Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Irrigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners weigh code change to require consent or court decree before altering ditches and drainage
Summary
Staff presented a proposed text amendment to clarify applicants must secure written consent or a court decree before relocating irrigation ditches or altering drainage infrastructure, citing long‑standing Colorado case law and the Saint Jude's decision.
City planning staff told the Planning Commission a code amendment will put applicants on explicit notice that state law governs alterations to ditches and related irrigation or drainage infrastructure and that applicants must either secure written consent from affected parties or obtain a court decree.
"The intent with this code revision is to put people on notice that this is state law, that they need to first abide by," Speaker 3 said, explaining the draft requires documentation of written consent between burdened and benefited property owners or evidence of a court decree before certain alterations will be allowed.
Why it matters: In several recent local development applications, staff said applicants reached late stages of review without having secured consents related to ditches or easements, which has created delays and litigation risk. The Saint Jude's court decision was cited in the presentation as the controlling precedent describing when a court decree is required.
Key policy points: Staff described the proposed amendment as descriptive and notice‑oriented rather than creating new substantive rights. It would (1) require applicants to identify affected easements and beneficiaries, (2) show written consent or a court decree when needed, and (3) allow the city to treat unresolved consent as a condition on plat recording or construction approvals. Staff advised early attention to consent during pre‑application to avoid last‑minute holds on projects.
Commissioner questions focused on which parties must sign consent (individual lateral users vs. a ditch company or district), whether the requirement would become a cause for incomplete submissions, and whether drainage (as opposed to irrigation) should be treated the same. Speaker 8 advised that obligations can vary by site and that drainage calculations and engineering remain separate technical requirements.
Next steps: Staff recommended moving the draft to a formal public hearing with additional clarification in the staff report about process timing and how the city will treat evidence of consent in review and recording.
