Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regenerative Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates urge policy fixes to allow on‑land water‑holding and regenerative practices in Colorado
Summary
Speakers from the Coalition for a Regenerative Future and Drylands Agroecology Research described demonstration projects that use contour terracing, swales and perennial systems to retain rainfall, plant trees without irrigation and restore degraded dryland farms, and they urged legal and funding reforms to permit broader landscape water‑holding and targeted assistance for small producers.
Spur, Colo. — Regenerative agriculture practitioners told the Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee that place‑based techniques to slow and store water on the landscape can revive soils and expand productive perennial systems in Colorado’s arid environment, but that state water‑management rules and administrative hurdles constrain wider adoption.
Jolie Bronner of the Coalition for a Regenerative Future described partnerships with the Colorado Department of Agriculture (STAR pilot) and explained efforts to lower funding barriers for historically marginalized and small urban/suburban producers. She said the coalition will run statewide listening sessions to surface local barriers and to design more accessible funding and technical assistance mechanisms.
Nick DiDomenico of Drylands Agroecology Research described field demonstrations where contour terracing, swales and erosion basins capture stormwater and route it into vegetation and soil, enabling the establishment of agroforestry and perennial systems without supplemental irrigation. DiDomenico said the group has planted roughly 15,000 bare‑root trees in dryland systems with 70–80% survivorship on some sites and that a water‑first approach improves forage, biodiversity and soil moisture retention.
Both presenters flagged legal and administrative constraints. DiDomenico said county agricultural‑grading rules generally allow limited earthmoving (e.g., up to 2 feet) but prohibit structures that pond water; he noted that water‑right administration under Colorado’s prior appropriation system is a separate and critical factor. Bronner recommended flexible state funding (versus one‑size‑fits‑all USDA flows), targeted technical assistance, and tax incentives or market access supports to encourage adoption by large and small producers alike.
Committee members asked whether the presenters had engaged the Division of Water Resources; DiDomenico said local city and county staff were involved and that he has discussed plans with water‑management staff but welcomed deeper engagement. The presenters offered to host site visits and to provide follow‑up material on legal constraints and funding options.
What happens next: Staff and committee members signaled interest in follow‑up meetings that include Division of Water Resources staff to clarify allowable land‑shaping activities and explore pilot funding streams.
