Lower Arkansas Valley growers voice opposition to Colorado Springs expansion over water issues

The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District stepped up its fight against a massive Colorado Springs annexation, citing concerns that water from farms in southeastern Colorado would be used to supply 6,500 new homes and businesses to support them.

The district, which serves Pueblo, Crowley, Bent, Otero and Prowers counties, passed a resolution outlining the threats its communities face when Colorado Springs expands. 

Big cities in Colorado regularly turn to agricultural water to get more water to satisfy their growth. For farmers and ranchers, selling or leasing water to cities can mean drying up farmland, laying off workers or compromising their way of life. A recently approved annexation plan, the Karman Line project near Colorado Springs, has thrown these tensions into sharp relief.

“Our main concern is the effect to our Lower Arkansas Valley communities’ economies, our culture, our way of life,” said Jack Goble, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. “All the things that are lost when our water is lost.”

The water conservancy district said it was concerned about Colorado Springs annexations in general, as well as the Karman Line project, specifically. 

The Karman Line annexation involves about 1,900 acres of land more than 3 miles from the Colorado Springs city limits. 

The Colorado Springs City Council approved the annexation in January in a 7-2 vote with Councilors Dave Donelson and Nancy Henjum opposing the measures.

Farmers and ranchers in the Lower Arkansas Valley have helped Colorado Springs acquire water rights the city needs, Donelson said in an interview with The Colorado Sun.  

“But part of what they see as the agreement is that the city won’t continue to grow outside of its current boundaries, except for in exceptional circumstances,” he said. “It’s important that we recognize the value in that partnership with them.” 

Other city council members did not respond to requests for comment.

Concerns in the Lower Arkansas Valley

Since the 1980s, communities in the Lower Arkansas Valley have seen their economies wither as irrigation water has been funneled from the Arkansas River by cities, including Aurora, Pueblo and Colorado Springs. The practice, dubbed “buy and dry,” is now widely condemned.

They opposed the Amara annexation, which would have added 9,500 homes to Colorado’s second largest city. It was narrowly rejected by the Colorado Springs City Council in August. They protested at City Hall on Jan. 28, the day of the city council meeting where the annexation was approved.

On Feb. 19, the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District voted to approve its own resolution, listing concerns about economic impacts and doubts about Colorado Springs’ need for new annexations.

Colorado Springs has 70,000 undeveloped lots within city limits even as the real estate market  seems to be slowing down, the district said, questioning the city’s need to expand. (Colorado Springs did not confirm this number.)

The city faces a water gap, the district said. If it did choose to fully develop within its boundaries, it would be short 34,000 acre-feet, or about 11 billion gallons of water, the district said. One acre-foot roughly equals the annual use of two to three households.

The Karman Line development will add about 1,670 acre-feet of water per year to the city’s water supply gap, the district said. 

Colorado Springs Utilities disagreed that it has a “supply gap.” 

“To meet the forecasted future water needs of our city at buildout (estimated to occur in the next 50 years), we estimate we will need up to 34,000 acre-feet of additional supply,” spokesperson Jennifer Jordan said in a written statement, adding that the city will satisfy that need through new supplies, conservation, increased storage and other strategies.

Part of the city’s water strategy is to look to agricultural supplies when it needs more water, along with other ideas like managing water use, reusing supplies and increasing reservoir storage, according to the city’s 2017 Integrated Water Resources Plan, the district said. 

“I’m not sure if there’s even that much water to acquire in the Lower Valley without pretty extreme measures,” Goble said. “Why are you continuing to grow? Particularly when we hear that many Colorado Springs citizens don’t want to see their city grow like this for their own reasons.”

Community members and growers from the Lower Arkansas Valley have traveled, sometimes more than 100 miles, to voice their opposition to the Karman Line annexation.

It’s a water quality issue, Alan Frantz of Rocky Ford in Otero County said during the Jan. 28 city council meeting. The more water you buy, the less is released from Pueblo Reservoir into the Arkansas River. That means there is less water to dilute salt levels and dangerous microbes in the water that, then, is used to nourish fruits and vegetables, he said.

“It’s going to be a dangerous spiral if big cities just keep buying the water … and leaving us with Fountain Creek residue to farm with,” he said during the council meeting. 

Debates in Colorado Springs

Lower Arkansas Valley growers are not the only ones concerned about the Karman Line annexation. 

Colorado Springs community members gathered 31,344 signatures opposing the project and calling for a ballot referendum. In city council meetings, they voiced concerns about basic city services, from emergency response to utilities. They questioned whether Colorado Springs really needs to expand, particularly with the Karman Line project.

City council members supported the project, saying it won’t just be houses — it will be a master planned community with room for commercial spaces that provide services, including grocery stores and child care options. 

The development could offer a new training center for the local police department. It may help meet the housing needs of nearby military members. During the Jan. 28 meeting, the developers said they understand water-efficient development and plan to use those principles.

“We hear what you say. We make a decision, and that’s the direction we’re moving in,” Council president Randy Helms said after all the votes were in.

Council member Yolanda Avila also pushed back against agricultural water needs, highlighting the fact that about 90% of Colorado’s water goes to the industry.

Council member David Leinweber said if water conservation is a priority, then farmers should rethink using flood irrigation to water their fields and turn to more efficient techniques like sprinklers or drip irrigation. 

“You can’t go and tell me that you’re a conservationist if you think flooding a field is an appropriate way to use a resource,” he said. “I just want to challenge that thinking, and I’d like to see more cooperative opportunities of investment in trying to use the water that we have more efficiently.”

The future of the Karman Line proposal

Petition organizers submitted their signatures Feb. 26, triggering a 30-day review period for the city.

If city staff can verify at least 18,646 petition signatures, the city council must vote again on the annexation proposal, possibly deciding to reject it. If they vote to approve the project, then the matter will go to voters as a ballot measure in a special election.

“Would council be willing to repeal it themselves? I don’t know,” Donelson said. 

Depending on how long the city takes to verify signatures, new council members could play a role in the annexation’s future. Six of nine council seats are up for grabs in elections set for April 1. 

If those fighting the project miss the required number of signatures by a small margin, they’ll have 30 days to go back and try to confirm the signatures they got, a process called “curing.”

“You may end up with a different vote by a new group of council members,” Donelson said. 

Looking ahead, Goble said the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District would much rather work with Colorado Springs than against it. The district is meeting with Colorado Springs Utilities to negotiate a possible intergovernmental agreement. 

The utility provider questioned the need for an agreement. It isn’t seeking new water supplies in the Lower Arkansas Valley, but if it did, the utility would talk to local officials and farmers first anyway, Jordan said. The city has also already committed to help ensure that Arkansas River water is used within the river basin, rather than being exported elsewhere (like to cities outside the basin).

Goble said progress has been slow, but he hopes the outcome of the agreement will be a cap on how much water Colorado Springs can take from the valley. The district has a similar agreement with Aurora. 

“There’s a fear in the Lower Valley that we will die slowly at the rate that Colorado Springs grows,” Goble said. “I’d like to be able to go back to them and say, ‘No, that’s not the case.’”