Weed Watch!

Colorado Weed Management Association

3rd Quarter Newsletter 2025

The Summer Slog

The month of August is a time of mixed emotions for the typical weed manager. Part of us would like to step back a month or two so that we could catch up on sites that have long passed their proper treatment window, while another part longs for the quiet days of winter when our phones and inboxes are not on fire with messages from concerned citizens. The CWMA Marketing & Communications Committee would like to invite you to take a well deserved break from whatever weed patch you may find yourself in so that you can read this year's second installment of Weed Watch.

In this issue we explore a diverse lineup of topics; everything from plague-like biological controls to drinking water. We hope you find our content entertaining and enlightening. Here's to the waning days of summer, our CWMA Winter Conference held in Pueblo on December 10th-11th will be here before we know it!

Photo: Scotch thistle (2018) Cuchara River

Credit: C. Bryant

In the Weeds – A Productive Day of Field Learning in Jefferson County

By: Lee Blair, Bear Creek Lake Park/Open Space Supervisor/CWMA Board Member

In the Weeds took place at Matthews Winter Park in Jefferson County on May 30th, which was a hands-on workshop for professionals in noxious-weed management. Fifteen -Twenty attendees—ranging from land-management positions to chemical-application specialists—gathered to exchange field-tested strategies for controlling invasive species.

CWMA President Steve Murdock kicked off the day with a detailed case study of a helicopter-applied treatment targeting cheatgrass and other noxious weeds. Attendees examined high-resolution before-and-after imagery and then heard from an ENVU representative about tailored herbicide programs that have improved winter-annual control success rates.



After the presentations, the group hiked to the project site to observe treatment results firsthand, assess operational pros and cons, and discuss lessons learned. The formal program wrapped up with a networking social at Over Yonder Brewery, where participants solidified new collaborations and shared insights over pizza and craft brews.

Don’t miss it—another successful “In the Weeds” gathering is planned for fall

An Uncalled for Biological Control

By: C. Bryant, Huerfano County Noxious Weed Manager/CWMA Board Member

The Blessing\Curse Cycle of Nature

The blessing of abundant springtime moisture this season in Huerfano County quickly gave way to the curse of noxious weeds, especially Scotch thistle. Large stands growing in a true “living fence” fashion began to line the shoulders of I-25 as long dormant sites in the broader countryside exploded with growth in the same manner. As the truck tire-sized rosettes began to bolt and form flower buds, it seemed apparent that the treatment of many infested areas would fall by the wayside given the limited amount of resources, personnel and cooperation in our area. The old gardener’s adage of “one year’s seeding equals seven years weeding” seemed laughable knowing that the seeds produced by Scotch thistle can reside in the soil seed reserve for nearly forty years. As mid-June came around along with the absolute feeling of defeat as a weed manager, an unexpected and unwanted ally arrived on the scene by the millions. Within just a few weeks time, the large stands of bluish-green Scotch thistle began to look a desiccated brown and appeared to be “dead headed”, or have their flower buds removed. Upon closer inspection of these sites (that in many cases had plants in excess of six feet tall with nearly one foot wide basal leaves) it became apparent that the plants had not seen the mist of a spray gun or the blades of garden shears, rather, they were being consumed from all angles by perhaps a greater curse than the weed itself; migratory grasshoppers (Melanoplus sanguinipes), two-striped grasshoppers (Melanoplus bivittatus) and red-legged grasshoppers (Melanoplus femurrubrum).

No Natural Enemies?! 

The common knowledge that most of our state list noxious plant species have few to no natural enemies that could provide natural checks and balances seemed to be questionable as the Scotch thistle first appeared to be hit with a shotgun blast, then eventually a wood chipper. Leaves began to take on a skeletal form as the grasshoppers continued their voracious feeding, eventually moving on to the softer tissue of new growth upon the stems. The florets of those that had a chance to bloom prior to being annihilated by millions of tiny eager mandibles seemed most delectable to the swarms of insects, with a shallow dish being left of the flower head after their feeding. Coupled with the typical low humidity and triple digit temperatures common in the prairies of Huerfano County, the plants quickly succumbed and appeared in the lifeless form that they have in the darkest of winter months. While grasshoppers’ consuming the blooms of Scotch thistle is fairly common during drought years in our area, this was the first season that this author has seen them consume the fibrous stalk of the plant (in some cases weeks before their annual bloom) and cause total stand mortality.



As if unsatisfied by the buffet of Scotch thistle that they had just consumed, an even greater surprise was in store as the hordes of grasshoppers turned their attention to Russian olive and tamarisk, all while leaving the native cottonwood trees and choke cherries unscathed. Large colonies of Russian olives along the Huerfano River began to be stripped to a skeletal form much like the Scotch thistle plants that were initially consumed. While the damage among tamarisk was not nearly as prolific as that described for the two aforementioned noxious species and did not take on the same appearance of Diorhabda stricken trees, many still had greater than 75% of their foliage devoured, with succulent new growth being the most selected for by the ravenous swarms. While the damage was apparent among these species in many parts of Huerfano County, mosaic damage patterns were observed even in the most heavily impacted sites, while others sites only a few miles away appeared to be totally unafflicted.   

Driven by Chemicals

So why have these noxious species in only certain areas been on the menu for our unwanted seasonal weed warriors? Answer: plant volatiles. Much like the manner in which Diorhabda (salt cedar) beetles are steered, so do our native grasshopper species. For the Scotch thistle to be selected for first it is likely due to the high amount of terpenoids, green leaf volatiles and floral volatiles emitted that signal to the hungry swarms the quality of the food source. These chemical signals indicate everything from moisture and nitrogen content to the concentration of natural repellant compounds like alkaloids.[i] With Scotch thistle emitting the highest amount of VOC’s that facilitate the aggregation of grasshoppers while possessing the least amount of repellant VOC’s, Scotch thistle was first to be targeted, followed by Russian olive that still possesses favorable VOC’s, but possess slightly more repellant VOC’s. Our tamarisk trees were more so used as a last resort ration; given their higher amounts of repellant compounds, lower emissions of aggregation compounds, salt content and lower moisture content, basically being a can of Spam compared to the filet mignon quality of Scotch thistle, Russian olive and other more favorable forms of vegetation.[ii]



Concerning the grasshoppers’ avoidance of native cottonwoods trees, this is likely due to their co-evolution with the native grasshopper species. The co-evolved defenses of cottonwoods against generalist feeders like grasshoppers comes in the form of increased repellant VOC’s like tannins and a multitude of other phenolic compounds.[iii] The noxious species that do not possess these innate defenses as their native counterparts do are at a clear disadvantage, essentially being more appetizing due to their lack of natural defenses. This fact lends some degree of ambiguity to the “little to no natural enemies” understanding that we have concerning noxious plant species in the New World.

Unwanted Biological Control for Another Unwanted Biological Control

In conclusion, while the destruction wrought by these hungry swarms of insects was a blessing towards the prevention of seed set and depletion of energy resources among the noxious species mentioned, it was still largely a curse on the entire landscape as certain hay meadows have been reduced to stems and other desirable, non-native species like apple trees who lack the aforementioned co-evolutionary defenses have been targeted in the same manner as other exotic plant species. Grasshoppers as a welcomed biological control agent are certainly unacceptable due to the off-target damage that they have done, but I suppose an “any port in a storm” type outlook on the situation provides at least some measure of comfort. Perhaps we will be saved from the hordes of grasshoppers by yet another unfavorable biological control given the fact that August is often “a month of flies” in this particular portion of Colorado, especially as it relates to the proliferation of what are commonly called “flesh flies” (Sarcophagidae) who have long been documented as parasitizing migratory grasshopper species.[iv] The grasshoppers may meet a more grim fate than the vegetation that they have destroyed though as the Sarcophagidae lay eggs upon the host grasshoppers, eventually resulting in the host being eaten alive by the fly’s larvae. Flies for grasshoppers? Many folks in southeastern Colorado would likely welcome them after the summer that we have had.

[i] Journal of Chemical Ecology (1990) https://link.springer.com/journal/10886/volumes-and-issues/16

[ii] Plant Signaling & Behavior (2011) https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/kpsb20/6/11

[iii] Annual Review of Plant Biology (2006) https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105218

[iv] https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=WIT19370720-01.2.26, https://scholar.ulethbridge.ca/sites/default/files/danjohnson/files/42.pdf?m=1471903186#:~:text=Abstract,functioned as a metabolic sink.

Grasshopper damaged Russian olive & Tamarisk, note undamaged cottonwood in background (top) Closer view of Russian olive damage (left middle) Closer view of tamarisk damage (bottom left) dished-out flower head of Scotch thistle (Right)

Photo Credits: C. Bryant (2025)

Detecting Herbicides in Colorado's Drinking Water

By: C. Bryant, CWMA Board Member\Colorado Certified Water Professional\QS

Different Roles Same Goals

As professional applicators we take great care toward ensuring that the products we utilize are applied in the safest and most environmentally conscious manner possible. We all know that state and federal agencies who share our same devotion towards the protection of natural resources monitor the results of our work, especially as it relates to the detection of pesticides in drinking water sources. Aside from this general understanding, many may not be aware of the process and frequency related to these detection efforts. Having been in the strange position of gathering synthetic organic compounds (SOC) samples in the morning and later in the day spraying the same compounds I was monitoring for earlier due to my dual professions as a Colorado Water Treatment Professional and County Weed Manager, I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss this topic further. It is my hope that applicators will realize a greater sense of confidence in their treatment efforts and avoid unnecessary conflict.

Who is Reviewing Our Work?

Here in Colorado, the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) is tasked with the regulatory oversight of not only “finished” potable water, but also the original raw water source being utilized. Water treatment operators in turn perform periodic sampling for a wide range of contaminants, everything from microbes to radionuclides. The collected samples are then transported to a state certified lab where they are analyzed to determine if any analytes may be in excess of maximum contaminant levels (MCL’s). The type, timing, and number of samples are highly variable among our 2,000+ public water systems here in Colorado, with a unique monitoring schedule being applied to each system. Within the monitoring schedule, water treatment operators and members of the public alike can see exactly what is tested for, how often it has to be tested for, and any violations or outstanding issues associated with the water system.

Which Herbicides Are They Testing For?

When we are considering the detection of pesticides, the SOC sample group is of primary concern. Many applicators will be surprised to learn which herbicides are monitored for and which are not. If you were to review the monitoring schedule for the water system in your locale, you may not see some of our more common rangeland herbicides that we are accustomed to like aminopyralid, metsulfuron-methyl or imazapyr included in the sample suite. However, you are likely to find compounds that you may be unfamiliar with. Many are older, somewhat obscure (and persistent) herbicides while others are precursor chemicals or degradates of common herbicides. Some herbicides within a typical monitoring schedule may also be those that have been banned for decades, for example 2,4,5-TP a.k.a. “Fenoprop” which was outlawed in the United States in 1985.

The frequency of monitoring for SOC’s in a typical water system can vary widely, but for the most part takes place in either three, six or nine year intervals. These somewhat protracted monitoring intervals take into account the slow moving nature of pesticides as they enter water sources through both point and non-point source contamination.  



Positive Test Results Can Lead to Higher Utility Bill Rates

The frequency of sampling may be increased in areas that are deemed a higher risk of contamination, for example water sources that are situated near large agricultural or industrial sites. A positive hit in exceedance of regulatory limits for any of the various compounds tested for will also result in an increased sampling frequency. Such is the case for the Walsenburg Water Treatment plant which has to monitor annually for the nearly forgotten herbicide Dalapon due to levels being detected below the MCL but at or above increased monitoring thresholds.  This can prove to be very costly for small rural water systems in particular, with a single lab analysis costing $700-$1,500. Given the fact that public water systems must be self-sustaining, these increased operational costs usually result in higher water rates passed along to customers or differed maintenance on critical infrastructure. This can quickly become a compounding problem as customers realize that they are paying increased costs for water that is contaminated, and can obviously lead to public dismay towards chemical applicators and water treatment operators alike, whether they were responsible for the contamination or not. As applicators, we can help prevent pesticide contamination of drinking water sources by not only performing our due diligence as it relates to product selection, application method, timing, etc., but also by enhancing our site assessments by utilizing the exceptional tools available through the CDPHE and Division of Water Resources web pages.

Useful Resources for Chemical Applicators

Perhaps the most useful resource that applicators will find is the monitoring schedules mentioned earlier in this article. Using this link (https://cdphe.colorado.gov/dwschedules) you can search for your particular water system of concern so that you can determine the who, what, when and where of your locality’s drinking water quality monitoring efforts. Knowing the location of designated SOC sample sites in your locality and when these samples are taken may help prevent future conflict. Another valuable resource is the Colorado Drinking Water Annual Compliance Report that can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vt6UVnzrZvlaF5RbLCIyXqRSfFH04gPZkBnbmiASfC8/edit?tab=t.0  This report details any health based violations found among Colorado’s 2,000+ public water systems during the previous year. Worth noting, for 2023 (most recent comprehensive report) the only public drinking water system based violations concerning herbicides were administrative actions, primarily concerning failures to report and\or collect samples. Another useful resource is the Colorado Division of Water Resources map viewer where applicators can review a tremendous amount of data concerning the state’s hydrology. Everything from permitted well locations and their finished depth to locations of dried up agricultural lands can be selected for viewing through this online tool that can be found here: https://maps.dnrgis.state.co.us/dwr/Index.html?viewer=mapviewer

In conclusion, please consider reviewing the sources cited in this article. Doing so will not only provide chemical applicators with a greater awareness concerning sensitive sites within their area of operations, but also serve as a valuable communication tool for their public outreach efforts. Most importantly, applicators can demonstrate the responsible manner in which we perform our work, as evidenced by the water quality data collected by the 2,000+ independent public water systems in Colorado which, as mentioned earlier, did not have ANY violations concerning the presence of herbicides within our drinking water resources in exceedance of maximum contaminant levels as of the most recent report.

Weeds in the West News

*Arizona: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Navajo Region, covering parts of Arizona, prioritized noxious weed control in 2025, targeting species like Russian knapweed and cheatgrass on Navajo lands. A February 2025 BIA update outlined expanded mapping efforts using GIS tools and community-led removal projects in Chinle and Tuba City. The program collaborates with AZDA to align with state regulations, focusing on containment to protect rangelands and cultural sites.(Source: https://www.bia.gov/regional-offices/navajo/navajo-nation-integrated-weed-management-plan/noxious-weed-information )

*California: The California Invasive Plant Council is hosting its 2025 Symposium, with a Statewide Weed Management Area (WMA) Meeting on November 12, 2025, from 8:30–10:30 a.m., available online for free. This meeting, included for Symposium registrants, will discuss noxious weed control strategies, including early detection and rapid response (EDRR) for species like yellow starthistle and tamarisk, and share updates on WMA projects across California’s 58 counties. (Source: https://www.cal-ipc.org/solutions/wmas/ )

*Colorado: Grand County is offering "herbicide giveaways" every Friday until September 26th. This program allows citizens to bring in their handheld sprayer (up to 4 gallons) so that it can be filled with an appropriate herbicide at the proper rate for their specific problem species. Call 970-887-0745 for more information.

(Source: https://www.co.grand.co.us/140/Noxious-Weeds)

*Idaho: The Idaho Department of Agriculture has implemented stricter regulations concerning watercraft inspections to help curb the introduction of invasive species among the state's waterways. All users must remove visible vegetation, drain water from all compartments, and nonresidents must get inspections and invasive species stickers. (Source: https://sandpointreader.com/federal-state-and-county-officials-discuss-aquatic-noxious-weeds-invasive-species/)

*Montana: Montana held it's 2025 Noxious Weed Awareness Week during the first full week of June, spotlighting invasive species like leafy spurge, ventenata, rush skeleton weed, whitetop, Dalmatian toadflax, houndstongue, and common buckthorn — each featured with daily educational content and outreach campaigns.

(Source:  https://agr.mt.gov/News/Montana-Noxious-Weed-Awareness-Week-2025#:~:text=This official week occurs annually,topics related to noxious weeds.)

*Nebraska: In May, lawmakers proposed LR 168, a resolution to conduct an interim study on the use and efficacy of Nebraska’s existing Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Species Assistance Fund. This study aims to assess the impact of grants awarded under the state's Noxious Weed Control Act.  (Source:https://legiscan.com/NE/bill/LR168/2025)

*Nevada: The Nevada Department of Agriculture has launched a new grant program intended to aid in the control of noxious plant species in rangeland and riparian areas. The program will allocate $2 million in funding to counties, conservation districts, and nonprofits focused on invasive plant management.

https://agri.nv.gov/News/Press_Releases/2025/April/2025/weed_management_grant_program_announced



*New Mexico: The New Mexico Department of Agriculture has launched a new noxious weed dashboard, integrating Geographic Information System (GIS) data from state, local, and private sources into a centralized platform. The dashboard utilizes EDDMaps as the primary reporting portal, as Colorado and numerous other states do.  (Source: https://nmdeptag.nmsu.edu/apr/noxious-weeds.html)

*Oregon: The Oregon State Weed Board plans to allocate $3.5 million in grants for weed control projects during the 2025-2027 biennium. This program is funded by Oregon lottery dollars. (Source: https://capitalpress.com/2025/06/10/eastern-oregon-volunteer-needed-for-fight-against-weeds/)

*Washington: In May 2025, the Washington State Department of Agriculture filed a proposed rule to add several species to its noxious weed seed‑and‑plant quarantine, including English ivy, houndstongue, Russian knapweed, punturevine, and Palmer’s amaranth, among others. (Source:  https://agr.wa.gov/services/rulemaking/wac-16-752-noxious-weeds-041724#:~:text=On July 9%2C 2025%2C the,Boston Ivy (Hedera Hibernica)%3Bhttps://www.nwcb.wa.gov/whats-new) 

*Wyoming: On June 9th, the Wyoming Weed and Pest Council (WWPC) announced the WYLD Watch program, a new initiative to engage the public in early detection and rapid response (EDRR) for noxious weeds. Spearheaded by Fremont County Weed and Pest Program Manager Olivia Maxwell, the program encourages residents to report suspected invasive plants. (Source: https://bigfoot99.com/bigfoot99-news/weed-and-pest-announces-new-management-program/ )

Join the CWMA Webinar Series for “10+ Years of Defending the Sage Grouse Core in Sublette County”! Discover how Sublette County Weed and Pest has tackled the challenge of managing invasive cheatgrass at a landscape scale since 2011—with more than 100,000 acres of aerial treatments.

Don’t miss this opportunity to gain insights on landscape-level invasive species management and how you can apply these lessons in your own region!

Reserve your spot today and be part of a decade-long conservation journey!

CWMA Online Training and Education for CE Credits: Easy to Use at Home or Work!

Need credits? CWMA has you covered year round with online education approved by the Colorado Department of Agriculture! Attend a live webinar or take an on-demand course that offer CEC’s, under $40 for CWMA members!

These courses give you on-demand access to credible, curated and convenient online training activities. We currently have two options: one for those seeking CE credits and one for people who are not. Click the button below for the full list of courses and their registration links.

Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare)

List B biennial member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae).

Originally from Europe and Asia, this aggressive biennial species can produce up to 4,000 seeds per plant and reach heights up to six feet, while rosettes can grow up to three feet wide. While present in most counties in Colorado, the highest amount of documented sightings according to EDDMaps is in the northern front range and I-70 corridor near Glenwood Springs. Bull thistle tends to favor moister, more nutrient rich sites compared to other biennial species like Scotch thistle.

In southern parts of the state, bull thistle development often lags behind that of other noxious thistle species, often flowering in late July to early August when most other thistle types have already set seed.

Photo Credits: C. Bryant

Cholla, (Cylindropuntia imbricate)

By: C. Bryant, Huerfano County Noxious Weed Manager/CWMA Board Member

The cane cholla, also called the “walking stick cholla” (Cylindropuntia imbricate) is a native cactus species that is widely distributed in the arid shortgrass prairies of Colorado and surrounding southwestern states. Favoring altitudes between 3,900 ft to 7,500 ft, cholla cacti are often one of the most conspicuous plants visible in our prairie\desert landscapes, growing to a height up to eight feet with vibrant magenta flowers, though most cholla encountered in the field are 2-5 feet in height. The highly branched cylindrical stems have sturdy clusters of 1”+ spiny thorns along their length, while the yellowish-green fruits that form on the ends have many smaller spines only around one millimeter in length. The spiny fruits produced by cholla remain intact throughout the year, providing valuable forage for pronghorn, deer and rangeland cattle alike.   

 Cholla reproduce not only by the seed contained in their fruits, but also by their advantageous cladodes (stems) that eventually sever themselves from the plant and that can take root when eventually deposited on the ground. Given the spiny nature of the stems and fruits, they are often transported great distances upon the hides of wildlife and livestock. Having reproductive qualities similar to many of Colorado’s noxious plant species, cholla can be fairly difficult to control and has even been designated as a noxious species in Australia where it has been given the name “devil’s rope cactus” since being introduced as an ornamental in the 1920’s. Outside of its native range, cholla performs in true noxious plant fashion; growing larger, at higher densities and among a variety of site types ranging from arid deserts to woodlands, unlike its North American growth habits. 

In Australia, both humans and animals have been slow to adapt to this relatively new spiny invader, with most literature bemoaning the prolific thorns found on nearly all portions of the plant. In the arid southwestern United States though, both animals and humans have found ways to contend with, and in some cases, literally embrace its sharp texture. For example, Texas A& M University has reported that cattle accustomed to feeding on cholla have developed grazing techniques where they will deliberately rub the thorns off of chola prior to feeding on it to make it more palatable. It even found a role in religious ceremonies among the Penitentes who willingly tied it upon their backs, then crushed it upon their skin under large wooden crosses that they carried during Holy Week processions. But perhaps the most entertaining use is the anecdotal “rattlesnake death trap” of our native bird speceis Geococcyx californianus, a.k.a., the roadrunner. Read about the “Dread of Rattlesnakes” and the culinary uses of roadrunners below….

Cholla photo credits: C. Bryant



Comic images (middle & bottom): coloradohistoricnewspapers.org

Cholla & Roadrunners: The Dread of Rattlesnakes

The early territorial newspapers of Colorado contain some of the most entertaining, outlandish and mostly forgotten accounts of the history and interactions among plants, animals and humans in the southwest. In this edition of Native Plant Stories, we take a look at the anecdotal reports of what modern-day behavioral ecology refers to as proto-tool use, in this case among roadrunners.

An article in the August 23^rd, 1873 edition of the Las Animas Leader [1] describes the following method employed by roadrunners (referred to as “chaparral cocks” or “churas”) for the harvesting of rattlesnakes:



 “The manner in which it destroys this dangerous reptile is peculiar. In the heat of the day, when the snake is asleep, the chura may be seen carrying leaves of the cholla and forming a circle around it. As soon as the circle is complete it throws a leaf upon the sleeping snake and then patiently awaits developments. The snake awakes and endeavors to free itself from its simple yet secure position. Its efforts are in vain, and it dies, covered with the prickles of the painful cholla. The chura then devours its delicious and well-deserved food. The above is vouched for by many who have witnessed the modus operandi. The chura, when pursued, relies entirely upon its fleetness for escape. It is easily domesticated, and when properly cooked is superior to chicken for eating.”  

[1] https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=LAL18730823.2.39

The 15th Edition of the Noxious Weeds of Colorado Booklet is available for purchase.

Discover comprehensive updates to noxious weed profiles with detailed identification guides — all crafted for enthusiasts, professionals, and nature lovers. Don’t miss your chance to get your hands on this essential resource.



Please provide a USPS-compatible address, as all products will be shipped via USPS.

Photo credits: C. Bryant

See below for news and events from our partners.

Why Be A Member?

Simply put, we help you and your employer IDENTIFY and MANAGE invasive species and CONNECT you to the right resources and support. Membership gives you special access to:

• A network of peers for support, advice and solutions
• Science based research and training
• CE courses and events to help you maintain your license
• A library of curated resources
• Opportunities to advance your career and develop leadership skills
• Member discounts for events, webinars, and publications
• And more!

What else? CWMA fights for the industry by ensuring that rules and regulations at the state level help and not hurt your ability to perform your job. We increase environmental awareness among decision-makers and the broader public.

Sustaining Partners

Not a sustaining partner but want to be? Join here.

How can CWMA work for you?

Do you want to make a difference with CWMA? Would you like to influence the direction that CWMA is leading? Join a committee by reaching out to the chairs and co-chairs.

Want to join a committee but don't know where to start? Contact us for more info!

Are You a Writer or Have a Story to Tell?

If you have a success story or event you'd love to share...we want to help!

Colorado Weed Management Association is always looking for new content, exciting stories in integrated management, and alerts on new weed species!

Send in an article, write up, or pictures and we can share them in our quarterly newsletter.

Email submissions to Communications Committee at info@cwma.org.

Please limit pieces to 500 words. All submissions are subject to review.

Newsletter contributors have to be CWMA members.