Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cid Requirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning panel weighs certified irrigation-designer rule, asks staff for local data
Summary
Grand Junction planning staff and commissioners debated whether to retain a certified irrigation-designer (CID) requirement tied to the city’s landscape code. Staff outlined the rule’s Dec. 21 effective date and data gaps; the panel asked for local cost, capacity and water‑savings evidence before making a recommendation.
Planning staff opened discussion of a certified irrigation‑designer requirement that is scheduled to become effective Dec. 21, saying the code currently requires irrigation plans to be certified by an Irrigation Association CID or a similar WaterSense program.
The staff presentation noted the housing‑affordability code task force recommended removing the requirement, citing concerns that few professionals on the Western Slope hold the credential, that the requirement adds cost and review time, and that the city lacks a clear long‑term enforcement mechanism. Staff asked the commission whether to retain the requirement, recommend its deletion, or seek more information.
City water‑conservation staff said local audits show measurable savings from improving irrigation systems: “just by correcting those things that large property saved 700,000 gallons of water last year,” the water conservationist said, describing residential and commercial audits performed this year and available rebate programs.
Commissioners pressed staff for concrete local data on cost and capacity. Participants described certification pathways and fees: the Irrigation Association’s general exam is cited at $250 for members and $495 for nonmembers, with an annual renewal fee of about $75–$125; staff noted a local plan‑review estimate of roughly $600–$700 and a task‑force estimate of $1,500–$7,500 for related soft costs. Staff also cited EPA case studies that put water‑use savings from water‑wise irrigation at roughly 15–60% in specific cases, but emphasized the lack of comprehensive local, aggregated data.
Speakers debated trade‑offs. Supporters said certified designers raise baseline professionalism and long‑term efficiency; critics warned that an added cost burden would disproportionately affect multifamily and affordable‑housing projects and may exclude small, often Hispanic‑owned landscaping businesses that lack access to certification training. Commissioners proposed compromise approaches: scale the requirement to larger or nonresidential projects first; create temporary credits or incentives to help local firms obtain credentials; or postpone enforcement to allow local capacity to grow.
Staff asked the commission for direction after the allotted discussion time. The commission did not adopt a final position at the workshop; members requested that staff return with local cost details, examples and additional evidence to quantify water‑savings and likely economic impacts before a recommendation is forwarded to council.
The commission scheduled follow‑up work and directed staff to collect local audit data and cost estimates to inform a future recommendation.
