Amid the y'alls, two themes at the Colorado Water Congress conference

Many political office-seekers spoke at the annual summer conference in Steamboat. Some ‘y’alled to the attendees. Others not so much. Most called for more water storage and “forest resilience.”

by Allen Best

“God bless, y’all,” said Victor Marx, the Republican candidate for governor in Colorado in wrapping up his allotted 15 minutes at the podium at the Colorado Water Congress summer conference in Steamboat Springs.

Lauren Boebert, who represents the Fourth Congressional District in Colorado, followed him on the agenda. “It is wonderful to be back with y’all at Water Congress,” said Boebert, a Republican seeking her fourth term in Congress.

Y’alls were common during her quarter-hour on stage. It being a water conference, one of them had to do with water. “So y’all better get real good at that xero-scaping for your lawns and everything you’re building out there because your cactus, your cacti might do just fine, but we’re taking it back,” she said of Arizona.

Dwayne Romero, the Democratic candidate in Boebert’s former Third Congressional District, who preceded them, used none.

What this says exactly, I’m not sure. Y’all is a Southern locution that has become somewhat more common across the United States. I do note that Romero grew up in southeast Texas while Marx was reared in Louisiana, both of those places thick with y’alls and drawls. As for Boebert, she came to Colorado from Florida at the age of four.

Water Congress’s twice-annual conferences always have elected officials as well as water leaders from across Colorado. This being election season in 2026, the time devoted to the pols was greater than normal.

Victor Marx, the Republican nominee for Colorado governor, says Colorado must be prepared adequately for when the rain and snow returns. Photo/Allen Best

Like Marx, some are seeking statewide offices, while others, including Boebert and Romero, are running for Congress in districts with more rural areas.

That makes sense, as the Water Congress has a strong rural constituency. Denver Water is well represented, but so is Logan County. I also noted that Rod Lenz, the chair of the Republican River Water Conservation District’s board of directors, managed to get to the conference by Wednesday morning after a meeting in Holyoke that lasted long into the previous afternoon. That’s a good five-hour trip by car.

As for the y’alls, I have no idea whether Jeff Hurd, the Third Congressional District incumbent, Phil Weiser, the Democratic nominee for governor, drawled y’alls. I suspect not. I have heard both speak several times. Neither is a y’all guy. Both are also attorneys.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Romero and Boebert started out on much the same note in their remarks about the Colorado River. Romero mentioned “decades of lower-basin use” and urged solidarity with Colorado’s negotiating team on “protecting Colorado’s compact entitlements.” Boebert struck the same tone but with more pugilistic language. “We’re fighting for what belongs to us and for our future generations.”

Beyond those obligatory remarks, the two candidates differed greatly. Boebert talked about what she has done for her constituents regarding water and mentioned her work on the Arkansas Valley Conduit Project. “Even though my dear great president may have vetoed that, we are still working to get that over the line for Southeast Colorado.”

Boebert was typical Boebert, saucy and sort of interesting in how she played to her base. She wore blue jeans, as that seems to be her style when making the rounds in Colorado. In what may be more revealing, she also tried to talk about her bi-partisan work. I also noticed she did so when running in a tight race in her former congressional district, the third, in 2022. She won that race by a mere 546 votes, precipitating her move across the Continental Divide.

Maybe it’s because she is in what appears to be a tougher contest with the Democratic candidate, Eileen Laubacher, a retired Navy rear admiral, in a district that in the past has been unflinchingly Republican. Laubacher’s resume, money and growing institutional support could, noted Axios in a story last week, “make Boebert sweat.” Laubacher also spoke at the conference. But again, I was elsewhere.

Themes

Two themes were evident in remarks made by the office-seekers and others at the conference. One was the need for more storage, the other for more “watershed restoration” via Proposition 137, the proposal on the November ballot to divert sales tax revenues from sporting goods to do work in the forests and expand funding for parks.

The discussions in a general way crossed party lines but the storage case was cited more prominently by Republican speakers. Absent, though, was the sort of specifics I thirsted for.

Politicians rarely get into the details when on the stump, of course. And 15 minutes isn’t much time. Boebert’s comments will likely be echoed in the next two months.

“Forest management is not optional anymore. It never was, and for anyone to come up and present policy that is more reactive then proactive is failing you and each and every one of us — is failing future generations,” said Boebert. “Healthy forests hold snow longer, release water cleaner, and protect our watersheds from catastrophic fires that turn drinking water into ash.”

Boebert then took aim at clean energy.

“We hear all the environmental claims about carbon emissions, but these wildfires that are too quickly growing out of control, burning down our beautiful state, neighboring states in the West, with more than 6 billion standing dead trees that no one will allow us to harvest or not harvest enough of, unfortunately even taking lives of first responders…”

Boebert attributed to NASA a statistic: A wildfire produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the cars fueled by fossil fuels in a year.

“So EVs aren’t the answer. Sending your money to DC for wind and solar isn’t the answer. It’s being good stewards of our land, managing our forests.”

The storage theme also got lots of attention. It was bipartisan. Little of the conversation went very deep. Some of it was almost insultingly oversimplified.

Consider what Marx had to say: “We can’t make it snow. We can’t make it rain. But we can decide whether we’re prepared for when the water comes. So I believe we should store water in good years. Lord, please send it.”

It sounds good, being “prepared adequately.” But that statement assumes good years will come. Examining the science, Colorado State University’s Brad Udall has suggested there may not be any good years, let alone enough to fill all the dams already built.

Consider that we have two giant reservoirs on the Colorado River sitting 75% empty. And in the headwaters, Green Mountain Reservoir is 15.1% full, as of Sunday, according to the Bureau of Reclamation. Blue Mesa Reservoir was only marginally better. Navajo, on the Colorado-New Mexico border, is doing better at 40% to 45%.

Romero’s call for partnership

Of the three office-seekers I heard, Romero was most interesting. It was obvious to me he had taken the time to study the Colorado River issues. As for Marx, he rambled.

Romero’s comments were calculated, of course. He was making a case for stability after the chaos of the Trump presidency.

“We have to restore Congress and our federal agencies as institutions that work. Congress has to legislate. It has to authorize projects. It has to appropriate money. It has to conduct oversight. Those are all the rules that were stipulated in the Constitution for our Congress,” he said.

I suspect Jeff Hurd would agree with at least parts of that statement.

Green Mountain Reservoir, seen here on Aug.17, sits about 85% empty. Most other reservoirs have more water stored, but not that much. Photo/Allen Best

He later talked about what this meant on the ground. “A rancher can’t make long-term conservation investments around a pilot program that could disappear with the next administration,” he said.

What must be restored, he continued, is a federal partnership with the state, “where federal dollars turn local grit into lasting resilience. So here’s the heart of it: We have the right people, we have the expertise, we have the will. Now we need to bring real, sustained funding and solutions and resources to bear, enough to help us build resilience for the next 50 years of demand. And we need genuine, reliable partners.”

As for resilience, said Romero, it comes from many projects. “It’s a modernized diversion that lets a farmer grow more with less. It’s a storage that gives a community room to breathe in a drought. It’s a treated watershed that doesn’t burn catastrophically. And it’s securing an historic right like Shoshone, so it benefits Colorado permanently.”

Shoshone, of course, is the hydroelectric plant in Glenwood Canyon, and the Colorado River District is nearing success in its multi-year effort to make sure that the very senior water rights continue to ensure water flows downstream. It’s complicated, of course.

“These things take money. The federal government has helped build the water structure that made this modern American West possible. It is their responsibility to be a reliable partner with us, adapting that infrastructure and those institutions to the 21^st century. They need to stay with us for capital and capital improvements.”

Romero wrapped up his speech with this observation: “Our hardest moments are often when we find our common ground.” That means, he said, “creating solutions that last beyond the next drought, the next negotiations, or the next administration, but for generations to come.”

Sounds good – but where does additional storage make sense that allows communities to breathe?

As for forest resilience, it sounds good — but what exactly is being proposed? Most environmental organizations seem to support Proposition 137, as do Denver Water and Northern Water. Western Resource Advocates and other environmental organizations are pushing it.

I still have major questions about the mechanics even after sitting through an hour-long press conference on Monday morning. Sometimes I can be fuzzy in my thinking, but in this case I think there’s some fuzziness about what is being proposed.