If you’ve lived in Colorado for more than, say, a couple of months, you likely have noticed that, in a number of very interesting ways, we are kind of two states smushed together. There is the Front Range, wherein a bit more than eight of every 10 Coloradans live, and then there are the eastern and western areas, where far few people live, but where quite a bit of vital Colorado business takes place.

And I’ll admit, even that is an oversimplification. The eastern range of the state is rather different than the western slope, though many important factors like water and agricultural impact all three regions.

I bring this up because of a recent, and very important, Colorado Politics story. It’s an in-depth review of the differences between those of us on the Front Range and those of us who live a more rural life. It brings up yet another challenging problem facing those who deal with water issues for Colorado and the western U.S.

The Colorado River Compact of 1922 manages how much water every state the Colorado River touches gets to take out for use, both urban and rural. It is true that ever since the compact became law, there has been ongoing squabbles about one state thinking another state is acting unfairly. The compact notes: “The Colorado River flows for approximately 1,450 miles and provides water to seven states in the Western U.S. that are part of the Colorado River Basin. Divided into two regions; the Upper Basin includes Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; and the Lower Basin includes Arizona, California, and Nevada. It also provides water to Mexico.” Frankly, it is the lower basin that accounts for most of the problems.

Now the states other than California are generally in support of counting water lost to evaporation (roughly 10%) be counted against the totals used by the various states. Not surprisingly, California – by far the largest user of the water – disagrees and has, so far, not signed onto any of the various ideas put forward. The upper basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) already take evaporation into account. It is not clear if or when the lower basin states will reach a consensus on evaporation, nor how that would count against a state’s entitlement. Simply put, any accounting for evaporation would likely result in a state getting less water annually, and for California’s agricultural communities in particular, that could spell big troubles, in particular if you like winter veggies.

And one might expect, legislators that represent the eastern and western parts of Colorado find water issues at the top of their daily concerns. As I sit here in my home in Colorado Springs, water is the twist of a dial away. While we try to be very conscience of water use (did a big chunk of xeriscaping last summer, for example), individual urban users are not really the problem. Rather, when we try to grow agricultural products in areas that do not typically receive enough rain to water the crops, irrigation is vital. While some 40 million of us rely on the Colorado River for drinking water, more than 5 million acres of farmlands in the compact are irrigated with that same water. With more than 3,000 farms in just Weld County, it’s not hard to see why, when you venture off the Front Range, agriculture and water become such a central issue.

For decades, those not living in that urban-ish line down the middle of Colorado have often felt, if not ignored, at least discounted by the state legislature. And it is not entirely unreasonable for a legislature to focus more on where 80% to 90% of the population lives. That said, the agricultural, mining and other industries that tend to find themselves in our rural areas are quite important in and of themselves. Clearly, a balance must be struck. The selection of a Western Slope legislator as the Speaker of the State House, is an interesting step forward, and may lead to greater understanding of the complex and often seemingly orthogonal issues we face across regions in Colorado.

And we, as consumers, may be faced with implications of a new and revised water plan that once might have seemed unreasonable. Can we really expect to always be able to buy, say, broccoli or lettuce during, well, January? Maybe not? And those of us who like beef (I’m a proud carnivore) may be facing higher costs as water becomes more scarce.

It will be interesting to see where the discussions on the Compact lead us, as well as how the balance of attention in the state legislature may shift a bit to non-urban issues. Water use, in both urban and rural areas, will likely be the bellwether of any real cooperation. Will folks in Denver give up their green Kentucky Bluegrass lawns? Will ranchers accept decreased water for their herds? These are challenging questions that, of course, I don’t have an answer to. But I’d suggest we all keep an eye on the current legislative session for clues.

Stay tuned…

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.