Revegetate or Dry Farm Formerly Irrigated Agricultural Land
HB1340 creates new requirements for water court change-of-use decrees in Colorado Water Division 2 when an agricultural irrigation water right is changed to another beneficial use on formerly irrigated agricultural land. For decrees entered on or after January 1, 2027, the bill directs water courts to include terms aimed at revegetation or conversion to dryland farming, erosion control, and weed management on land where irrigation water is permanently removed. It also requires the water right owner to comply with those terms and, in some cases, allows the court to limit the amount or timing of water that may be used for the new beneficial use if revegetation is not progressing.
The bill establishes a detailed monitoring and enforcement framework. Applicants must propose site-specific criteria and a scientific, objective method for measuring whether revegetation or dryland conversion has been successfully established. If a local land use authority has already issued a permit or intergovernmental agreement under existing land-use law that includes those criteria, the water court must use them; otherwise, the court may rely on criteria adopted by the local authority. The court must appoint a neutral third-party expert, paid by the water right owner, to conduct annual field reviews and issue status reports until successful establishment is achieved. The court may also require financial assurance, such as a performance bond, unless equivalent protections are already required through a local permit or agreement.
The bill’s impact is primarily on Colorado water law and water court practice in Water Division 2, with indirect effects on landowners, irrigators, local governments, and parties seeking to transfer agricultural water rights to other uses. It adds statutory conditions to change-of-use decrees and creates ongoing obligations tied to revegetation, dryland farming conversion, weed control, and soil erosion control. It also interacts with existing local land-use permitting authority under Title 24, but expressly states that it is not intended to alter those land-use provisions.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears favorable. It passed the House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources Committee unanimously and later passed House third reading by a strong margin, 55-5, suggesting broad support for the bill’s environmental and land-management goals. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote pattern indicates the measure was generally well received.
The main points of contention likely center on the added costs and administrative burdens for water right owners and the degree of discretion given to water courts. The bill requires owners to pay for third-party monitoring, potentially post financial security, and comply with ongoing reporting and review requirements. It also gives courts authority to limit the percentage of water available for the new use if revegetation efforts stall, which could be viewed as a significant constraint on water-right changes. Supporters likely view these provisions as necessary to protect soil, control weeds, and ensure land is responsibly transitioned after irrigation is removed.
HB1340 amends Colorado water law, specifically C.R.S. 37-92-305, by adding a new subsection governing change-of-use decrees for agricultural irrigation water rights in Water Division 2. It requires water courts to impose revegetation or dryland-farming conditions, weed management standards, and erosion-control measures on formerly irrigated agricultural land, and it authorizes ongoing third-party monitoring, reporting, and, in some cases, financial assurance or limits on water use. The bill also references and coordinates with local land-use permitting under Title 24, article 65.1, while preserving that local authority.
The bill appears to have received generally positive support in the legislature. It passed the House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources Committee unanimously and advanced on House third reading by a wide margin, indicating broad agreement with its goals of land stewardship and responsible water-right conversion. The available record does not show organized opposition in committee, though the floor vote suggests some members were concerned enough to vote no.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s added compliance costs, monitoring obligations, and the water court’s authority to impose continuing restrictions on changed water rights. Water right owners must pay for a neutral third-party expert, may have to provide financial assurance, and could face limits on how much water can be used for the new beneficial use if revegetation is not established. Another possible point of debate is the interaction between state water court decrees and local land-use criteria, although the bill attempts to harmonize the two by allowing courts to rely on local permits or agreements where available.