When state Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, introduced a measure that would limit lawn sizes in new developments whose water was purchased from Colorado’s agricultural pool, she turned heads. Developers, counties and municipalities took umbrage at the notion the state could undermine local control by meddling in land-use issues; but the measure cut straight to the heart of water challenges in the state and eventually morphed into a much-needed study and conversation about just how to address those challenges. For that, Senate Bill 17 – in its original form and the final version passed in the 2014 Legislature – was meaningful and effective legislation indeed.
By targeting lawns, the bill served two functions critical to water issues in Colorado. First, it pointed out that outdoor consumption of water for nonagricultural purposes is a somewhat problematic use for what is an increasingly limited resource. That leads to the second important thing SB 17 did: It illuminated the relationship between agricultural water and residential development. The former requires the latter, but in that equation, water leaves the agricultural pool – a phenomenon known as ag dry-up. Because water in Colorado and across the West is a zero-sum game, such transfers must be considered carefully and undertaken responsibly. Large, lush bluegrass lawns are not particularly endemic of such caution, especially when they come at the expense of irrigated farmland.
Water experts predict that by 2050, half a million acres of such land will be out of production because of agricultural dry-up. That is a stark number directly related to growing suburban communities, where new residents require water for their homes. While providing that water is essential, it should not be done without thought to its limited availability. The original text of Roberts’ bill would have mandated such thought, and while that was justifiable from a water-management and conservation perspective, it did not pass property rights and local-control tests. It did, however, trigger a productive conversation that could lead to legislation that all sides can stomach in 2015.
Among the ideas shared by Southwest Colorado water resource leaders at the Legislature’s Water Resources Review Committee was a concerted effort to reduce the ratio of outside water used in residential settings. Current indoor/outdoor is roughly balanced across the state; but by tipping the scales to 60 percent or even 70 percent indoor use – with associated efficiency measures in plumbing and appliances – new residential water converted from the agricultural pool would stretch much farther. That is the right sort of thinking needed to meaningfully address the growing problem. So is the idea that those who over-consume should pay a premium for their water gluttony.
There was, of course, the predictable suggestion that more water storage is the answer. While that may be, it is an oversimplification of the issue: Where the water to be stored originates is a critical part of the equation.
The question now is how to encapsulate the most effective of these ideas into actionable legislation. Mandating anything, no matter how essential, is a delicate task. Nevertheless, with water both an increasingly coveted and limited resource, proactive solutions are necessary. Roberts has taken commendable steps toward that goal.
