Concerning requirements for formerly irrigated agricultural land for which an agricultural irrigation water right in water division 2 is changed to another beneficial use.
HB26-1340 establishes special conditions for changes of use of agricultural irrigation water rights in Colorado Water Division 2 when the right is converted to another beneficial use on or after January 1, 2027. The bill is aimed at formerly irrigated agricultural land and requires the change-of-use decree to include terms designed to achieve revegetation or conversion to dryland farming, along with erosion control and weed management. It also requires the water right owner to identify site-specific criteria and a scientific, objective method for measuring whether the land has been successfully revegetated or converted.
The bill creates a detailed court-supervised process. When a change-of-use application is approved, the water court must appoint a neutral third-party expert, paid by the water right owner, to conduct annual field reviews and issue status reports until the land meets the required standard. After success is established, a five-year maintenance period begins, with additional reviews and reports near the end of that period. If the land no longer meets the standard, the court may require additional maintenance periods or limit the amount of water available for the new use to the portion of the land that remains successfully revegetated or converted.
HB26-1340 also gives the water court flexibility to impose financial assurance, such as a performance bond, or to limit the timing and percentage of water that may be used for the new beneficial use while preserving existing decreed uses. If a local land use authority has already imposed comparable requirements through a permit or intergovernmental agreement, the court must incorporate those requirements instead of creating duplicative ones. The bill defines “successfully established” to mean that revegetation or dryland conversion has occurred and weeds and soil erosion are adequately controlled under the court-approved criteria.
The bill’s impact is to add a new layer of statutory requirements to Colorado water law, specifically Colorado Revised Statutes section 37-92-305, for certain water right change cases in Water Division 2. It affects water right owners, landowners, local land use authorities, the Division of Water Resources, and water courts by tying water-right changes to land-restoration obligations and ongoing monitoring. The law is prospective, applying to decrees entered on or after January 1, 2027, and it is subject to referendum and delayed effectiveness provisions.
The overall sentiment appears supportive and practical, with the bill advancing through the process and ultimately being signed by the governor. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to balance water-right flexibility with land stewardship and neighboring land concerns. The main points of contention likely center on the added compliance burden, cost of third-party monitoring, possible financial assurance requirements, and the extent of water-use limitations during the transition period, especially for agricultural water users in Division 2.
The bill amends section 37-92-305 of the Colorado Revised Statutes to require special terms and conditions for certain changes of use of agricultural irrigation water rights in Water Division 2. It creates mandatory revegetation or dryland-farming requirements, court-appointed third-party monitoring, maintenance-period review, and possible water-use limits or financial assurance, thereby affecting water court decrees, water right owners, landowners, and local land use authorities involved in change-of-use proceedings.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote detail in the provided materials, but the bill’s progression to gubernatorial signature suggests it was generally viewed favorably. The measure appears to have been framed as a land and water management safeguard rather than a broad restriction, indicating a pragmatic, stewardship-oriented consensus. Any opposition likely focused on implementation costs, administrative complexity, and the constraints placed on water-right changes.
The most likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s mandatory revegetation and dryland conversion requirements, the use of neutral third-party experts paid by the water right owner, and the court’s authority to impose financial assurance or limit the amount and timing of water available for the new use. Water users may view these provisions as costly and burdensome, while land and water managers may support them as necessary to prevent erosion, weed spread, and loss of soil stability after irrigation is removed. Another possible point of contention is the bill’s interaction with local land use permits or intergovernmental agreements, though the bill attempts to reduce duplication by allowing courts to rely on existing local criteria.