Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landowners press Chaffee County over trash in Bowdoin Ditch, urge piping and cleanup plan
Summary
Shareholders and downstream landowners described compacted trash, embedded layers of styrofoam and concern about nano‑ and microplastics entering waterways. They urged short‑term cleanups at ditch splitters and a longer‑term pipeline or engineered realignment.
Multiple landowners gave an extended public comment to the board about significant trash and embedded debris in the Bowdoin Ditch and its potential downstream effects on private lands and the Arkansas River.
"One of the main concerns we have is it appears that the trash has gotten out of hand in the ditch," said Speaker 7, who spoke for a group of shareholders. He described layers of compacted material and deep erosional banks — "upwards of 12 feet" in places — and said the ditch has been rerouted over past landfill cells. He warned that embedded trash is shredding into smaller pieces and expressed particular concern about nano‑ and microplastics moving downstream and entering soils used for grazing.
What they want: The commenters recommended a two‑track response: immediate mass cleanups at the ditch splitters and other chokepoints to reduce acute blockages and a longer‑term engineered solution; the latter could include piping the ditch along a highway corridor and restoring the downstream alignment once constructed. They reported having engaged NRCS engineers (name provided in testimony) and suggested partnering with NRCS, BLM and Colorado Department of Transportation for alignment and funding options.
County response and next steps: Commissioners and staff acknowledged the scope of the problem and committed to including ditch considerations in ongoing landfill master planning and engineering. Staff said the landfill planning and EPA‑funded design efforts can factor in ditch realignment, and commissioners suggested convening a smaller working group and exploring competitive grants (including NRCS and common‑ground grants) and volunteer cleanup events to address immediate needs. Staff cautioned that comprehensive piping or realignment would require substantial funding and environmental review.
Evidence in the record: Commenters provided photos and a written abstract to the board and cited prior site walks with engineers; they also noted water testing for nano‑plastic levels is expensive (an attendee estimated one water nano‑plastic test at roughly $502,000) and currently beyond local funding capacity.
