Recent coverage of Colorado's water future has repeated a claim that deserves closer scrutiny: that permanently drying up irrigated farmland is the most "economically sensible" way to solve the Colorado River Basin's water shortages. A June 23, 2026, Aspen Times article quoted water expert Eric Kuhn suggesting it may eventually "make economic sense" to permanently buy out agricultural water rights. Two days later, an LA Times piece profiling drought-affected ranchers in Granby, Carbondale, Molina, Delta, Loma, Parshall, and Grand Junction closed with climate scientist Brad Udall arguing that temporary irrigation pauses would be "a waste of money," and that permanent farmland buyouts were the better path.

We understand the appeal of this argument to water managers: a permanent buyout is a one-time transaction, not an annual negotiation. But "administratively simple" is not the same as "economically sensible," and it is far from cost-free.  Middle Park Conservation District believes irrigated agriculture is not an obstacle to solving Colorado's water crisis, but an essential partner in it.

Irrigated land is doing more work than the ledger shows

Coverage of "buy and dry" proposals treats irrigation water as though its only value is the crop it grows. In reality, irrigated agricultural land performs ecological functions the state depends on: it recharges groundwater, sustains wildlife habitat, reduces wildfire risk through active land management, maintains the green landscapes that define rural Colorado, and can act as large filtration systems that sometimes improve the quality of water flowing back into the environment.

Suggestions that dried-up ag land could simply be repurposed for "recreational opportunities or low water-use industries" — as the Aspen Times article proposed — understate how much ecological and economic value is lost when that repurposing fails to happen quickly, or at all.

The state has been here before, and it did not go well

Colorado has direct historical experience with what happens when agricultural land loses its water and its vegetative cover. The Colorado Soil Conservation Act of 1937 was passed after wind and water erosion had degraded land equal to one-tenth of the entire state, undermining the land's ability to "conserve to the full the precious rainfall and snowpacks that could help replenish underground water reserves." Lawmakers recognized then that unmanaged land degradation compounds over time, and that a constructive, conservation-oriented approach was necessary "to insure the health, prosperity, and welfare of the state of Colorado and its people." That reasoning has not gone out of date.

The Colorado Soil Health Advisory Committee has recently reached the same conclusion from the other direction. In an October 2025 memorandum to the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Committee warned that when irrigation is removed from semi-arid land without first establishing stable, diverse vegetation, the result is not a return to natural grassland — it is degradation. Left unmanaged, these lands are prone to becoming "weed-choked and dust-emitting wastelands," dominated by invasive species like tumbleweed and kochia, and turned into heat islands where rainfall runs off instead of soaking in. At the scale being discussed — tens of thousands to potentially hundreds of thousands of acres — this is not a hypothetical risk. It is a public health and public safety issue, with dust storms and degraded air and water quality among the likely consequences of doing this without careful planning.

A better path already exists

None of this means agricultural producers should be exempt from doing their part. They shouldn't be, and most are already stepping up. Producers across the state are adopting irrigation efficiency upgrades, participating in temporary and voluntary demand-management programs, and shifting toward less water-intensive crops. As Colorado River District General Manager Andy Mueller put it, "agriculture has a role to play in reducing water consumption, but permanently retiring agricultural land is a misguided approach that will put the country in danger of not being able to feed itself. Programs should remain temporary and focus on efficiency improvements and growing less-thirsty crops."

The Colorado Association of Conservation Districts has adopted a formal policy position along these same lines: supporting voluntary, locally led conservation; prioritizing water-leasing over permanent acquisition wherever feasible; and insisting that any reduction in irrigation — temporary or permanent — be paired with a real revegetation and land-stewardship plan, not simply abandoned to erosion and weeds.

Conclusion

Colorado does not have to choose between a healthy river and a healthy agricultural economy. But it does have to stop treating permanent farmland retirement as a costless, common-sense fix — because the evidence, and the state's own history, says otherwise.