Representative Jeff Hurd Met with Lower Ark Board
by
Norman L. Kincaide, Ph.D.
Representative Jeff Hurd, Colorado House District 3, met briefly with the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District Board during their work session on October 21, 2026. Rep. Hurd arrived shortly after 10 A.M. with his regional representative, Cathy Garcia-Winder. Norman Kincaide, covering the regular Lower Ark meeting for the Rocky Ford Gazette, greeted Rep. Hurd and gave him a brief update on the Comanche Revised Management Plan process that thus far has not produced a revised management plan draft, which had been expected in October. Furthermore, there was no mention of Wild & Scenic Eligibility for the Purgatoire River and Picket Wire Canyon in the latest Forest Service email update. Hurd desired to be apprised of further developments on the revised management plan process.
Rep. Hurd then entered the work session room where LAVWCD board members and staff were assembled. Hurd wanted to know what he could do to ensure the viability of agriculture in the lower Arkansas Valley. The consensus of opinion of the board and General Manager, Jack Goble, was to make farming more affordable. Jerad Gardner said that it’s almost impossible for anyone to start farming unless you marry into it or inherit the property. Lyden Gill related that in the 1970s farm property went for $700 an acre when he bought a farm. He then balked at buying a farm at $750 an acre. Now it’s $18,000 an acre, which is prohibitive to start farming and expect cash flow within a reasonable period of time.
Keeping water in the valley was another issue. Jack Goble said Lower Ark is not in a position to engage conservation easements at this time because of the low value placed on properties in southeastern Colorado by appraisers. Selling outright to municipalities to have them lease back the water to farmers is not a viable long-term option either. Leasing water to municipalities on a 3 to 10 year basis, still removes water from the valley. The main drivers of cost to farmers are fuel, fertilizer, and machinery.
The other problem with water and municipalities is that water goes to them via Pueblo Reservoir while water assigned to the lower Arkansas Valley is degraded by sediment by the time it reaches end users.
The Arkansas Valley Conduit is still under construction and Hurd said he would work to get the vetoed bill under consideration again. He asked how the Colorado River compact may influence to the exchange of water from the western slope to accommodate the Frying Pan Arkansas project. Jack Goble stated that the project is a junior water right to the Colorado River obligations and if there is no excess water for the project, there isn’t any for storage in Pueblo State Lake. Rep. Hurd had to continue on his itinerary and left the meeting at 10:30 A.M.
The regular board meeting of Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District convened at 10:40 A.M. Routine matters were moved, voted on and passed. There were no committee or legal reports.
Under the General Manager’s Report, Professor Jordan Suter, CSU, and Yvette Uwineza, Doctoral Candidate, Colorado State University, gave a presentation via Zoom: Economic Impacts of Lower Ark Valley Irrigated Acreage Loss, Permanent Water Sales vs. Intermittent Fallowing in Colorado’s Lower Arkansas Valley. The study area included Pueblo, Crowley, Otero, Bent and Prowers Counties. More than 120,000 acres have been removed from irrigati
on from 1978 to 2022, an average of 3043 acres per year.
Two questions were devised for two phases of this study. Phase 1 of Baseline Economic Impact: “What is the regional economic cost of losing irrigated farmland?” The study would estimate the regional economic impact of losing approximately 3045 irrigated acres annually. Thorvaldson and Pritchett (2006) found about $428 of lost activity per irrigated acre in the eastern Arkansas Valley River Basin, based on 2002 dollars.
Phase 2: Permanent vs. Intermittent Irrigation Loss: “How do economic impacts differ between permanent dry-up and intermittent fallowing?” Flexible water transfers, such as intermittent fallowing, are often promoted as alternatives to permanent water sales. Do they result in smaller regional economic losses? Part of the study was to identify which irrigated crops are lost under each scenario and how the land is subsequently used. It was also to estimate and compare the regional economic impact of these different irrigation and land-use transitions.
Under Phase 1, estimating the economic cost of irrigation loss is based upon the baseline assumption that 3045 acres of irrigated land is lost annually based upon 1978-2022 records. The land losing irrigation is assumed to remain fallow. There are two scenarios here, proportional loss, first, that irrigated acreage loss is distributed across crops based upon their existing shares. And second, that all irrigated acreage loss occurs in alfalfa production.
For the economic approach a regional social accounting matrix is used to estimate the economy wide impact of reduced agricultural production. The economic impacts are direct, that is loss of agricultural production. Indirect loss is reflected in reduced spending on agricultural inputs and services. Finally, induced impacts reflect reduced household spending due to lower incomes. Based upon the 3045 acres lost to irrigation per year the associated annual regional economic activity loss is estimated at $4.4 million or about $1450 per acre per year as opposed to the 2006 figure of $428.
From Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the study, under the Phase 1 all irrigated acres lost are assumed to transition to fallow land with no subsequent agricultural production. This may not be the case in reality. Land that is no longer irrigated may transition to different uses: fallow or idle cropland; grassland or pasture; or non-irrigated (dry) crop production. These transitions may differ between fields that are intermittently irrigated and those where irrigation has permanently ceased.
Phase 2 uses field level data to identify these transitions and incorporates them into the regional economic model to estimate their economic implications. Phase 2 data field boundaries are based upon the Colorado Decision Support System, Division 2 irrigated lands, 16,430 fields. Annual irrigation status, a field is considered irrigated if more than half of it is irrigated. Fields labelled fallow, grassland or pasture in a given year are treated as not irrigated that year.
Fields classified by irrigation history (1986-2023): always irrigated, 202 fields/ percent share: 1.2%; never irrigated: 2,735/16.6%; stopped irrigation: not irrigated in each of the last 3 years (2021-23): 3,588/21.8%; mostly irrigated: 1-4 non-irrigated years: 2,296/14%; intermittently irrigated: 5 or more non-irrigated years: 7,609/46.3%.
Crop composition by category: always irrigated: alfalfa, 82%; corn, 14%; mostly irrigated: alfalfa, 70%; corn, 15%; sorghum, 5%; winter wheat, 4%; intermittently irrigated: alfalfa, 52%; corn, 12%; sorghum, 8%; winter wheat, 9%; fallow or idle, 14%; stopped irrigation: alfalfa, 19%; corn, 5%; sorghum, 7%; winter wheat, 11%; fallow or idle, 36%; grassland, 20%; never irrigated: alfalfa, 6%; winter wheat, 4%; fallow or idle, 25%; grassland, 63%.
Based upon the 3,045-acre model, fields break down for irrigated sectors that lose their starting acres for intermittent irrigation: alfalfa, 1,948 acres; corn, 526; sorghum, 293; winter wheat, 201; other crops, 17; specialty crops, 58. Here is where the starting acres go: fallow or idle, 1,720 acres; pasture, 61; dry alfalfa, 719; dry corn, 29, dry sorghum, 71, dry winter wheat, 401; other, 41. These changes result in a direct loss of $2,035,104.
For acres that stopped irrigation their starting acres are: alfalfa, 1,394 acres; corn, 741; sorghum, 538; winter wheat, 290; other crops, 31; specialty crops, 57. Here is where those starting acres go: fallow or idle, 2,513 acres; pasture, 54; dry alfalfa, 318; dry corn, 3, dry sorghum, 42, dry winter wheat, 111; other, 1. These changes result in a direct loss of $1,999,866.
Conclusions: Fields where irrigation has stopped are more likely to transition to fallow land 84%, as compared to intermittently irrigated fields, 59%.
Caveats and limitations of this study are, intermittent irrigation was used as a proxy for flexible water transactions, although observed irrigation patterns may reflect other factors. The analysis does not account for payments received by agricultural producers for water transfers. Under equal acreage lost, it was assumed the same reduction in irrigated acreage (3045 acres) under both intermittent and permanent irrigation loss scenarios to facilitate comparison. The analysis did not account for potential agricultural productivity benefits associated with rotational fallowing.
Jack Goble brought up the fact that all alfalfa production ceases with a water transfer to other purposes and the alfalfa on the property in question must be killed upon such a transfer. The loss of economic activity cannot be so easily presented within the confines of one study nor can it adequately represent the human factor of the people behind those lost acres.
Alli Schuch, Executive Director and Jeff Chostner, Board Member, Fountain Creek Watershed District (FCWD), provided an update for Lower Ark, but also requested a $50,000 grant which would go to administration. The continuing issue for FCWD is developing a continuing stream of revenue to alleviate the necessity of relying upon grant and partnership funding. The Lower Ark board would take up the request during the November board meeting.
There were no action items and the meeting adjourned at 11:40.
###
Comments