Prepared remarks: Address to the Colorado Water Congress (August 19, 2025)
In Colorado, we are used to confronting challenges as opportunities. After all, Wallace Stegner, the famed Western writer, captured our spirit—“it’s impossible to be pessimistic in the West; it’s the native land of hope.” How we manage our water is a test of that ethos.
There are no two ways to put this: we face serious water scarcity challenges in Colorado and the West. That scarcity is driven, in significant part, by increasing demands as populations boom across the West and by climate change, which is decreasing snowpack, changing runoff patterns, increasing evaporation, and drying soils. Aging infrastructure and outdated water management practices also challenge our water supply.
Climate change is evident in more variable weather patterns, challenges with soil moisture, and increased evaporation. Those uncertainties, coupled with coexistent unpredictability in rainfall and snowpack, can be destabilizing—making it difficult for farmers, ranchers, businesses, citizens, and even cities to know what to expect each year or how to plan for the future. While we cannot predict the full extent of the impacts, we can meet this challenge by creating more innovative, adaptive, and resilient systems for water management.
Increased uncertainty and unpredictability make planning more important than ever, with an imperative of developing new and innovative strategies for water management. The future success of Colorado will depend, in considerable part, on our ability to adapt to scarcity and reduce the uncertainty and unpredictability that comes with it. The most sustainable solutions will go beyond individual success (whether within Colorado or with other states) and develop win-win solutions. In short, we must develop strategies that embrace the challenge of developing new and innovative ways of managing water in Colorado and invest in infrastructure and technology that ensures that we are maximizing every aspect of our limited resource.
As I reflect on the work ahead, I remain guided and inspired by the late and beloved John Stulp. John realized the importance of planning and improving the communities in which we live and work. Many of you will remember John for his work as Commissioner of Agriculture or as Water Policy Advisor to Governor Hickenlooper. I was lucky enough to celebrate his life at a memorial service in Lamar earlier this month. John was a friend and mentor to me.
Among many valuable lessons, John Stulp taught me the importance of managing water so that all communities are respected and have a seat at the table when important decisions are made about their future. At our best in Colorado, as John told me, we work together to develop innovative and sustainable solutions. At our worst, we are fighting with one another (and our surrounding states). John believed that each of us has a responsibility to ensure that, wherever we can, we improve communities and ecosystems where we live and work.
Investing in Sound Water Management Projects
In a prior address to the Colorado Water Congress, I emphasized that investments in water infrastructure will pay important dividends to our communities and future generations.[1] To that end, let me celebrate the Maybell Diversion Project as an example of such a project that has greatly benefited Colorado. This project, valued at $6.8M, involves the installation of a remote-controlled headgate and an improved fish and recreation bypass of the diversion structure. It was funded by multiple partners, including The Nature Conservancy, Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMART program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
The Maybell Diversion Project is an exemplary model of a win-win investment. By enabling the remote operation of the headgate, it eliminates a 2-hour hike to the headgate and increases adaptability so that diversions can be determined—in real-time—through a combination of water user needs, available flows, and needs of the Recovery Program. This project improves efficiency, increases resiliency to drought, and protects fish. Supporting projects with multiple benefits like the Maybell Diversion Project is most effective if we can prioritize state funds, endorse applications for federal funding, and connect project proponents with NGOs or private partners. I recognize that part of what is needed is more leadership at the state level and an emphasis on collaboration—and I will keep advocating for such leadership and investments.
Let me emphasize that sound investments in water management will take a variety of forms. For another example, consider how Colorado and other states—ideally, with support from the federal government—can encourage farmers to grow crops that require less water than their current crops and can ensure that farmers can sell those crops for a profit. As those who have experimented with planting hemp know well, crops will only be worth planting when there are opportunities for local processing and associated businesses that can create a viable market for using and selling that crop.
For an encouraging example of water efficient agriculture, consider the Rye Resurgence Project taking root in the San Luis Valley. Rye uses 40% less water than other similar crops like barley or oats, which are traditional staples in the Valley. The Rye Resurgence Project realized that farmers in the Valley would only switch to growing rye if they could sell it. Consequently, the project builds a market for Colorado rye by investing in marketing, branding, and personnel to build relationships between farmers and end-users like brewers, distillers, and bakers.
From Zero Sum Thinking to Win-Win Thinking
It is famously said about water management disputes that “whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.” This mindset views the world of water management as one of winners and losers. Rather than looking for opportunities for win-wins, it views the world through the lens of a zero-sum game. To create win-wins, we must create space for discourse and dialogue to build trust among various water users, ranging across geographies, industries, and different types of users.
An important principle for water management is to disincentivize projects that turn a profit for one stakeholder at the expense of another community. Take, for example, the growing alfalfa for export to Saudi Arabia (as was the case, until recently, in Arizona). By growing this water-intensive crop for export, Arizona was essentially exporting its water to Saudi Arabia. And by exporting the alfalfa instead of selling it domestically, they also eliminated all future economic returns on that water. Imagine the benefits if there were incentives to keep the alfalfa in Arizona, with it being sold instead to domestic cattle producers. Those cattle could then be sold and processed in Arizona, benefiting local restaurants and consumers as well as decreasing food transportation costs. At each step of this chain, we would see additional returns on that water—as opposed to its export.
As captured clearly in the Colorado Water Plan, it is essential to discourage buying agricultural water rights for municipal or other uses and drying up the farmland so that it no longer contributes to the local economy or culture. The so-called Renewable Water Resources project is a clear example of a buy-and-dry initiative. The project would buy out wells that are currently used to irrigate lands in the San Luis Valley. Rather than using that water for irrigation, they would pipe the water to the front range for municipal supply. Proponents say the water is necessary to ensure other communities have enough water supply to secure their future without consideration of the San Luis Valley’s future. Colorado’s economic prosperity and managing our water resources cannot thrive if viewed as a zero-sum game.
The constructive way forward is to develop programs that allow water users to voluntarily reduce their use of water without harming their own rights to use that water in the future. Such programs will help the State avoid and respond to calls for water from downstream states under interstate river compacts. For Colorado’s future, we need our interstate river compact negotiations, including the Colorado River Compact, to be a core part of how our society works to manage this limited resource.
Developing new conservation programs and finding win-win-win solutions to maximize our limited resource will require us to prioritize State funding and boost investment in water infrastructure and technologies. We also must ensure that the State is able to pull down and take advantage of the maximum amounts of federal funding opportunities where they exist.
Upholding the Rule of Law – the Colorado Way
As we adapt to changing hydrology and look for flexible and collaborative solutions, it will also be important to stand firm on certain principles. Our success not only relies on our adaptability, but also on a solid foundation of laws that are consistently enforced with predictable results.
Colorado’s framework for managing water is based on state-level oversight and the ultimate responsibility to comply with relevant legal obligations. This system is bolstered by significant reliance on regional and local partnerships to facilitate solutions that are tailored to the water supply needs of local communities. The Colorado model prioritizes respect for and collaboration with regional bodies, such as water conservancy and conservation districts, with a norm of deferring to local expertise and solutions whenever possible. Nonetheless, the ultimate responsibility of managing Colorado’s water and ensuring compliance with compacts, laws, and regulations falls to the State. This is especially true when we talk about compliance with interstate water compacts.
Compliance with Colorado’s nine interstate water compacts, two international treaties, and three equitable apportionment decrees is exclusively the responsibility of the State. This authority is established by the compact clause of the U.S Constitution that allows states, as sovereigns, to enter into agreements to apportion water between them to avoid conflicts over water.
Once ratified by Congress, interstate compacts become federal law. That does not mean, however, that the federal government controls state water resources. To the contrary, the power to control uses of water is an essential attribute of state sovereignty.[2] When states compact with each other to apportion the waters of interstate streams, those compacts also bind the federal government.[3]
As we negotiate or litigate over our interstate compacts, I am dedicated to defending Colorado from federal overreach and protecting Colorado’s compact apportionments. To the extent a state fails to comply with its interstate compact obligations, the State—and not individual water users, conservation or conservancy districts, or local governments—is held solely liable and responsible for complying or possibly paying damages out of the State’s General Fund.[4] In 2006, for example, the State was required to pay nearly $35 million in damages and legal costs to Kansas for violating the Arkansas River Compact.[5]
Furthermore, when there is a challenge to State actions under the terms of these agreements, local and regional entities are precluded from participating as parties to help defend the State in such litigation.[6] That is because interstate water disputes, reserved to the “original and exclusive jurisdiction” of the Supreme Court,[7] necessarily invoke states’ sovereignty, with each representing “the interests and rights of all of her people in a controversy with the other.”[8]
Elected officials in charge of managing Colorado’s water are accountable to taxpayers who, as noted above, will ultimately bear the cost of any failure to comply with interstate compacts. If the State manages water in a way in which constituents do not approve, they are able express their views directly to their elected officials or engage in the election process to have their voices heard. It is critical for the State to retain full authority to administer and distribute the waters of the State arising there to comply with interstate compacts as the sovereign with the exclusive authority to do so.
Nebraska, in a cautionary tale, took a very different approach to its groundwater management. Their approach demonstrates the pitfalls that Colorado’s system avoids. This tale starts in 2001 when the United States Supreme Court found that Nebraska had violated the Republican River Compact by allowing groundwater well pumping to proliferate. In the years that followed, Nebraska delegated its regulatory authority over groundwater to local Natural Resource Districts instead of the state’s Department of Natural Resources.[9] Those local districts represented only the interests of their own water users, and they faced no direct liability for falling out of compact compliance. As a result, the districts failed to make the difficult policy and enforcement decisions necessary for Nebraska to comply with the compact, and Nebraska was forced to pay nearly $6 million in damages to Kansas.[10]
Colorado must stand ready to protect our State’s water resources
We are committed to collaborating with other states to find creative solutions that resolve disagreements in ways that provide the maximum benefit for all states and, in particular, the water users who can benefit. When our fellow states are unable to find a collaborative solution to interstate disagreements, however, Colorado must be ready to protect our control over our water resources in court.
That may well be where we find ourselves with Nebraska. As many of you know, Nebraska recently asked the Supreme Court of the United States to let it file a complaint against Colorado under the South Platte River Compact. In its request, Nebraska claims there are disputes between the two states that only the Supreme Court can resolve. Stated simply, Nebraska claims there are disputes about whether Colorado is meeting its summertime obligations under the Compact and that Colorado is blocking Nebraska’s plans to build a canal in Colorado. The Supreme Court is not obligated to take the case, and Colorado will be allowed to respond and to tell the Court whether it agrees that there is, in fact, a dispute between the states that is worthy of the Court’s attention. Colorado’s response is due on October 15. If the Court does accept the case, it can decide some or all the legal questions on its own or refer the case to a Special Master before deciding anything. In terms of timing, it could be up to a year before we know whether the Court will take the case. If it does, it could be many more years before it addresses the merits.
I know for many people in Colorado, and many of you here today, that uncertainty is troubling. I understand that and want you all to know that I am dedicated to protecting Colorado and those citizens who depend on water from the South Platte to irrigate their crops, water their livestock, and fill their taps. You’re about to hear from three of them. Lain, Chad, and Dan are talented and experienced leaders, and they are just a part of our team. Over the last six years, I’ve nearly doubled our team that is dedicated to working on these interstate compact disputes—including hiring two new Deputy Solicitors: Andrea Wang, former Deputy US Attorney for Colorado, and Sarah Krakoff, former Deputy Solicitor for the Department of Interior. As I have stated before, Colorado has the deepest and most experienced bench of any state in the country and I’m confident we are poised to do our absolute best.
* * *
Our ability to adapt to scarcity and reduce uncertainty and unpredictability in water management going forward will be one of the keys to our success. Our solutions must go beyond individual success and collaborate with other interests to find win-win solutions like the Maybell Ditch and the Rye Resurgence Project. As we adapt to changing hydrology and look for flexible and collaborative solutions, we will stand firm on the key guiding principles I discussed above. Our success will rely both on our adaptability and the solid foundation of our laws that are enforced fairly and predictably.
I welcome your questions.
–
[1] Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Prepared remarks to Colorado Water Congress Convention (Jan. 25, 2023).
[2] Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614, 631 (2013).
[3] Texas v. New Mexico, 583 U.S. 407, 410 (2018).
[4] Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445, 459 (2015) (finding local district boards bore no responsibility for complying with compact and assumed no share of the penalties Nebraska would pay for violations).
[5] Kansas v. Colorado, 533 U.S. 1 (2001) (remanding the case to the Special Master for a determination of damages); Fifth and Final Report of Arthur L. Littleworth, Special Master, at 3, Kansas v. Colorado, No. 105 Orig., vol. II (Jan. 31, 2008).
[6] Texas v. New Mexico, 583 U.S. 913 (2017) (denying motions to intervene by local water districts in compact dispute between states).
[7] 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
[8] Wyoming v. Colorado, 286 U.S. 494, 508-09 (1932); New Jersey v. New York, 345 U.S. 369, 372 (1953); see also South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256, 267 (1953) (“In its sovereign capacity, a State represents the interests of its citizens in an original action, the disposition of which binds the citizens.”); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1, 21 (1995) (“A State is presumed to speak in the best interests of [its] citizens. . . .”).
[9] Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 46-702 (“The Legislature also finds that natural resources districts have the legal authority to regulate certain activities and, except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, as local entities are the preferred regulators of activities which may contribute to ground water depletion.”).
[10] Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445 (2015).