December 16, 2025

Introduction

Colorado’s ongoing debate about public access to rivers and streams that cross private land requires a great deal of context. The first report in this series laid the groundwork for a more informed discussion by examining the current state of affairs – what the law is, how and why it evolved, the legal cases central to that history, and the lack of available data that too often fuels this debate. This report seeks to address another important aspect of that debate, the difference between public and private land and stream ownership. Some advocates for policy changes believe public ownership would provide better stewardship of these precious resources, presumably based on a belief that private landowners do not steward the lands as carefully. Others say landowners care deeply about these resources and invest more to improve the riparian environments than any public agency ever could. 

This report’s research reveals that, in fact, landowners have invested – and continue to invest – hundreds of millions of private dollars improving Colorado’s rivers and streams, often with direct public benefits that frequently include public access, but in virtually all cases improve habitat and water quality for miles beyond their own property boundaries. Many of their projects are partnerships often involving NGOs, local governments, neighbors, and government agencies. But in all cases, they involve extraordinary private investments of which the public is largely unaware. There is no database, because private landowners are not required to report to any government agency how much money they spend, improving how many miles of river, or with what results. It is a complicated story with many chapters.

Key Findings

• Private landowners are a major pillar of conservation efforts in Colorado. River restoration and upkeep work is frequently undertaken by private landowners and can cost between $300,000 and $400,000 per mile, with some projects approaching $1 million per mile.
  • These investments are privately funded and usually go unreported, but they help repair and preserve Colorado’s natural environment, with benefits that extend miles downstream, far beyond individual property lines.
• Conservation easements deliver durable protection and strong returns. From 2016 to 2020, the Conservation Easement Tax Credit Program certified easements that permanently protected 288,000 acres and more than 4,100 miles of streams.
• Private conservation investment depends on secure property rights and managed access. Policies that allow unfettered public access to private land greatly weaken stewardship incentives, increase risk and liability, and would ultimately reduce private investment in environmental restoration and maintenance.

Breadth and Depth of Current Conservation Efforts in Colorado

In Colorado, like most western states, quality habitat for fish and wildlife is connected to both public and private waters and lands. High-country rivers and streams start on land owned and managed by the federal government, usually the United States Forest Service (USFS). As they flow from the high country, they cross both private and additional public lands owned by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation, State Land Board, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). Healthy lands and rivers are critical for both fish and wildlife. For wildlife, it means connectivity for migration corridors and healthy landscapes for critical winter range, which is often the limiting factor in determining carrying capacity for big game herds throughout the state. For rivers and streams, this critical, symbiotic relationship between public and private landowners is essential to maintaining healthy wildlife and aquatic habitat. The relationship is even more important for the State’s aquatic resources. Rivers and streams don’t recognize land ownership, and Colorado’s efforts to improve streams, rivers and wetlands are a tremendous success story. Whether through conservation easements, including those acquired by the state tax credit program, access easements, private investment or acquisition by Colorado’s state parks and wildlife agency, fish, wildlife, and those who enjoy and value the state’s outdoors all benefit from these individual and coordinated efforts.

The extent of these efforts is a great and ongoing success story, but not a story that is easy to tell because of the large number of funders and participants. Funding comes from a myriad of public sources, including Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO), Colorado Parks and Wildlife (including dedicated funding through sportsmen’s Habitat Stamp program), as well as from game cash. Financial resources are also generated from multiple land and water trusts, and finally through massive expenditures from private landowners. The state tax credit program incentivizing private landowners to permanently protect their property plays a critical role in these efforts as well. Many of these efforts are focused on specific regions of the state like the Coalition for the Upper South Platte (CUSP) and entities dedicated to specific rivers like the Greenway Foundation for the South Platte through the Denver Metro Area. All of these efforts have resulted in the profound improvement of Colorado’s rivers, streams, and wetlands.

Photo of Colorado’s Upper South Platte 

As was documented in the first CSI report on this topic, the relationship between public waters and private lands has evolved over the last 150 years. Specifically over the last 45 years since the Colorado Supreme Court case finding that the public does not have a right to touch river beds or banks, the “uneasy tension” has provided a path forward and resulted in collaboration on a number of fronts, not the least of which is incentivizing both the public and private investment in stream, river and wetland enhancement and conservation. The report below will provide details on how the investments and collaborations between public and private funding efforts have been critical to improving watershed health and recreation on both public and private land and resources. Investments on private stretches of river improve habitat and recreational opportunities on public waters both up and downstream. The inverse is also true. The efforts that are discussed below, which are occurring throughout the state, will be seriously undermined by any attempt to expand public access on private reaches of river. Private landowners’ investments will evaporate overnight without some assurance that their investments will not be overrun by unfettered public use.

Colorado as a Case Study 

Coloradans and those across the country are often bombarded daily with stories of environmental challenges at the local, state, national, and international levels. It can be almost overwhelming to try to envision a path forward and a constructive mindset to address these innumerable challenges at every level. All of these challenges are interrelated and become even more complex and overwhelming when viewed together. Climate change impacts forest health. Forest health has a clear and direct impact on river health. River and stream health directly impacts water quality. Water quality impacts treatment costs for municipal water suppliers. The literal trickle-down effect in this one tangible example is replicated for air quality and virtually every current environmental challenge facing Colorado.

This case study of Colorado’s progress on water-quality challenges outlines a path, and further opportunities for improving the state’s environment. But the lessons can be replicated to address other environmental challenges. And that may be the most important lesson of all.

Who is Engaged to Address River and Stream Health in Colorado

Because rivers and streams do not respect jurisdictional or property boundaries, successful efforts to improve these habitats, likewise, require a comprehensive approach. In Colorado, river and stream health is being addressed by individuals, communities, local coalitions, the State of Colorado, nonprofits and the federal government. In Colorado, local governments are raising funds to improve river and stream health within their jurisdictions. The money raised is being used to match available fundraising from NGOs, state and federal resources. Nonprofits and land trusts are not only helping fund projects, but also doing the heavy lifting of planning, implementing and ensuring that the improvements are maintained in the impacted areas. And finally, private landowners are making astounding investments to improve river and stream health. None of this happens without comprehensive planning and a commitment to improve resources that do not acknowledge property boundaries. In any given basin, streams cross and recross public and private lands innumerable times as they march inevitably to the state line.

Local Efforts

One of the best examples in Colorado is Park County. Park County currently generates over $2 million annually for the Land and Water Trust Fund. The one percent sales tax has been in place for over two decades, and these funds are allocated annually to stream restoration and habitat improvements (as well as land conservation) within Park County. The stream, river and wetland money is dedicated to projects, often coordinated by Coalition for the Upper South Platte (CUSP) and implemented through various land trusts to leverage other available money to perform significant water quality and habitat improvement projects throughout Park County. Since 1998, Park County has invested over $12M in sales tax revenue and received matching funds in excess of $27M during that same time period. In addition to the habitat improvement for fish and wildlife, these projects dramatically improve the water quality for municipal water providers along the Front Range. Recognizing the value, Denver Water has invested tens of millions of dollars through their Forests to Faucets program in recognition of the benefits of having healthy watersheds in their collection area.

Nonprofits and Land Trusts Play a Critical Role 

Many nonprofits and land trusts operate on a national level with active state offices. Examples include Ducks Unlimited and The Trust for Public Lands. Other NGOs are basin or even sub-basin specific. The Coalition for the Upper South Platte (CUSP) is an example of a local NGO performing critical work in a relatively small geographic area. CUSP works with Park, Clear Creek, Jefferson, Douglas and Teller Counties to identify critical needs for rivers and streams within the basin and leverages the funding, their relationships and expertise to make significant improvements to riparian habitat and watershed health throughout the basin. While funding projects is critical, equally critical is the support of the communities where the projects are proposed. CUSP describes their efforts as “collaborating with numerous parties, including local government, federal and state agencies, business and community organizations. This collaboration allows for a comprehensive approach to watershed management, addressing issues such as pollution sources, habitat restoration and recreational opportunities.” Cleaner water within the Upper South Platte improves water quality on the South Platte throughout the basin. Understanding how to tap into the various funding sources as well as build local support for projects is critical for CUSP’s success.

CUSP reports that it has invested over $30M in on the ground and planning projects in the upper South Platte since 2009. Almost all of this funding has a direct impact on water quality and recreation within the basin. CUSP operates in a geographical area that includes two of the most catastrophic wildfires in Colorado’s history. The Hayman and Buffalo Creek fires consumed almost 150,000 acres, all of it in the Denver Metro watershed. Of the $30M invested by CUSP, $20M has been spent on forestry and wildfire preparation and post-fire recovery. Additionally, over $8M has been invested in river and stream restoration, not including the massive investments by private owners in the watershed, as discussed below.

As an example of an “on-the-ground project” and the complexity and cost of such projects, the removal of the Lake George Diversion Dam included coordination between 10 public and private entities including five government agencies, a public utility and three NGOs. In total, the project required an investment of over $5M and was initiated in 2015 with monitoring and bank restoration efforts still ongoing. This type of collaborative effort is common for these types of projects and requires remarkable patience and persistence to complete. 

Colorado Water Trust

Colorado is blessed with a remarkable consortium of nonprofits and land trusts committed to improving Colorado’s environment. The biggest players year in and year out are The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Trust, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), Colorado Open Lands, and The Trust for Public Lands. Other entities play a critical role in basin or region-specific efforts. Virtually all of these national and statewide entities engage in far more than water-based conservation efforts. These entities perform every function including fundraising, finding matching funds, providing habitat evaluation and prioritization, on the ground collaboration with stakeholders and ultimately holding easements or contracts to ensure that habitat improvement and preservation efforts are secured for the long term.

Photo from the Colorado Water Trust

NFWF, for example, has pursued an aggressive conservation strategy in the state called RESTORE Colorado. NFWF describes the program as pursuing “at-scale habitat restoration and stewardship projects on public and private conservation lands in Colorado that have the greatest benefit for wildlife and local communities.” They list among their partners the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, CWCB, the Gates Family Foundation, Occidental, Walton Family Foundation and United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Their partners may be unique, but their approach to habitat protection and improvement is replicated by most of the NGOs and Land Trusts. In their 5-year report of 2020-2024, NFWF protected 5,400 acres of mesic habitat and 90 miles of instream habitat. During those five years, NFWF awarded (all projects) more than $16.5M and leveraged an additional $30.1M.

The Colorado Water Trust has used a market-based approach to protect and restore 814 miles on 27 rivers within the state since 2001. Similarly, Ducks Unlimited (DU) completed 14 projects on public and private lands in fiscal year 2024 and conserved almost 3400 acres of critical wetland and waterfowl habitat in Colorado. DU contributed $2.2M in 2024 to these projects and was able to match CPW funding on a 1.75:1 ratio. DU has invested almost $47M in Colorado since their inception.

State Funding

As with most of the entities providing resources to river and stream health in Colorado, trying to compile a comprehensive list of participants and resources is almost impossible. The examples below are almost assuredly incomplete, and efforts beyond those cited undoubtedly exist. Notwithstanding this challenge, the State of Colorado’s annual investments in river and stream health are impressive.

Legalized sports betting has resulted in a significant and ongoing infusion of money for the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to invest in water project grants. In 2025 the CWCB provided $7.2M in grants to applicants for “planning, design, and implementation of watershed health and recreation projects.” These funds are awarded to project proponents across the state. These grants were doubled by matching funds from other public and private partners. In 2025 alone, CWCB grants preserved 779 acres of habitat and restored over 56 miles of streams and rivers throughout the state. 

CPW’s Wetlands for Wildlife Program has participated in 252 wetland and riparian restoration projects over the past 10 years. It should be noted that this is only one of the conservation programs administered by CPW. CPW has invested over $11M in this period while leveraging over $18M in partnership investments in these projects. As importantly, the Wetlands for Wildlife Program has engaged at least 106 public/NGO partners and 123 private landowners to ensure the restoration/enhancement of over 35,000 acres statewide.

Photo from CPW Wetlands for Wildlife Program

Since its inception in 1992, Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) has protected over 1,100 miles of rivers and streams in Colorado with conservation easements. In 2024, GOCO worked with The Nature Conservancy to enhance the hydrology of the Yampa River to benefit endangered fish by reconstructing the headgate of the Maybell Ditch. This project restored water movement on 55 miles of stream and improved connectivity while at the same time addressing irrigation needs. GOCO contributed over $250,000 to the $6.8M project. These types of public/private partnerships are critical to addressing water challenges in Colorado.

In addition, the Colorado Conservation Easement Tax Credit Program has protected thousands of miles of rivers and streams in Colorado. The Land Trust Alliance estimated that Colorado landowners placed about 491,000 acres of land under conservation easements held by land trusts between 2015 and 2020. 

A significant portion of these conservation easements were acquired through Colorado’s Conservation Easement Credit Program. This Program provides tax credits for landowners who place their property under permanent conservation easements, thus protecting wildlife habitat, rivers and streams and other open spaces from development. The Conservation Easement Tax Credit Program certified that 288,000 acres were protected through this program between 2016 and 2020. The Conservation Easement Tax Credit Program also permanently protected over 4,100 miles of streams, creeks and rivers. While these acres don’t involve cash payments, they effectively result in the state foregoing revenue that would otherwise be received. In 2018, the Program resulted in $23.9M in foregone revenue and between $14.6M and $30.1M per calendar year from 2016 to 2020 and $1.1B since the inception of the Program in 1995. Investment in these properties pays handsome dividends. A 2023 study by Colorado State University found that each dollar in foregone revenue conveyed between $4 and $12 in public benefits. 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) provides $1.5M annually to wetland and stream projects throughout Colorado. These funds are often leveraged with GOCO funds, to match federal and local funding further providing partnership resources to priority projects. CPW funds are provided through sportsmen’s contributions via Habitat Stamp and State Waterfowl Stamps. Projects are prioritized and spending authorized by the Parks and Wildlife Commission and appropriated by the legislature. In addition to the monetary contributions by CPW, staff biologists developed the Colorado Statewide Action Plan (SWAP) that establishes priorities for other entities to use in prioritizing projects across the state. 

Federal Partnerships and Funding

State, local, and nonprofit efforts are supplemented by periodic infusions of federal money. The scope and amount is subject to annual appropriation and often vary from year to year. The USFS, BLM, and NRCS have staff dedicated to aquatic and riparian health, and these entities work closely with state agencies and NGOs to provide planning and prioritization assistance to these other entities.

In January 2025 Congress passed, and President Biden signed, legislation that would have provided $177M to water projects to address drought and river health in Colorado. Some of that funding has been held up by the current administration, but project proponents are hoping for the eventual release and investment of those funds.

The highest profile funding in the January 2025 bill provided $40M for the purchase of the Shoshone Hydroelectric water right. This pre-compact right is proposed to be purchased by a broad consortium of interests from across the state and converted into an instream flow right held by the CWCB to ensure that in the event that Xcel Energy decommissions Shoshone, the water that has generated power at the plant will remain in the Colorado River in perpetuity. Colorado’s Congressional delegation is working tirelessly to get these funds released and secure the massive environmental and economic benefits to the state.

Photo of Colorado’s Upper San Juan 

Some of the other projects in the bill include $2.2M for the Upper San Juan to repair damage to the river caused by a landslide, including willow planting and rechannelization to improve aquatic ecosystems. The Upper Colorado River Ecosystem Enhancement Project in Grand County would provide $1.43M to restore two stream reaches on the Fraser River and Willow Creek. This money would facilitate work undertaken by the Learning By Doing Cooperative which has become a national model for community driven projects to restore degraded riparian ecosystems. The Boulder Creek Headwaters Resiliency Project, led by the Boulder County Watershed Collective, will receive $954,000 to restore 181 acres of degraded aquatic and riparian habitat as well as 2.8 miles of wet meadow streams throughout the Boulder Creek watershed. Some of this funding may eventually continue. For instance, $4M in funding from this bill was released in July to restore lands and streams in the Upper Colorado River Basin watershed around Grand Lake and Rocky Mountain National Park.

The Role of the Private Landowner

In 2019, when John Gunn and a couple of partners purchased the historic 510-acre Abell Ranch in Park County, they got some of the most valuable developable land in the middle of Colorado. Encompassing 3 miles of the South Platte River between 11-Mile Canyon and Cheesman Reservoir, the site is ideal for trophy homes. But they had no intention of developing it. They wanted to protect it, beginning with a conservation easement donated to the Palmer Land Conservancy, for the perpetual enjoyment of the surrounding community, people who visit the area, and the wildlife that depends on it. As Gunn told Keep It Colorado, “It would be an ideal place to put in several houses. The family could have sold it to a developer but chose not to.” The ranch is just below Lake George, where the river flows across the Abell Ranch, a couple other smaller properties, and Sportsmen’s Paradise at the confluence of Crystal Creek. The remainder is on Pike National Forest land all the way to Cheesman Reservoir. All 9 miles of that river stretch have been restored.