Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents accuse Fruita of favoring developers; city staff explain private developer role on Skiff Avenue Canal work
Summary
During public comment a Fruita resident accused the city of enabling piping of the Skiff Avenue Canal and pursuing eminent domain at Bedeaux's Reminisce Farm. City staff later said the piping work was tied to a private subdivision filing and wetlands/jurisdiction issues rest with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
A Fruita resident used the council—s public-comment period to sharply criticize the city—s handling of a local irrigation canal and an eminent-domain action, and city staff later described the work as associated with a private subdivision filing and subject to federal wetlands review.
Paul Schultz, who identified himself from Red Rock Subdivision, accused the city of enabling "the destruction of historic irrigation infrastructure, family farms, wetlands, and the rural character of this valley" to benefit private developers. "On April 11, the city of Fruita is forcing the Bedeaux's Reminisce Farm into Mesa County Court for you to unnecessarily, improperly, and unjustly take private property from Bedeaux's Reminisce Farm by eminent domain," Schultz said. He asked the city to halt the eminent-domain process, acknowledge its role in piping the Skiff Avenue Canal and stop displacing family farms.
Later in the meeting, council members raised the Skiff/Palmer drainage issue in response to the public comment. City staff explained that the work in question was part of developer-required improvements tied to the Iron Wheel subdivision filing. A city representative said the city had required applicants to complete the quarter-section line road and associated drainage work that crosses the irrigation/drain; that the applicant asked to proceed before irrigation season; and that the project includes work within a riparian/drain feature.
City staff emphasized the city is not the federal wetlands regulator and that Army Corps of Engineers review and permitting govern any jurisdictional wetlands findings. The staff summary said the city approved the project elements under local subdivision and road-improvement review but that compliance with Army Corps permit requirements is the applicant—s responsibility. "We did approve that part of it. We're not a wetlands regulatory agency. That's the Army Corps of Engineers," a city staff member told the council.
During public comment resident Tessa Bynum urged enforcement of irrigation and watering rules, saying overwatering sends pesticides and herbicides into storm drains. Council and staff acknowledged the concern and noted enforcement tends to fall to HOAs or is addressed under municipal code when drought or water-use restrictions are active.
Ending: The council did not take immediate action on the public comments. An executive session on legal matters involving a court case that was noticed on the agenda followed the regular meeting; city staff later indicated that legal discussion and related proceedings (City of Fruita v. Beto et al.) are underway.
