Senate committee backs bill requiring revegetation when irrigation water is permanently removed in lower Arkansas Basin

Senators presented House Bill 13-40 to the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee as a narrowly targeted response to decades of permanent dry-up in Colorado's Lower Arkansas Valley. Sponsors said the bill requires parties who change irrigation water rights to ensure lands are successfully revegetated or converted to functioning dry-land farming and to include site-specific revegetation criteria and objective evaluation methods in water-court decrees.

"It requires that when irrigation water is permanently removed from the farmland, the owner of the changed water right is responsible to ensure that the land is either successfully revegetated, or converted to dry land farming with adequate weed and erosion control," Senator Hendrickson said. Sponsors emphasized the bill applies prospectively to new change-of-use decrees beginning in 2027 and is restricted to Water Division 2, where proponents say tens of thousands of irrigated acres have been left barren after transfers.

Proponents included local water managers and state agencies. Jack Goble, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, showed handouts and USDA data documenting a dramatic drop in irrigated acreage and said unreclaimed land raises weed, dust and fire hazards for counties. Nate Pearson of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources told the committee DNR supports the bill and expects it to produce more consistent revegetation standards across Division 2.

Opponents and amend-position witnesses — including Colorado Farm Bureau and the city of Aurora — urged caution. James Henderson (Colorado Farm Bureau) said members are not anti-revegetation but worry the bill could create new property or takings concerns if oversight periods or maintenance requirements become open-ended. Dawn Jewell (Aurora) recommended protecting water-court authority and suggested switching mandatory language that would require courts to accept county-determined terms into permissive language to preserve judicial discretion.

Sponsors offered amendment L003 after stakeholder consultation. As explained to the committee, L003 removes a mandatory five-year maintenance period and instead gives the water court limited, time-bound discretion to require additional oversight only where there's substantial risk of regression; it also clarifies that existing financial assurances tied to 10-41 permits should satisfy bond requirements so applicants avoid duplicate security. The committee adopted L003 without objection.

Following debate, the committee voted 5 to 2 to report HB13-40 as amended to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation. Supporters said the bill fills a long-standing gap between county land-use (10-41) rules and water-court decrees and provides enforcement options — such as bonds or linking water allocation to reclaimed acres — that can be tailored to local conditions. Detractors said further refinements may be needed to preserve private-property protections and judicial authority.

Next steps: HB13-40 will be considered by the committee of the whole; sponsors said they will continue stakeholder work on maintenance, verification and local-control concerns.