Connect with us

Colorado

Utah’s water efficiency push may help farms more than the Colorado River

Published

on

Utah’s water efficiency push may help farms more than the Colorado River


Note to readers • This article is published through the Colorado River Collaborative, a solutions journalism initiative supported by the Janet Quinney Lawson Institute for Land, Water, and Air at Utah State University.

Water is precious to Dwight Brinkerhoff. Over the decades he’s farmed in Wayne County, the goal has been to stretch water supplies.

“It is the resource that we have,” he said, “that if we did not have, we would not be here.”

Farms in this southern Utah valley were irrigated by flooding when he was young, he said. Now, some of his neighbors have high-tech automated sprayers. And the next evolution might be taking shape in one of his own alfalfa fields.

Advertisement

That’s where Utah State University researcher Maziyar Vaez Roudbari stood spinning the head of a new rotator sprinkler — a brightly colored plastic nozzle roughly the size of a soda can.

He’s testing a potential replacement for the traditional sprinkler heads on Brinkerhoff’s wheel line irrigation system. The rotator throws water in uniform droplets, Roudbari said, so it should help more moisture reach the soil rather than getting lost in the wind.

“Ultimately, our goal is [to] identify a sprinkler system to provide the best balance of water conservation and crop health,” he said.

Roudbari’s team has installed around 250 test sprinklers like this on farms and research plots across Utah to see their real-world performance.

If the project works, it could help farmers put more water where they want it without having to replace their whole irrigation system. That would be especially important in Wayne County, which relies on the increasingly strained Colorado River system.

Advertisement

“The river faces ever more pressure from overuse, climate change and drought,” Roudbari said. “More efficient irrigation could help reduce water demand by providing farmers more tools to conserve water without sacrificing crop yields.”

(David Condos |KUER) Dwight Brinkerhoff flicks the spring-loaded arm of a brass impact sprinkler at his farm in Wayne County, Aug. 22, 2024. Replacing traditional sprayers like this with new water-efficient versions may boost crop production but is unlikely to have a significant impact on saving the Colorado River.

Who will efficiency help?

Agriculture is Utah’s biggest water user. So, many proposals to save the shrinking river depend on finding ways for farmers to cut back. The state has set aside $276 million to help modernize sprinklers and canals. Some farmers are testing out alternative crops that may use less water than the state’s top crop, alfalfa.

Utah also launched a program to pay farmers to leave fields temporarily unplanted and unirrigated, a practice known as fallowing.

Many of the efforts — from the state’s big-money modernization program to the nozzle test in Wayne County — aim to use water more efficiently. It’s not clear, however, how big of a dent that can make when it comes to boosting Colorado River levels.

Advertisement

It can even do the opposite, said Burdette Barker, an assistant professor of irrigation at USU.

“It is kind of, in a way, the wicked problem of water efficiency,” Barker said. “For quite a long time in the irrigation science and engineering world, it’s been understood that in general — so, not every case, but in general — when we improve efficiency, we increase consumptive water use.”

If you feel like that sounds paradoxical, you’re not alone. Frank Ward, an agricultural economist at New Mexico State University didn’t believe it at first. To him, “it didn’t quite seem plausible.”

Higher efficiency means a larger percentage of the applied water makes it to the plant roots, which is good for crop yields. Ward and his colleagues have found in their research, however, that installing more efficient irrigation does not automatically mean saving water. It simply changes where the water goes.

“Drip irrigation and center pivots are good things to do,” Ward said. “They promote the goal of lower food prices, higher food production and farm income, if they’re subsidized. Just don’t call it investments in water conservation.”

Advertisement

That’s because of the difference between water use and consumptive water use. For water to be considered consumed or depleted, it needs to be removed from a river basin.

Let’s say you have a farm with an old wheel line sprinkler system where 70% of the water you draw ends up in your crops. Some of the remaining 30% then seeps into groundwater or runs into streams. As far as the river basin is concerned, that leftover water wasn’t depleted because it stayed in the watershed.

If you upgrade to a new 95% efficient irrigation system, a lot more water is consumed by your crops and a lot less runs off back into the local water supply.

That may work economically, but not hydrologically, said Zohrab Samani, a NMSU professor who has researched farm water use along with Ward.

“Efficient systems are good for the farmers because they maximize the profit from the unit of water they use,” he said. “But nothing goes back to the reserve.”

Advertisement

(David Condos | KUER) Utah farms commonly use wheel line irrigation systems, like the one seen here in Wayne County, Aug. 22, 2024. Making these sprinklers more water-efficient may help farms produce more crops, but that doesn’t mean it would save more water for the Colorado River.

The possible trade-off ahead

Farms are where our food comes from, Samani said, so supporting agricultural producers and communities is a worthwhile investment. But government agencies need to balance the positive economic impacts of subsidizing new irrigation equipment against the potentially negative hydrologic impacts.

As states across the West look to irrigation efficiency as a conservation solution, it’s been a challenge for Ward and Samani to get this message to sink in. The federal government set aside hundreds of millions for similar programs to help conserve agricultural water in 2024.

Other example projects would be lining a leaky irrigation canal with concrete or converting an open ditch into a pipe. Half of the $30 million in Utah’s 2025 agricultural optimization funding is set aside for these types of fixes.

Because a lot of the water leaking from a canal trickles back into the local water supply, Barker said, it isn’t really depleted. So, improving that type of inefficiency has a limited impact on the river.

Advertisement

“Piping projects don’t really reduce this consumptive water use. What they do do is give the canal operators more control of the water,” he said. “So, I don’t want to make it seem like these projects are not beneficial, but they don’t immediately make water available in the basin.”

Improved efficiency has other benefits, Barker noted. It can control weeds and pests. It may also improve water quality, since runoff from inefficient systems can carry salt from underground deposits or nitrate from fertilizer when it returns to the water supply.

It could also help Utah grow more food per gallon of water by cutting down on evaporation, a common form of depletion.

Barker said more pilot programs, such as the Wayne County nozzle test and a Colorado River Authority of Utah subsurface drip project in northeast Utah, can help us understand how different tools work in practice. Showing Utah farmers which options can squeeze the best possible harvests from their water could help sustain them in a drier future when there may be mandatory cuts.

At some point, however, better efficiency would need to be paired with other Colorado River conservation efforts that reduce the total amount of water Utah agriculture consumes.

Advertisement

That could mean farmers shortening their growing season — say, three months of irrigation instead of six — or reducing the acres they water. Switching to crops like wheat or oats that require less irrigation than alfalfa could help, Barker said, but those crops aren’t as profitable.

If the goal is to save Colorado River water, that’s a trade-off Western leaders may need to take.

This story was produced as part of the Colorado River Collaborative. KSL TV photographer Mark Wetzel contributed to this story.



Source link

Advertisement

Colorado

Colorado needs a sane, viable opposition party

Published

on

Colorado needs a sane, viable opposition party


If you are upset with the increasing regulatory burden in Colorado, the exodus of too many large employers, accelerating property taxes, the condition of the roads and all of the funding for transit schemes with low demand, of course you can lay the blame on Democrats who control all levers of state government.  The same holds if your misgiving centers on annual […]



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Coworking firm Industrious takes former WeWork space in Denver

Published

on

Coworking firm Industrious takes former WeWork space in Denver


Industrious, a national coworking brand, is opening a new location in LoHi.

The company has snapped up 25,000 square feet at The Lab building at 2420 17th St., just off Platte Street. Industrious has an existing LoHi location just up the road at 2128 W. 32nd Ave.

“They are going to draw from different populations. … No doubt they’re close to each other, but [this is a] different product type, just in terms of build-out,” said Peri Demestihas, an Industrious executive.

Demestihas said the current LoHi location has been full for two years, which indicates demand for more space. That existing spot is more for established businesses with a greater emphasis on private offices. The new location will be geared more toward smaller companies and the solo entrepreneur.

Advertisement

In total, there will be 379 dedicated “office seats” and 18 “access seats,” which can be used by anyone.

Industrious has a conservative mindset when it comes to growth, Demestihas said. The company also operates in Upper Downtown and by I-25 and Colorado Blvd.

“These are the submarkets we like and if we can find the right building and we can get the right structure, … without those things, we’re not going to go to those submarkets. It’s got to suit our members.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Contamination, climate change and political drama stall clean water for Colorado’s Arkansas Valley – High Country News

Published

on

Contamination, climate change and political drama stall clean water for Colorado’s Arkansas Valley – High Country News


The western stretch of the Arkansas River, which flows from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains across the plains of southeastern Colorado, is in trouble. That trouble is compounded by uncertainty about what, exactly, is polluting and drying the river, and how such problems can be fixed. 

Overshadowed by the ongoing political brawl over the Colorado River, the Arkansas River Valley rarely appears in national news. But since Dec. 30, when President Donald Trump vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have secured favorable terms for funding to complete a $1.39 billion, 130-mile water pipeline, the region has become the stage for yet more drama about water in the Western U.S.

The Arkansas Valley Conduit is part of a decades-long effort to replace the dwindling, contaminated water in this stretch of the Arkansas Valley with clean water from Colorado’s Western Slope and the Pueblo Reservoir. If completed, it will supply water to roughly 50,000 valley residents, many of whom can no longer count on municipal supplies for safe drinking water.

Advertisement

Pundits portrayed Trump’s veto as retaliation against Colorado politicians: Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert, who helped force the November vote for the release of the Epstein files, and Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, who has resisted pressure to pardon Tina Peters, a county clerk in western Colorado convicted of tampering with voting machines during the 2020 election. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, both Democrats, condemned the administration for “putting personal and political grievances ahead of Americans.” The Salida-based Ark Valley Voice declared a “Reign of Retribution Punishing Deep Red Southeastern Colorado.” The New York Times, emphasizing the same irony, observed that “A Trump Veto Leaves Republicans in Colorado Parched and Bewildered.” 

For those managing the project, the veto is a setback but not a showstopper. The first dozen miles of the conduit have already been completed, and enough capital is on hand for at least three more years of construction. “Some (coverage) has been saying it’s the end of the project, which is totally false,” said Chris Woodka, senior policy and issues manager of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “It’s still being built; the veto was not for any reason that had anything to do with the project, and we’re working in every way we can to make this affordable.” 

For valley residents, the issue is personal. This rural region is more culturally aligned with western Kansas than with Front Range cities. Like people throughout the Great Plains, the local residents are grappling with eroding social services and the rising cost of living. The scarcity of safe water magnifies uncertainty. “If you don’t have clean water,” said Jack Goble, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and a sixth-generation rancher, “you really don’t have anything.”

A resident prepares to fill jugs with purified water at the Rocky Ford Food Market in Rocky Ford, Colorado. The town’s water supply is contaminated with unsafe levels of radium and uranium. Credit: Michael Ciaglo
Lawrence Armijo, maintenance operator for the town of Manzanola’s water treatment plant. While the plant filters out most toxins, it is not equipped to remove radium and uranium from the groundwater.
Lawrence Armijo, maintenance operator for the town of Manzanola’s water treatment plant. While the plant filters out most toxins, it is not equipped to remove radium and uranium from the groundwater. Credit: Michael Ciaglo

“HOW EASY IT IS,” wrote William Mills in his 1988 book The Arkansas, “to take a river for granted.” 

The Arkansas Valley of Colorado is the ancestral homelands of the Plains Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne and Arapaho peoples. A geographical corridor across the Southern Plains, it was a route for incursions and ethnic cleansing by non-Native fur trappers, traders, military expeditions, hide hunters, railroad developers and settlers. Those settlers include my ancestors; I grew up in southwest Kansas, where generations of my family farmed and ranched along the dry Cimarron River. The Arkansas Valley, with its dwindling water and flatlands, feels like home.

By 1900, settlers had diverted the Arkansas into a maze of ditches. Irrigation and migrant labor supported sugar beet factories, vegetable cultivation and Rocky Ford’s famous melons. Such practices remade the riverbed, increased salinity, and reduced flow. As with the Colorado River, water rights were assigned partly on wishful thinking. Today, the Arkansas Valley is one of the region’s most over-appropriated basins, and the river’s annual flow has dramatically declined. A short distance past the Kansas line, the river is entirely dry.

Advertisement

The Arkansas is being drained in new ways. Climate change and a record-breaking snow drought are intensifying the scarcity. Over the last half-century, growing Front Range cities have purchased water rights from farmers in the valley. Exchange agreements allow cities to swap these rights for ones farther upstream, leaving the downstream flow diminished and dirtier. Between 1978 and 2022, nearly 44% of the irrigated farmland in the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District was taken out of production.

Critics call it “buy-and-dry.” They say the removal of water has disastrous consequences for an agricultural region. “If you take all of that water out of an economy that completely depends on it,” Goble said, “it just breaks a community.” Faced with the prospect of litigation from local water districts, cities like Aurora claim to be developing more sustainable arrangements.

“If you don’t have clean water, you really don’t have anything.”

THE ARKANSAS’ WATER is changing, too. The river is diverted into dozens of canals and fields. What doesn’t evaporate or get absorbed returns as runoff or sinks through the alluvial gravels that connect to the riverbed. Each time a drop of water returns, it carries more dissolved minerals. As the river’s volume lessens, the concentration increases in what is left. By the time the river reaches the Kansas border, the water regularly contains 4,000 milligrams or more per liter — making it about eight times saltier than a typical sports drink and unsuitable for growing many crops.

Minerals are not the only problem. The river basin and alluvial gravels are also contaminated with radium and uranium. Last year, a study by the Colorado Geological Survey found that the levels of radioactivity in more than 60% of the private wells sampled in the valley exceeded federal standards. 

The radionuclides are called “naturally occurring.” But natural uranium usually stays locked in rock. In the valley, irrigated agriculture sets it into motion. Uranium is mobilized by complex interactions between oxygen, sediments, water, microbes and nitrate. Nitrate is a common fertilizer. One study found that valley farmers had over-applied it for decades. This pulls out radionuclides, turns them loose, and flushes them into the river’s shallow aquifer. Levels rise as the river moves east through agricultural lands.

Advertisement

Contamination is not news in the valley. People have worked on cooperative solutions for decades. To meet safe water standards while the conduit is under construction, the towns of La Junta and Las Animas installed filtration systems. But cleaning the water creates hyper-contaminated wastewater, which is currently diluted and poured back into the river.  “The only true solution,” said Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board, “is a new source.”

Orlando Rodriguez, Pate Construction foreman, climbs out of a hole where sections of the Arkansas Valley Conduit will be connected.
Orlando Rodriguez, Pate Construction foreman, climbs out of a hole where sections of the Arkansas Valley Conduit will be connected. Credit: Michael Ciaglo

THE CONDUIT WOULD PROVIDE safe water to a region too often disregarded. But the project also raises questions about what can truly be bypassed and what cannot, and about the fate of the river itself.

Near Cañon City, upstream from the conduit, the Lincoln Park/Cotter Superfund site contains a former uranium mill, millions of tons of radioactive waste, coal mineworks and tailing ponds. The site sits less than two miles from the Arkansas River. It is known to be contaminated with the same compounds — radionuclides, selenium, sulfates — that affect communities downstream.  

Local residents have worked for decades to raise awareness and hold a revolving cast of agencies, regulators and owners accountable for the pollution. “It has taken us a lifetime,” said Jeri Fry, co-chair of Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste. “As the years have gone by, we have been the ones holding the memory.” 

“The only true solution is a new source.”

Without memory, they say, contamination is normalized as background, treated as an isolated issue, or denied. “We’ve been stonewalled on many of our legitimate concerns,” said Carol Dunn, vice-chairperson of the Lincoln Park/Cotter Community Advisory Group. She believes state regulators avoid testing for fear of uncovering inconvenient facts.

Advertisement

The most inconvenient would suggest connections between contamination in the valley and industrial pollution upstream, which affects not only Cañon City but the communities of Leadville, Pueblo and Fountain Creek. For Fry, all of the known and unknown pressures on the river point to the same fundamental problem. “We are not treating our water as though it is a sacred thing,” she said. “And it is. It’s got to be.” 

Russell Van Dyk, owner of Lloyd’s Ice and Water in Rocky Ford, Colorado, closes up his store at the end of the day. The residents of Rocky Ford and surrounding towns rely on purified drinking water because the area’s groundwater has been contaminated by uranium and radium.
Russell Van Dyk, owner of Lloyd’s Ice and Water in Rocky Ford, Colorado, closes up his store at the end of the day. The residents of Rocky Ford and surrounding towns rely on purified drinking water because the area’s groundwater has been contaminated by uranium and radium. Credit: Michael Ciaglo

We welcome reader letters. Email High Country News at editor@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor. See our letters to the editor policy.

This article appeared in the May 2026 print edition of the magazine with the headline “The absence of clean water.”   

This story is part of High Country News’ Conservation Beyond Boundaries project, which is supported by the BAND Foundation and the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation.

Spread the word. News organizations can pick-up quality news, essays and feature stories for free.

Advertisement

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending