A stitch in time — investing in a resilient future
Jun 10, 2026
The Daily Sentinal
Extreme weather is costing Coloradans money. And it will cost us more the longer we delay addressing it. Investment in resilience is needed now to prepare for the disruption that is already here and growing worse. Who will pay is the real question.
Consider Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River, Colorado’s largest water body. The forecast for spring runoff into the reservoir is just 26% of average, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Low water matters for the entire Colorado River system, which is currently being renegotiated among its seven basin states.
But Blue Mesa doesn’t just serve as a major unit of the Upper Basin’s “water bank,” it serves us locally. Low water levels threaten our water quality, increasing the likelihood of toxic algal blooms once the lake surface elevation drops below 7,470 feet (nearly 50 feet below full pool).
Low levels also harm our recreation economy. According to the National Park Service, the Curecanti National Recreation Area — home to Blue Mesa — brought in $51.5 million in 2024 visitor spending, almost all of it focused around the lake. The NPS is already being forced to adjust its summer plans due to the receding shoreline.
So, who absorbs this loss? And who will pay to fund to strengthen rural resilience?
Will farmers and member-owned irrigation districts be hit with more expenses? The small rural towns? Our electric co-ops? Will volunteer-based first responders be forced to foot the bill to gear up? Or will it all just end up on the backs of homeowners and taxpayers?
The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association (UVWUA) takes water via the Gunnison Tunnel downstream from Blue Mesa. It is starting the season delivering only 50% of shareholder allocations. If projections hold, this may be cut further to 40%. According to the UVWUA, agriculture on its systems supports roughly 2,800 jobs with $140 million in economic impact.
Shifts in precipitation, extreme, persistent drought, and the loss of irrigation are all known impacts of climate change playing out right now. Climate science tells us this extreme, disrupted weather will only become more frequent, more intense, and far more expensive.
Unusual temperature swings are another growing vulnerability. In Delta County, a near-complete loss of orchard fruit this year is estimated at $10 million or more.
Extreme heat puts farmworkers at risk, and it directly threatens our outdoor recreation economy.
A heat-related death a few years back on the Palisade Plunge trail in Mesa County shows this isn’t hypothetical. River- and winter-based recreation are both harmed by rising temperatures and drought, putting tens of millions in economic activity in jeopardy.
Climate change is already costing us. Wildfire risk, an ever-present and growing threat, is made worse by heat, drought, and declining forest health. Research demonstrates that forest types will change and health will decline as the climate warms. Homeowners and businesses should expect to pay more for insurance.
Between drought and fire, climate change supercharges storms, making rain more intense when it finally comes. This can be violent, as we recently saw during monsoons in Pagosa Springs. It becomes catastrophic when hard rain follows a burn scar, like in Glenwood Canyon a few years ago. That is tens of millions in damages already done.
A Stitch in Time
Recently, according to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Mesa County’s commissioners committed $15,000 to join an amicus brief — along with several other Western Slope counties, including Delta — siding with Exxon and Suncor to defend against a lawsuit from fellow Colorado communities, including San Miguel County.
The lawsuit they oppose seeks to make these polluters pay for some of the damage they knew their product would cause. Mesa County’s argument rests on the roughly $140 million in oil-and-gas valuation on its books, and the worry that polluter accountability might chill future drilling and the revenue that comes with it.
It’s not clear what the brief assumes to arrive at that figure, especially when another recent article in the Sentinel noted that fracked gas from the Piceance Basin is currently worth about $0.85 per thousand cubic feet (mcf). But $140 million is also the value of Uncompahgre Valley agriculture — an industry now suffering profound hardship in our weather-disrupted reality.
Mesa County’s resolution seems to pin its hopes on keeping an unviable product marketable, even at the expense of funding the necessary investments in our livelihoods and infrastructure today.
It’s simple. Someone will pay to address the climate emergency. The bottom line is this: Will we invest in fracking more gas for data centers and export markets, discounting our own livable future? Or will we invest that money now to secure our local economies and communities here at home?
Pete Kolbenschlag lives in Delta County and advocates for local-based solutions that strengthen rural prosperity and resilience, with a focus on the intersection of conservation, climate, energy and agriculture.