Park County Commissioners on Sept. 10 approved a Land and Water Trust Fund payment to help cover transaction costs for a proposed conservation easement on the 39 Mile Mountain Ranch, but the board attached a condition asking the holder to work with the rancher to document and maintain water rights.
The 2–1 vote followed extended discussion about whether the easement will preserve meaningful water rights and whether development in front of the property could eliminate the county’s viewshed benefit. Commissioners raised concerns about the lack of recorded water use for on-site ponds and questioned how the county could ensure long-term protection if the hydrology is unclear.
Supporters said the parcel is contiguous to national forest and other large ranches and argued that preserving it would provide wildlife habitat and a buffer to the forest. A commissioner who supported full funding described the property’s long history of agricultural use and said the existing family arrangements and longtime tenant ranching supported conservation value. Opponents and some advisory-board members cited uncertain water rights and questioned whether the easement’s conservation benefit would be undermined if adjacent parcels were developed.
To address the water-rights concern, the board approved funding conditioned on Colorado Open Lands (the easement holder) attempting to obtain and maintain documented water use with Division 2 (Arkansas Basin) water authorities. The commissioners said the memorandum of understanding or contract with Colorado Open Lands would reflect that request and that the easement holder conducts annual inspections and compliance oversight.
The county’s Land and Water Trust Fund advisory board had split views and offered varying recommendations; the commissioners ultimately approved the requested transaction-cost amount with the condition. The decision was recorded as a motion to approve the requested amount with that condition; the motion carried 2–1.
The county did not specify a timetable for confirmation of documented water use or what enforcement remedies would be taken if reporting did not occur; commissioners noted the easement holder would be responsible for ongoing inspection and enforcement under standard conservation-easement practice.
Documents in the meeting packet show the county’s requested transaction-cost assistance for this application totaled $91,143; commissioners discussed funding at a lower, more-traditional level of $45,600 as an option during the debate.