Farmers Are Not the Villains in Colorado’s Water Story
Food has a funny way of showing up in the grocery store looking effortless.
There it sits at King Soopers, wrapped in plastic, misted under little sprinklers, looking like it was delivered by benevolent elves with a refrigeration contract.
It was not.
It came from somebody’s land. Somebody’s water. Somebody’s risk. Somebody’s early morning, broken equipment, bank note, and weather forecast that can turn from blessing to disaster faster than a county meeting turns into public comment.
That is why we need to be careful when we talk about Colorado water and agriculture.
According to The Colorado Sun, agriculture uses up to 90% of the water available in Colorado each year, and there is growing interest in whether farmers can shift to less-thirsty crops. The article points to examples like black-eyed peas, which can grow with far less water than alfalfa in places like Burlington, and rye in the San Luis Valley, where farmers are testing ways to save water, protect soil, and still make a living.
That sounds simple from a distance. Grow something else. Use less water. Problem solved.
Well, sure. And while we are at it, I will lose 30 pounds by Tuesday and become fluent in Italian using only restaurant menus.
Here is the part normal people need to understand: farmers are not sitting around waiting for a Boulder think tank to explain conservation to them. Farmers were conserving before conservation came with grant forms, conference lanyards, and somebody named Skyler using the word “stakeholder” 14 times.
Farmers know land. They know water. They know soil. They know what wind can do. They know how thin a margin can get before the whole operation starts making nervous noises.
They are the original environmentalists because they have to be. If they abuse the land, they pay. If they waste water, they pay. If they guess wrong, they pay.
The rest of us get a lecture. They get a foreclosure notice.
So yes, water-saving crops matter. Innovation matters. Research matters. It is good news that Colorado has producers, researchers, and local partners trying things like rye, black-eyed peas, sainfoin, camelina, and other crops that may use less water.
But the real question is not just, “Can farmers grow it?” The real question is, “Will anyone buy it?” That is where the pretty idea meets the grocery cart.
A farmer can grow black-eyed peas beautifully, but if the market only wants one pickup load and he grows one pickup load plus a five-gallon bucket, the price can fall through the floor. A farmer can grow rye, but someone has to mill it, bake with it, sell it, and persuade customers that rye belongs somewhere beyond a deli sandwich the size of a roof shingle. A farmer can grow camelina for biofuel, but if energy companies, banks, storage systems, rail logistics, and politics change direction, suddenly that brilliant crop is just another expensive lesson with roots.
That is not stubbornness. That is reality.
We should applaud farmers who adapt. We should support useful research. We should build markets that help conservation make financial sense. But we should stop treating farm water like an unlocked pantry in somebody else’s house.
Those water rights are not a community suggestion box.
And agriculture is not the villain in a black hat. You like to eat, don’t you? Then thank the people who grow the food instead of acting like they are hoarding water for recreational hay-stacking.
Colorado’s water future will require changes. No honest person denies that. But real solutions have to survive contact with weather, water rights, bank loans, equipment costs, supply chains, crop insurance, grocery shelves, and picky eaters who still think quinoa is a medical condition.
The hopeful part is that Colorado farmers are already adapting. They are smart, creative, and tougher than a two-dollar steak.
But if the rest of us want practical conservation, we may have to change more than the crop.
We may have to change what we value enough to buy.
Source: The Colorado Sun
Share your thoughts...