The water challenges Colorado faces are real and growing and it’s time to get serious about crafting bold, forward-looking solutions, building on, and learning from, the past. As a 30-year farmer in rural Colorado and a former state legislator, I’m convinced that the key to smart water policies in the arid West is to, as much as possible, eliminate the emotion and hyperbole and focus on facts.

Anyone who has been involved in debates about water knows that they are complex, usually contentious, and occasionally combative. Part of the reason that there’s often more heat than light in these debates is that parts of our state hold onto the idea of “not one drop” leaving their area. This is rooted in emotion, not science and certainly not liberty.

And as these “just say no” approaches continue, the water needs across our state, including in rural, economically challenged agricultural areas, continue to deepen.

Can we enter an era of crafting answers or are we going to keep pointing fingers, using outdated talking points rather than real dialogue?

It’s been done before.

Where would Colorado be without the energy and vision of leaders like W.D. Farr (aka “Mr. Water”) who not only saw our state’s growing water needs but seized the opportunity to bring farmers and ranchers to the table to find answers. The result was the Colorado-Big Thompson project that pumps water from the Western Slope across the Continental Divide to eight counties in northern Colorado, including to residential and agricultural communities. One obituary of W.D. Farr, who died in 2007, said that his leadership, and frankly his bravery, “caused the Front Range to sprout.”

I was thinking about W.D. Farr in examining the overwrought and angry opposition to the proposed RWR water project that would bring 22,000 acre-feet of renewable water to the Front Range from the San Luis Valley (keep in mind that the San Luis Valley pumps 800,000 acre feet every year right now).

As we look 60-70 years into our future needs, the key is to dive deep into the facts and the science and separate that from the heated rhetoric.

That certainly is a need in light of the anti-RWR histrionics.

First, water rights are property rights. There are a lot of voices speaking out against RWR, including Front Range liberal environmental groups, who are quick to tell families with water rights what they can do with their property. This is about freedom. But if in fact nobody wants to sell even a small portion of their water right to RWR, there’s no reason to worry about RWR’s project.

However, I suspect that there are many farmers who are intrigued. Particularly when RWR may offer significantly above-market rates for water. What’s seldom discussed is that many farms and ranches are paying fees now only to have their water use curtailed or, worse, may have their water use forcibly prohibited by government – which means they will be paid zero.

RWR can’t just show up and illegally take water rights. In fact, they must retire the amount of water they propose to pump. They will go beyond the legal requirement and retire more than they take, meaning that there will be more water in the aquifers when the project is operational. This project proposes to utilize just 3% of the amount of water that recharges into the aquifer every year, hardly a massive siphoning of water away from the Valley.

Opponents angrily object to even this moderate amount of water leaving its area of origin. I don’t know of mineral rights owners who say “not one cubic foot” of natural gas can be extracted and exported. Nor do timber owners say “not one tree” can be used for lumber to build homes across the state.

This is not to ignore the fact that skepticism about water-project promises is always appropriate. Learning from the mistakes of past projects is essential.  However, RWR opponents are falsely claiming that this project is just like others from decades ago, including one in Crowley County that has become a poster child for what must be avoided.

In contrast, leaders of the RWR project have repeatedly stressed the benefits to Valley communities they are proposing. This includes a $50 million community fund to help bolster one of the most economically-troubled areas of our state.  As someone who lives in, and has been elected to represent, a rural region of our state, I can say that $50 million can make a strong, positive impact in rural communities. It was concerning to hear liberal environmental groups from outside the Valley recently turn up their nose at this proposal. Clearly, they aren’t familiar with the real-world struggles in rural Colorado.

A clear-eyed examination of RWR, and other water projects that will surely surface in the years ahead, won’t be easy, given the history of heated negative rhetoric. But Colorado must look at bold and creative answers to a growing challenge that must be addressed if our world-class way of life is to be preserved.

Greg Brophy, of Wray, has been farming for more than 30 years.  He is a former member of the Colorado House of Representatives and Colorado Senate.