Before blaming alfalfa for Colorado’s water woes, consider what the headlines leave out

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

Alfalfa and water use: comparing apples to oranges

There is a media narrative out there about alfalfa which, though not entirely wrong, is desperately in need of context; this being another example of why reporters parachuting into rural areas of the state to report on things prior to running back to the Front Range is doing no one any good (rural or urban).

The claim was recently repeated in a Sun article, along with its natural follow-on. Quoting from the first link below:

“It takes 44 inches of water a year in Burlington to grow alfalfa. Only about 10 inches of water drops on Burlington in a year. It only takes 15 inches of water to grow a healthy crop of black-eyed peas in Burlington. So. The numbers point to seemingly obvious questions: Why couldn’t a lot of eastern Colorado farmers switch crops to black-eyed peas, and sell their saved irrigation water to thirsty Front Range cities, or get paid to leave it in the Colorado and South Platte rivers for others to use?”

This is a new version of an earlier claim as it was written back in April 2024 in a different Sun article (linked second below, copied here with link intact):

“Researchers released the most complete accounting so far of how the river’s water is used. They found that alfalfa — used as feed for beef and dairy cows — sucks up more water than all the cities and industries in the enormous Colorado River Basin.”

In either case, the idea is the same and has been around since Governor Polis’ failed efforts to pimp hemp in this state: alfalfa takes lots of water, wouldn’t it be nice if we could put that water to use elsewhere (either for urban areas or to increase stream flows for environmental/recreation reasons)? Couldn’t farmers switch crops?

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not disputing alfalfa’s water use. It is a thirsty crop. It also bears mention that, unlike some of his previous efforts on reporting on rural issues, the Sun’s Booth actually does make an effort to understand the rural market for crops and how that plays into what gets grown.

The issue at hand is that the claim that alfalfa uses an outsized amount of water is not a fair one. It’s comparing apples to oranges.

Alfalfa is a deep-rooted plant. Changing a field over from alfalfa to another crop (a student once told me) requires ripping to a depth of about 4 feet. Quite literally closer to home, my own record on an intact alfalfa root for volunteers I’ve pulled is close to 2 feet, and this was for a none too large plant. If you want to see it, it’s the image heading this post.

Deep-rooting plants tend to not need a lot of water to survive. They go deep to find it. So what about the water lost while the plant is making its food, the amount lost to transpiration?

A friend of mine who farms and is an agronomist by education told me when I asked why alfalfa needs so much water if its roots are so long told me that by his reckoning an alfalfa plant, full grown, probably uses about the same amount of water as a full grown corn plant.

So why is it quoted that alfalfa uses so much water?

It’s an effect of cutting. Unlike corn, unlike black-eyed peas, unlike hemp, alfalfa gets swathed and baled multiple times a season. In order to help facilitate its growing for subsequent cuts, you need to give it water.

In effect, with alfalfa, the same bit of land can provide 3 or 4 crops per year of a quite-nutritious animal fodder in the same amount of time that a single crop corn (for silage or shelled) can do once. A fair comparison of water use by crops would mention this important context.

As I wrote this, it hit me how important it is to have local news written by local reporters, people who know the area they are writing about. People who have the vocabulary and background to fully inform readers.

It also speaks to how often journalists get lazy and repeat things without considering what they mean or taking the time to fully understand. Booth made some strides compared to earlier reporting on feedlots (again, see “Related”), but he still has a way to go.

The problem isn’t just one of ignorance either. Lazily repeating claims without any examination of them is one way advocates co-opt journalism. Let’s return to the 2024 Sun piece.

If you go into that piece and look at the study the article leans on, you find that the author has written a fair bit about agricultural water use, in particular water use for animal fodder. One example study by this researcher (there are a few) is linked third below with the abstract copied in as screenshot 1. I highlighted a repeated refrain from this genre of research.

It’s pretty clear that this researcher has an issue with water being used for animal fodder and would like to see it go elsewhere. In multiple papers, he advocates for water reassignment away from animal feed.

Fine in and of itself. It’s a position you can take and everyone’s welcome to their opinion.

The problem comes in when parts of that opinion get promoted to unquestioned (and unquestionable) truth by reporters not knowing the full context.

**There’s another water hungry plant that could use some attention (it does get some to be fair) because its water use is analogous to alfalfa’s: decorative turf. It gets multiple cuttings and requires water to regrow.

https://coloradosun.com/2026/06/07/colorado-water-saving-crops-versus-market-demand/

https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/04/research-colorado-river-water-use-cherish-hamburger/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010024002312?via%3Dihub

Related:

The Sun’s environmental advocate Michael Booth, author of the article linked first in the post above, ought to be commended for his much (MUCH) more balanced and thoughtful reporting on rural issues.

His past efforts, see the link below for an example, have not been anywhere near as fair or thoughtful.

https://completecolorado.com/2024/06/03/gaines-colorado-sun-left-out-lopsided-feedlot-story/

---

Rights are for everyone, or they are for no one.

Gun owners are not second class citizens. End of story. Whatever you think about guns and gun ownership, law-abiding gun owners are entitled to the same rights, the same protections, as anyone else.

I recently did a look at Colorado’s firearms dealers across geography and time, noting that we are losing on both. Gun dealers are getting fewer and fewer in this state. If you missed it and want to read the summary op ed I wrote after my newsletter articles, it’s linked first below.

At about the same time that op ed published, I got an email from Colorado Shooting Sports Association, CSSA–among other things a defender of gun rights for Coloradans, mentioning a lawsuit against Colorado after Governor Polis signed HB26-1126.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.