Data center fees, special trust, sod tax could help raise $20B to protect water supply in Colorado 39%

By Jerd Smith51%

7/31/2026, 3:19:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 18.2% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 1,122 faulty-reasoning hits from 599 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.4% and a BS Rank of 39% (16,850 of 27,527 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.20% of the article peer group.

Colorado could impose new fees on data centers and renewable energy companies, tax sod, or fund a special trust to raise the $20 billion it needs over the next 30 years to ensure it has enough water, as climate change saps streams and shrinks snowpack. 
That’s according to a new report issued by a special task force created by Colorado lawmakers last year. 
Most of the measures the report examined would require action by lawmakers and potentially voters. 
Until now, the state has relied largely on taxes collected on oil and gas, mining and coal production to help fund water projects, including shoring up old pipelines and dams, funding water-saving initiatives and buying new supplies. 
But those severance tax revenues vary dramatically from year to year and are often diverted by lawmakers to help cope with budget shortfalls. 
That is a problem that needs to be solved, according to state Sen. 
Dylan Roberts, a Democrat from Frisco who co-sponsored the legislation creating the task force. 
“This report makes clear that Colorado needs a long-term strategy for funding water infrastructure that doesn’t depend almost exclusively on the ups and downs of severance tax revenue,” Roberts said. 
Task force members were charged with finding permanent, stable sources of funding that can’t be tapped for other purposes by lawmakers. 
“If we could just maintain the funding we have, that would be a start,” said Jim Yahn, a water policy veteran and Logan County commissioner appointed to the task force by Gov. 
Jared Polis. 
The report, produced by the Colorado Water Center at Colorado State University, said the state would likely need several mechanisms to generate the revenue needed, and it cited the success of a 2019 sports betting initiative approved by voters that has generated millions of dollars in tax revenues annually for water projects. 
Still, it said, “The gap between the identified need and available funding is a current challenge visible in oversubscribed grant and loan programs, aging infrastructure, and the growing difficulty local governments face in accessing capital for large projects.” 
The report cites programs by New Mexico and Wyoming that protect severance tax revenues by placing them in special trust funds that cannot be tapped for other purposes. 
Karen Schlatter, director of the Colorado Water Center who led work on the report, said she is hopeful the findings will provide lawmakers with a set of options they can use in combination to stabilize water funding in the future. 
Roberts said it is likely that lawmakers will work on new legislation next year to begin to address long-term funding solutions. 
That’s something Yahn, who is the past manager of North Sterling and Prewitt reservoirs in northeastern Colorado, would like to see as well. 
“A long time ago the state did something right by creating the revolving loan fund,” Yahn said, referring to a loan pool run by the Colorado Water Conservation Board that water districts can borrow from and whose loan interest payments help finance subsequent loans for other water districts. 
“We got loans for our spillways and diversion structures and now we are paying it back in a steady stream that other people can use. 
But when you sweep it out, we don’t have it,” he said, referring to cash diversions by lawmakers. 
“The next step would be finding some legislators that would be willing to keep the money where it is. 
If we could get the ball rolling on that, that would be the next step I would like to see.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.0%Jerd Smith: 0.9%The Colorado Sun: 1.3%Confirmation Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 1.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Jerd Smith: 3.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.8%Availability Heuristic12.9%This article: 8.7%Jerd Smith: 1.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Jerd Smith: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias3.5%This article: 15.4%Jerd Smith: 7.0%The Colorado Sun: 3.1%Framing Effect15.4%This article: 7.5%Jerd Smith: 1.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Loss Aversion7.5%This article: 9.7%Jerd Smith: 4.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Status Quo Bias9.7%This article: 8.0%Jerd Smith: 1.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect8.0%This article: 18.2%Jerd Smith: 6.9%The Colorado Sun: 3.4%Optimism Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.1%The Colorado Sun: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.4%Jerd Smith: 7.2%The Colorado Sun: 4.8%Negativity Bias17.4%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 2.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Jerd Smith: 1.2%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error5.2%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 1.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.7%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Jerd Smith: 0.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.7%Jerd Smith: 4.9%The Colorado Sun: 2.4%Appeal to Authority15.7%This article: 7.5%Jerd Smith: 3.1%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 1.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 5.0%Jerd Smith: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question5.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Jerd Smith: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.7%Jerd Smith: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Composition/Division4.7%This article: 12.9%Jerd Smith: 4.7%The Colorado Sun: 1.5%Anecdotal12.9%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.7%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.3%Jerd Smith: 0.7%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Middle Ground5.3%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.0%Jerd Smith: 1.8%The Colorado Sun: 1.3%Unattributed Quote5.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.8%Jerd Smith: 1.3%The Colorado Sun: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice2.8%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.8%The Colorado Sun: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 7.5%Jerd Smith: 0.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

599 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers49%attributed speech307writer words
Selected voice

Dylan Roberts

78%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words22% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote+46.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dylan Roberts: 46.2%46.2%Politically Left Leaning B-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Dylan Roberts: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Dylan Roberts: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.