Changing CO water right law (Mead: to buy, calculated, living)

[NW Crow]

Imo pure & simple and forever prior appropriation of water falling and running on Colorado at the original levels should be reviewed and probably changed.

I've expressed that view to the Chief Justice of the Water Court (to no avail).

What do you think?

Would you favor a plan that reduced water rights of non-public entities by 50% over a 25 year transition period after 100 years of receiving the full water right and then continuing at 50% forevermore? With the other 50% of the prior appropriation seen as "sufficiently paid / honored" and thereafter returning to the general population via state & local government appropriation awards?

I believe a larger share of Colorado's water should be seen as owned by the current and future residents of Colorado than the current system and don't particularly support paying ever increasing amounts to buy back that natural bounty from the heirs of heirs of heirs (etc.) of massive public gifts / awards of early water rights.

I'd personally probably support a bigger change, but this is my current proposal for your voting in this poll. Water rights already delivered for over 100 years would probably still get the 25 year transition period.

What level of support is there for such change towards more equitable community benefit to Colorado's scarce and vital for living water?

[NW Crow]

Any public officials, who see this on own or by someone
forwarding this link to them (suggested), want to endorse this plan or even just endorse a public study of the general topic?

[NW Crow]

The upshot of this proposal would be that by 2075, the residents of Colorado would have reclaimed 50% of the water rights granted to private parties prior to 1950 as public assets forevermore as the general / senior right of every and all Colorado residents.

[NW Crow]

Interstate water agreements would be honored as is... unless CO leaders think they should / can get a better deal.

[NW Crow]

If it takes a Colorado constutional amendment to accomplish this and / or cases before the CO Supreme Court (and / or US Supreme Court), so be it.

[NW Crow]

An underlying assumption is that a large percentage of original water right grants do not represent highest and best use today or tomorrow. And that many original water right grantees could still do well with 50% of the grant. And if they wanted more, they could pay for it at current / future prices like everybody else has for 75 plus years.



Worst case alternative if this can not accomplished because of political or legal obstacles would be to "buy back" the 50% of the grant at the average calculated price of free market purchase for that amount of water right in the year granted with some inflation adjustment.


Actually the worst case scenario imo would be to do nothing different and let laws from 100-150 years ago stand largely or completely intact for today and forever despite the massive changes to the state and it's citizenry.

[Colorado Rambler]

The problems is that water rights in the entire Colorado basin are going to have to be seriously revamped due to ongoing drought and climate change. Lakes Mead and Powell are at something like 30% of capacity - the lowest ever since they were both still filling up. Water levels are so low that the Bureau of Reclamation declared a water shortage on the Colorado River basin for the first time ever in mid-August. There are a lot of ideas for how to relieve the drought and ease its impacts—some more feasible than others. But when you think about water in the West, you have to think about scarcity too.

Colorado would have to renegotiate ever water treaty (or break every law of the river) in order to put in the changes you suggest. Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, California, and Utah would all be up in arms if Colorado were even to suggest such a thing to them. The Feds would step in quickly to prevent Colorado from pulling such a trick.

I appreciate your concern and the thought you have put into your proposed solution, but unfortunately, it would never work.

[Phil P]

I never got why the feds kept most of the land public, but gave all the water away to some lucky first (non native american) settlers. To me, it always seemed like a cop out to avoid conflict today, just push it out into the future. They would have to pay current owners for the water.

[NW Crow]

I said "interstate water agreements would be honored as is..."

... unless undertaking a different strategy separate from this one.

But... if change of use of water rights affects eventual water returns to interstate rivers covered inter-state agreements and directions, then some adjustments may be necessary. The plan would be similar, though the amount of water shifted to CO public stakeholders may be reduced. And / or new water returns to eastern slope could be sold / resold to pay for offset purchases / grantss to make west slope inter-state water agreements whole.


The current water right grantees have already been "paid" to an ultra massive degree. With the 100 year full rights and 25 years declining and 50% perpetual, I am pretty sure even late heirs to water rights are still getting a very good deal.


It was shortsighted at best, irresponsible at worst for CO water law & courts (and federal) to give away so much water to private economic interests that the state would eventually- and forever without changes- become hard pressed to meet basic consumer needs / "human rights".

[NW Crow]

Prior appropritation above all other considerations because "that's the way we did it". The way that private economic interests suggested it be done, forced on everybody as law.