earlier agreements, and would remain subject to agreements limiting annual removals from Lower Arkansas farmland to 30,000 acre-feet.
What remains at issue
The proposed leases do not resolve whether rotational fallowing will protect the valley’s agricultural economy over time. Local officials want to review the agreements before deciding whether Aurora is forming a workable partnership with farmers. Leaders have also urged Front Range cities and suburbs to conserve more water before adding homes and to protect rural communities and tax bases when acquiring agricultural supplies, according to The Colorado Sun.
Aurora’s conservation planning
The proposed farm arrangement is part of a broader water-supply strategy that includes conservation. Aurora’s 2017 Integrated Water Master Plan said its selected conservation program was projected to reduce 2015 per-capita water demand by about 10% by 2050, according to the City of Aurora’s Integrated Water Master Plan. The plan addressed water needs and planning strategies from 2016 through 2070 and evaluated multiple scenarios involving population growth, climate conditions and conservation. That long-range planning provides context for why Aurora is pursuing both demand reduction and additional water arrangements as it considers future growth.
The arrangement also raises practical questions about crop planning. Alfalfa can be harvested for five or more years after one planting, giving farms some flexibility when fields rotate out of production, while specialty-crop growers around Swink and Rocky Ford depend on reliable seasonal irrigation. Whether Aurora’s proposed variable schedule can preserve that flexibility will depend on the final agreements, which remain under negotiation.
