Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Revised DARCA Text Amendment ApplicationDARCA Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance Proposed Text Amendments December 2014 REVISED JANUARY 2015 Section 1 Application Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.earfield-county.com 1 TYPE:OF APRI.IGATiON LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM ❑ Administrative Review ❑ Limited Impact Review O Ma or Im act Review ❑ Amendments to an Approved LUCP ❑LIR DMIR ❑SUP O Minor Tempora Housing Facility Vacation of a Coun Road//Public ROW ❑ Location and Extent Review O Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Ma or 0 Minor ❑ Pipeline Development 0 Development in 100 -Year Flood lain ❑ Development In 100 -Year Flood. lain Variance ▪ Code Text Amendment ❑ Rezoning 0 Zone District': PUD ❑ PUD Amendment ❑ Administrative Interpretation _ O al of Administrative Inte retation ❑ Areas and Activities of State Interest ❑ Accommodation Pursuant to Fair Housing Act O Variance O Time Extension also check type of original application IN9 , EDyF j#Tjf s Owner/Applicant Name: Director of Garfield County Community Development Phone: ( 970 ) 945-8212 Mailing Address: 108 8th Street City: Glenwood Springs E-mail: State: CO zip Code: 81601 Representative (Authorization Required) Name: Phone: ( ) Mailing Address: City: State: Zip Code: E-mail: p t0)EGT'puiRg 4 0 ocA710N Project Name: Text Amendment to consider the addition of Ditch and Reservoir standards to the Code Assessor's Parcel Number: Physical/Street Address: Legal Description: Zone District: Property Size (acres): PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Proposed Use (From Use Table 3403): Description of Protect: The Ditch and Reservolr Company Alliance (OARCA) has complied recommended guidelines and standards for consideration by local jurisdictions The Intent of the standards Is to protect the waterways and related activities from encroachment and other disputes. REQUEST FOR WAIVERS Submission Requirements O The Applicant requesting a Waiver of Submission Requirements per Section 4-202. List: Section: Section: Section: Section: Waiver of Standards O The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Standards per Section 4-118. List: Section: Section: Section: Section: I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached Information which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Property Owner Date O FICIAL OSE ONLY File Number 11Z- D 1 v' Fee Paid: $ Section 2 DARCA Model Land Use Codes Cti\T" Al.$ 14 1.411► GARFIElDb N1.0IO r1MM1lN�Tiu RCA Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance August 11, 2014 Hello Colorado Planning Commissions and Land Use Departments: In 2012, the Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance (DARCA) held workshops across the state with the goal of developing guidelines and standards that reduce transaction costs and risks for Colorado's dich and reservoir companies. Providing more certainty in tz a dations will help o ora o itch companies prosper. Guidelines and standards have taken the form of the enclosed report that includes model regulations and laws, as well as conceptual principals that may encourage more effective cooperation between ditch companies and local communities. In the face of local and state-wide pressures, ditch and reservoir companies must find ways to prosper and reap the rewards of the many public benefits they provide. Ditch companies and their vibrant agricultural economies support many rural cities and towns and provide them with a cultural backbone. Fauns and ranches produce food and fiber and support more than just the farm and ranch owners but also a range of employees, seasonal workers, associated businesses that depend on them, and local governments that are sustained by the taxes they pay. Ditch systems provide environmental benefits in the form of riparian corridors for flora and fauna as well as constructed wetlands that lead to more livable communities and tourism dollars. Irrigation may also provide water for late season return flows that extend recreational and irrigation seasons while supporting additional environmental flow needs. Local urbanization issues and the increasing cost of doing business in today's regulatory and legal environment have complicated the matter of running ditch companies in Colorado. A number of ditch companies, particularly in areas where farmland is being converted to ranchettes or suburbs, are also shackled by a range of disputes, many of which are based on local regulations. Ditch company disputes come in many shapes and sizes, including: encroachment on ditch easements; poorly defined property rights; lack of local ordinances that protect the activities of ditches; incompatible zoning; and decisions made without the input of the ditch company or irrigation district. Such issues 1630A 30th Street, #431, Boulder, CO 80301 Tel: (970) 412-1960 Fax: (303) 516-1202 - Email: john.mckenzie a darca.org force ditch companies - many of which are organized as nonprofit 5O 1(c)(i 2)s - to expend significant time and money on external management and compliance. Managing these controversies severely limits the time and resources available for the pursuit of their core business — providing farmers and ranchers with water. DARCA is pleased to provide these guidelines and standards to help forge more productive relationships between ditch companies and neighbors that allow for the mutually beneficial continuation of profitable, irrigated agriculture and the public benefits it provides. Please contact us if you would like more information. Re ards, John D. McKenzie Executive Director 2 DARCA Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance DARCA Model Land Use Codes John McKenzie Executive Director, DARCA 1630 30th St., #431 Boulder, CO 80301 john.mckenzie@darca.org Tel: (970) 412-1960 Fax: (303) 516-1202 Table of Contents Enhancing Communication and Reducing Uncertainty Introduction 5 Colorado Law and Ditch Companies 7 Workshops 9 Model Code Principles 11 Conclusion 13 Model Land Use Codes Land Use Codes Table of Contents 17 3 Enhancing Communication and Reducing Uncertainty Between Local Government and Ditch Companies Jntroduction Colorado's ditch and reservoir companies have a fascinating and storied history in the development of the state. Many were created by the entrepreneurs of their time - bankers, speculators, and developers, as well as a substantial farmer base. Over time, most of these ditch companies have become predominantly farmer owned but in some areas of the state the farmer base has been substantially diminished with the competing pressures for water resources. Ditch companies provide benefits to society, both directly and indirectly. Despite this, the recipients of these benefits are usually not required to provide direct compensation for these positive externalities. Ditch companies and their linked agricultural economies support many rural cities and towns and provide them with a cultural backbone. Farms and ranches produce food and fiber and support more than just the farm and ranch owners; a range of employees, seasonal workers, and associated businesses also depend on them, as do local governments that are sustained by the taxes they pay. Ditch systems provide environmental benefits in the form of riparian corridors for flora and fauna, wetlands, and reservoirs that lead to more livable communities and tourism dollars. Irrigation may also provide water for late season return flows that extend recreational and irrigation seasons while supporting additional environmental flow needs. Urbanization issues, municipalities seeking ditch company water for domestic use, and the increasing cost of doing business In today's regulatory and legal environment have complicated the matter of running ditch companies in Colorado. Many of these companies find it difficult to carry on business as usual and adequately protect their company and shareholder interests. Many ditch company problems can be traced to a limited financial ability to adequately deal with problems, pressures, and opportunities. Ditch company disputes come in many shapes and sizes, including: encroachment on ditch easements, poorly defined property rights, lack of local ordinances that protect the activities of ditches, incompatible zoning, and decisions made without the input of the ditch company or irrigation district. Such issues force ditch companies - many of which are organized as nonprofit 501(c)(12)s - to expend significant time and money on external management and compliance. Although most ditch companies are resource rich with their water portfolios, most have limited financial resources to deal with these controversies. Until ditch companies are able to better handle the complexities of the 21st century and resolve their local disputes in more efficient manners, they will continue to spend their limited financial capital on non-productive dispute management activities rather than pursuing long term goals of improving financial viability, enhancing shareholder value and providing water to their 5 farmer shareholders as Inexpensively and efficiently as possible. Managing these controversies severely limits the time and resources available for maintaining and upgrading the ditch system, the pursuit of infrastructure subsidies and alternative funding support, and other creative management opportunities To reduce transaction costs and allow ditch companies to better take advantage of opportunities to improve their infrastructure and remain competitive, better processes and systems for resolving these disputes are needed. DARCA and Environmental Defense Fund embarked on a listening tour and workshop series to develop guidelines and standards to streamline relationships between ditch and reservoir companies and urbanizing communities. The guidelines and standards developed will begin to forge more productive relationships between ditch companies and neighbors that allow for the mutually beneficial continuation of profitable irrigated agriculture and the public benefits it provides. In effect, reduced conflict should allow for ditch companies to be more able to focus on necessary ditch system maintenance and upgrades. Tools to compensate ditch companies for these positive externalities can be monetary and non - monetary policies implemented by local government. These micro -subsidies at the local level can complement the few state and federal government supports, such as property tax exemptions and federal tax exemption respectively. One example of a non -monetary micro subsidy that does not burden local taxpayers is the development of local land use ordinances that provide more certainty to vague existing ditch company law. Local governmental entities, developers, and citizens are also the beneficiaries of more certainty In local land use codes. The complexity, time, and resources spent on local land use issues can all be reduced by the creation of a streamlined process and clarifying open-ended development/land use processes 6 CoIoarado Law and Ditch Companies The constitution of the state of Colorado, its statutes, and court's rulings have provided for and solidified protections of ditch company resources. The state's laws have protected ditch company resources including water rights and inherent infrastructure that is required to convey water from rivers to farms or other users. Colorado's constitution, adopted on March 14, 1876, provides for the right of ditch companies to condemn private property from which to construct and operate ditches. Ordinarily, private property cannot be taken for private use, as this power of eminent domain is usually reserved for public uses. But the drafters of the state constitution were keenly aware that the efficient and unimpeded use of the state's water resources was critical for the development of agriculture, mines, mills, and for providing water for domestic and sanitary uses. A brief set of statutes within the Colorado Revised Statutes known as the "Ditch Act," is contained in Article 42 of Title 7. §7-42-103 provides that ditch companies "...shall have the right-of-way over the line named in the articles of incorporation, and shall also have the right to run water from the stream, channel, or water source, whether natural or artificial, named In the articles through its ditch or pipeline..." Additionally, provision within Title 37 Water and Irrigation, of the Colorado Revised Statues further specifies rights and obligations of ditch 'and reservoir companies. However, the statutory protections of ditch companies are in reality few, vague, and open to interpretation. As a result, much case law has developed throughout the years from the appellate courts of Colorado to clarify many aspects of the law in Its relation to ditch companies. However, gray areas remain and this uncertainty increases the expense and complexity of managing and maintaining these historic and important organizations. The controversies are many that impact ditch companies including easement encroachment, urbanization issues, seepage, liability problems, access to the ditch, and storm water issues. For the purpose of demonstrating the burdens that ditch companies undertake to protect their resource base in today's legal environment, an illustrative case of ditch easement encroachment follows. Ditch companies have the right to convey water through their ditches and also the inherent right to maintain, operate, and rehabilitate the same. However, most ditch companies do not own the land under the ditch in fee simple but rather possess a non-exclusive easement. Further complicating the situation is the fact that these easements are usually not written nor recorded but have arisen through use over time. Title commitments typically do not Identify these easements and normally exclude unrecorded easements from warranty. Ditch companies often have to deal with encroachment issues from: 1) those wishing to bore under the ditch, e.g. a buried pipeline; 2) those wishing to place a structure within the ditch easement, e.g. a house along the ditch; and 3) those wishing to build improvements above the ditch, e.g., a bridge over the ditch. The Colorado courts have long recognized that ditch companies have the 7 right to run water through their ditch along with a reasonable amount of land along the ditch to access, maintain, and rehabilitate the ditch. However, ditch companies are often forced to defend their easements - be it 100 feet in width or 20 feet in width which may depend on the ditch characteristics and the location within the ditch system. If such a matter comet before a court of law, the extent of the ditch easement becomes a factual issue, decided on a case by case basis using expert and non -expert witnesses. This adversarial system is not efficient, the transaction costs associated with it are burdensome, and the process may have to be repeated for another person encroaching on the ditch easement in another location of the ditch. Many of the problems and disputes of ditch companies are better resolved locally. To begin with, better communication with residents and officials of local government is essential. The next step is the development of regulatory guidelines and standards that more clearly define property rights and reduce transaction costs and risk by providing more certainty.. Through a series of workshops and investigation into existing Colorado local ordinances, recommendations are being developed and offered. For a survey of existing local code sections related to ditch companies, please refer to Appendix A, entitled DARCA Model Land Use Codes. Workshops DARCA held four workshops in the state in 2012 and 2013. An initial workshop was held in Glenwood Springs, followed by workshops in Denver, Grand Junction, and Cedaredge. DARCA is prepared to carry out additional workshops for interested cities and counties in the state. 'Workshop 4 Enhancing the Viability and Ability of Ditch and Reservoir Companies to Respond to Changing Times in Colorado This workshop was held on December 8, 2012 and was part of the Second Annual DARCA Water Tour held aboard the California Zephyr as It traveled from Denver to Glenwood Springs and back to Denver. The two -clay event focused on the connections between healthy ditch companies, healthy economies, and healthy natural resources in the West. Agricultural and environmental organizations, farmers, ranchers, and ditch company members discussed the common interests of agriculture and conservation to better manage water resources and share examples of successful partnerships. Representatives from the Family Farm Alliance, Trout Unlimited, the Colorado Water Trust, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, the Nature Conservancy, the Quivira Coalition, the Three Sisters Irrigation District, and the Deschutes River Conservancy delivered presentations to the travelers in DARCA's reserved car and in sessions in Glenwood Springs. Please see Agendas for Workshops, Appendix B. DARCA members and conservation group representatives involved in Irrigation infrastructure improvement projects were the primary audience for this kick-off workshop. The primary focus of this workshop was the generation of a summary of ditch company conflicts and concerns. Ditch company attendees agreed that they spend an inordinate amount of time and money managing local conflict and legal Issues related to uncertainty. The initial list of concerns and costs produced in this meeting became the foundation for the later workshops. Workshop IL The Role of Municipalities and Counties in Supporting Local Ditch Companies This workshop was delivered on January 30, 2013 to a predominately municipality/ governmental group at the Annual Colorado Water Congress Convention in Denver. The workshop focused on the development of guidelines and standards that reduce transaction costs and risks by providing more certainty in local regulations, property rights disputes, taxation, and lender relationships. Please see Agendas for Workshops, Appendix B. At the Colorado Water Congress workshop, the municipal water manager attendees were intrigued by the concept of model codes to enhance relationships with ditch and reservoir companies. Many of them shared specific Issues they have faced in the past and examples of local code sections that have either led to these disagreements or code sections they have developed to help clarify these processes. The workshop left many attendees looking to DARCA 9 as a potential organizer/accrediting entity to both move ditch companies forward and act as an intermediary with municipalities. Suggestions included developing an inventory of best management practices from ditch companies and local government. It was suggested that DARCA could act as a certifying/accrediting entity for ditch companies to encourage standardization and then promote ditch company issues to governments with more certainty. Workshop Ill. How Local Governments Can Help Ditch Companies As part of the 11th Annual Convention of DARCA held March 6-8, 2013, in Grand Junction, Colorado, this workshop was delivered. The convention, Water for Food - Food for Life, focused on issues that farmers and ranchers face in the production of food, forage, and fiber for consumers. Twenty-five speakers gave presentations on current legislation, legal issues, and federal regulations facing agricultural producers and the ditch and reservoir companies that provide them water. DARCA hosted a pre- convention workshop that dealt with water efficiency issues and how they relate tad agricultural operations as well as ditch and reservoir companies. Two additional workshops were also held: GIS for Ditch Companies and Canal Safety Please see Agendas for Workshops, Appendix B. Workshop IV. Enhancing Communication and Reducing Uncertainty Between Local Government and Ditch Companies The town of Cedaredge co -presented with DARCA a workshop on March 29, 2013 attended by the public, ditch company representatives and government officials. During 2012 Cedaredge reached out to DARCA to help them resolve a longstanding conflict with local private ditch companies. Please see Agendas for Workshops, Appendix B. Cedaredge has been trying to deal with newly annexed land within the City recently.. However, unincorporated ditch company ditches and their easements crisscross the town and they have been unable to Identify some of the ditches/laterals and locate the appropriate ditch company contacts. They contacted DARCA to put together a workshop focused on strengthening relationships with local ditch companies and agriculture while also providing information about ditch company incorporation. This workshop focused on the need for more Inclusive and coordinated development processes to bring ditch companies to the table. In addition, reciprocal Incentive structures to encourage ditch companies to organize in return for favorable land use code treatment were discussed as a viable solution. 10 Model Code Principles Through these fact finding workshops and research into land use codes in Colorado many important insights have been identified and features of existing local ordinances have been recognized as particularly useful for helping ditch and reservoir better navigate today's complex environment. Six especially prominent principles are recommended. J. Easements — Many ditch companies expend their limited resources defending their right to run water and maintain their ditches. Although the case law in Colorado is strong in defending ditch company easements, they do not do a good job clearly defining the boundaries and extent of ditch easements. As a result, the cost to ditch companies to protect this right can be substantial. In lieu of seeking relief through the courts, beneficial and clear land use codes are better suited to reduce conflicts by better defining these property rights. Recommendations: A better definition of ditch company property rights can be accomplished by either prohibiting structures or improvements in the ditch easement or by specifically defining the width of the easement. Example: Garfield County: "A maintenance easement of at least 25 feet from the edges of the ditch banks shall be preserved and indicated on any Final Plat for the Subdivision, or the final development plan for any nonsubdivision use." JI. liability — Liability issues along ditches is a serious concern especially in the urban environment in the close proximity of houses and public trails. Recommendations: The local governmental entity can require developers to develop a risk assessment plan, provide signs to keep residents out of the ditch, indemnify the ditch company in case of harm, and to provide adequate liability insurance. Example: Chaffee County: "Require execution of an agreement binding the property owner and all future property owners to accept all liability for damage caused by the improvements installed in the ditch." III, Ditch Company organization -- At times, local government becomes frustrated when dealing with ditch companies. City or county officials may not know where all the ditches or laterals are located. The ditch may be informally organized and a contact person may be difficult to locate. This may arise due to the lack of formai corporate organization and formalities. 1. Recommendations: Land use codes can be constructed whereby certain protections or incentives are granted to ditch companies if the companies adhere to a formai business structure including the designation of a contact person These could take the form of assistance with maintenance or other favorable treatment of incorporated ditch companies. Example: No examples found. However, the workshop in Cedaredge demonstrated the need by city officials to better identify ditches, their shareholders, and responsible parties so that development in the area of the ditch could be achieved in a more coordinated and efficient fashion. 1V, Review Process and Notice Procedures - Just as a variety of stakeholders must be notified and given the formal opportunity to engage In development review process, ditch companies, as owners of easement rights in the affected area, should also be included in similar ways. Recommendations: Specific notice and consent processes for development should be required before a development is approved that impact the ditch. Example: Grand County "Approval from the ditch owner or the ditch company to cross the ditch easement prior to any disturbance of the ditch shall be required. The developer shall be required to provide the ditch easement owner with design drawings and hydraulic analysis of the proposed crossing. The developer or owner is responsible for all costs associated with any review plans or specifications for ditch crossings by the ditch company." V. Overtopping of Ditches and Seepage — Unfortunately, homes and businesses have been placed adjacent to ditches where water from the ditch has historically seeped. Similarly, ditches have historically overtopped when during extreme precipitation events. Recommendations: Ditch company problems regarding seepage can be alleviated by the prohibition of below grade improvements in the vicinity of a ditch. Floodplain areas are adopted in land use codes when dealing with natural creeks and rivers. However, floodplain restrictions have not been extended to manmade ditches that act like natural waterways but should be. Examples: Chaffee County: "Commissioners may require a developer to improve the ditch within the subdivision by fencing, lining, piping, or other means where increased activity, geography, density, or other conditions create unreasonable liability for the ditch company, or to protect new residential development from damage due to seepage or flooding. " 12 Pitkin County: Ensure that no building shall be constructed immediately downhill of a ditch unless the ditch can be placed in a culvert, fined, or otherwise treated to avoid leakage of water downhill towards the building. Vl, Stormwater and Water Quality Many ditches have become repositories for stormwater discharge that has resulted in an increased likelihood of overtoppings. Additionally, water quality concerns are becoming more critical since most ditch company systems are considered waters of the U.S. Recommendations: It would be beneficial for ditch companies to have land use codes prohibiting the introduction of stormwater into the ditch. Example: Dolores County: "No development or change in land use shall channel storm water or snowmelt runoff into any irrigation system without the written consent of the responsible irrigation entity." Conclusion Ditch and reservoir companies are an integral part of Colorado's agricultural landscape and they provide many benefits beyond running water through their canals to their farmer shareholders. These additional benefits, often referred to as positive externalities, enhance local communities and provide eco -system services. The development of more productive relationships with local governmental agencies including a better definition of property rights through local land use code changes can significantly assist ditch companies to prosper in the 21St century. Policies for inducing change should be crafted so that as much benefit is produced with the least amount of cost. The impact of the report's recommendations appears to be widespread and meaningful while the cost of implementing them is fairly insignificant. Next steps in the continuation of this work will include disseminating this information to DARCA members and to municipalities and county government. DARCA has a continuing interest in offering more workshops In the state. 13 Section 3 Proposal Proposal 1 LUDC The Ditch and Reservoir Company Alliance Company (DARCA) requests County review of model code language to consider inclusion into the land use regulations. DARCA has made this request due to many ditch company disputes that include encroachment on ditch easements, poorly defined property rights, lack of local regulations to protect ditches, incompatible zoning, and decisions made without input from the ditch companies. The Colorado Revised Statutes "Ditch Act" contained in Article 42 of Title 7 (§7-42-103), and Title 37, Water and Irrigation, contains provisions regarding ditch company rights and obligations. These statutory protections are vague and open to interpretation according to DARCA. Colorado Courts have recognized the right of ditch companies to run water through their ditch along with reasonable amount of land along the ditch to access, maintain and rehabilitate the ditch. Typically, formal easements do not exist for ditches. DARCA held several state-wide workshops which discussed topics such as conflicts and concerns of the companies, role of local jurisdictions and how local governments can help ditch companies. The results of the workshops were Model Code Principles which include: 1. Easements - Local governments could provide a definition of ditch property rights to prevent encroachment and access issues. EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE: Maintenance Easement. A maintenance easement of at least 25 feet from the edges of the ditch banks shall be preserved and indicated on any Final Plat for the division of land or for the final development plan for any other land use. When agreed to in writing by the ditch owner(s), that distance may be decreased. (Garfield County) 2. Liability — Local governments could require developers of property impacting ditches to prepare a risk assessment plan, post signage and indemnify the ditch company. EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE: Require execution of an agreement binding the property owner and all future property owners to accept all liability for damage caused by the improvements installed In the ditch. (Chafee County) 3. Ditch Comoanv Organization — The lack of formal organizations has proven difficult as local governments may not know where ditches are located or who to contact regarding existing ditches. Local governments can provide certain 1'Page Proposaj LDDC incentives to ditch companies that adhere to a formal business structure, such as incorporation. EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE: DARCA did not find any examples, however workshops identified a need for govemment officials to better identify ditches and ownership. 4. Review Process and Notice Procedures — Ditch companies are easement holders of potentially affected areas and should be notified, and given formal opportunity to engage during the development review process. EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE — Approval from the ditch owner or the ditch company to cross the ditch easement prior to any disturbance of the ditch shall be required. The developer shall be required to provide the ditch easement owner with design drawings and hydraulic analysis of the proposed crossing. The developer or owner is responsible for all costs associated with any review plans or specifications for ditch crossings by the ditch company. (Grand County) 5. Overtopping of Ditches and Seepage — Development adjacent to ditches may be affected by seepage from ditches either from a historic seepage or from overtopping of the ditch which may occur during storm events. Recommendations include limiting below grade improvements in the vicinity of a ditch and treating ditches as a waterway which may be impacted by flood events. EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE: Commissioners may require a developer to improve the ditch within the subdivision by fencing, lining, piping, or other means where increased activity, geography, density or other conditions create unreasonable liability for the ditch company, or to protect new residential development from damage due to seepage. (Chaffee County) 6. Stormwater and Water Quality — Ditches become repositories for stormwater discharge and may result in overtoppings. Ditch company systems are considered 'waters of the United Stated' and therefore water quality is a concern. EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE: No development or change in land use shall channel stormwater or snowmelt runoff into any irrigation system without the written consent of the responsible irrigation entity. (Delores County) 21 Page Section 4 Current LUDC Regulations Irrigation Ditches - Current Regulations I LUDC The Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LUDC) currently contains the following restrictions with regard to irrigation ditches: I. General Administration A. Section 1-301 D. — Right to Farm County states that: Irrigators have the right to maintain irrigation ditches through established easements that transport water for their use, and said irrigation ditches are not to be used for the dumiing of refuse. II. Land Use Change Permits A. Section 4-203 D. — Site Plan requires: • Significant on-site features be shown, including ditches and reservoirs (4- 203 D(4)). • Existing and proposed irrigation ditches on or adjacent to the parcel be shown by location and dimension (4-203 D(6)). B. 4-203 O. Floodplain Analysis requires: • Location of existing water supply ditches, irrigation ditches and laterals. 111. Subdivision A. Section 5-402 C. — Sketch Plan Map requires: • Identification and general location of known ditches... that influence the development (5-402 C.(5)). • Irrigation ditches on or adjacent to the parcel (5-402 C. (7)). • Significant on-site features including ditches (5-402 C. (12)). • Existing and proposed irrigation ditches shown by location and dimension (5-402 C. (14)). B. Section 5-402 D. - Preliminary Plan Map requires: • Significant on-site features including ditches (5-402 D. (6)). C. Section 5-402 F. — Final Plat requires: • Location, width, purpose, and owners of all easements. Maintenance easements shall be provided for ditches as required in Section 7-201.E.3. (5-402 F. (12)). D. Section 3-301 Floodplain - Overlay Regulations permit water supply ditches, irrigation ditches, and laterals to be located within the Floodway as well as within the 100 -year floodplain. 1 Page Irrigation Ditches - Current Regulations LUDC E. Section 7-201 E. — Agricultural Lands Irrigation Ditches • Maintenance. Where irrigation ditches cross or adjoin the land proposed to be developed, the developer shall insure that the use of those ditches, including maintenance, can continue uninterrupted. • Rights -of -Way. The land use change shall not interfere with the ditch rights-of-way. • Maintenance Easement. A maintenance easement of at least 25 feet from the edges of the ditch banks shall be preserved and indicated on any Final Plat for the division of land or for the final development plan for any other land use. When agreed to in writing by the ditch owner(s), that distance may be decreased. F. Article 15 — Definitions • 'Irrigation Ditch' as a man-made channel designed to transport water. • Definitions for 'agriculture', 'agricultural land' contain reference to irrigation ditches. • Definition of 'Riparian/Riparian Areas' specifically exempts manmade agricultural structures and devices, including irrigation ditches, sprinklers, and artificial ponds. • Water Reservoir' is a Natural or artificial place where water is collected and stored for use, especially water for supplying a community, irrigation land, and furnishing power.' • Water Supply Entity' may be a municipality, county, special district, water conservancy district, water conservation district, water authority, or other public or private water supply company that supplies, distributes, or otherwise provides water at retail, as provided in C.R.S. § 29-20-302(2).' • Waterbody' specifically excludes irrigation ditches used for the sole purpose of agriculture, and water impoundments. 2'Page Section 5 Proposed LUDC Regulations 4 Irrigation Ditches - Revised Draft Regulations LIDC PROPOSED CODE The Garfield County Planning Commission opened a public hearing on December 10, 2014 at which time they considered draft code language regarding the protection of irrigation ditches. The hearing resulted in revised draft regulations, included below. This language is being forwarded to referral agencies for review and comment and the Planning Commission will hold a continued public hearing on March 11, 2015 at which time they will further consider these draft regulations. 7-201. AGRICULTURAL LANDS. A. Irrigation Ditches. 1. Maintenance. Where irrigation ditches cross or adjoin the land proposed to be developed, the developer shall insure that the use of those ditches, including maintenance, can continue uninterrupted. 2. Rights -of -Way. The land use change shall not interfere with the ditch rights-of- way. 3. Maintenance Easement. A maintenance easement of at least 25 feet from the edges of the ditch banks shall be preserved and indicated on any Final Plat for the division of land or for the final development plan for any other land use. When agreed to in writing by the ditch owner(s), that distance may be decreased. No structure or fence shall be placed within the right-of-way or easement without written permission from the appropriate ditch owner(s) or ditch company. 4. Ditch Crossings. Ditch crossings shall respect the rights of ditch owner(s) to operate and maintain their ditch without increased burden of maintenance or liablility. Development shall minimize ditch crossings by roads and driveways. At a minimum all irrigation ditch crossings shall: i. Require the crossing be sized to not interfere with ditch operations or change existing hydraulic flow characteristics; ii. Provide vehicle and maintenance equipment access to the ditch from both sides of the ditch crossing from all roads for use by the ditch owner(s); Prior to permit application, or construction within the ditch easement (ROW?) the Applicant shall provide a letter from the Natural Resource Conservation District (NRCS) regarding crossing compliance with recommended standards of the NRCS for construction of ditch crossings; iv. The BOCC may require specific improvements to ditch crossings if determined to be necessary in the review process, particularly if these improvements are required to address safety concerns; 5. Referral to Ditch Company. Application for Division of Land or Land Use Change Permit that may affect or impact any ditch right-of-way shall include the name and mailing address of the ditch owner(s) or ditch company or contact an Irrigation Ditches - Revised Draft Regulations LUDC appropriate agency such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, to determine if a ditch owner/company exists for purposes of requesting review and comment on the development proposal. 6. Drainage. Application for Division of Land or Land Use Change Permit that includes any improvements located adjacent to or below grade of an irrigation ditch shall address and mitigate potential impacts in a drainage plan. The drainage plan shall demonstrate that the drainage will not impair operation of the ditch. 7. Water Quality and Stormwater Management. No development or changes in land use shall channel surface waters into any irrigation system without the written consent of the ditch owners) or ditch company. Article 15: Definitions: Irrigation Ditch means a naturally occurring or artificially constructed channel used to carry water from a stream, lake, reservoir, or other source to agricultural lands for the purpose of watering crops, forage, or livestock.