Cañon City council moves to executive session after fraught discussion on lateral ownership and stormwater

Cañon City council held a special meeting July 20 to hear ditch-company representatives, the state water commissioner and residents about a court ruling and how city stormwater interacts with irrigation laterals. After lengthy testimony and questions, the council voted unanimously to move into executive session for legal advice on Fremont County case 25C1138.

Panelists representing several local ditches told the council the issues are already acute. "I believe the judge believes that that lateral is owned. It's owned property and that's not true," said Will Colon, a representative of the Grandview and Hydraulic ditches, arguing that laterals are easements, not privately owned property. Colon warned that mixing stormwater with irrigation flows will create legal and operational confusion for the city and ditch shareholders.

Dan Hendricks, District 12 water commissioner, told the council Colorado statute 37-86-102 defines the right-of-way from diversion to place of use and assigns maintenance responsibility to shareholders. "I believe the court ruled correctly," Hendricks said, describing how shareholders' proportional shares determine maintenance obligations along a lateral.

Residents and ditch leaders described practical consequences. John Sand of South Canyon Ditch said debris carried by stormwater clogs laterals and that shareholders often bear cleanup costs despite a city stormwater charge on utility bills. "We've asked the city for help to clean that out of there, and we've basically been shot down every time we've asked," Sand said. Paula Peterson, a Reynolds Street resident, told council members that city-installed clean-out boxes are unsafe for elderly people and children and asked whether the city now owns the piped laterals it installed.

City staff and the public works director, Leo Evans, said a staff memo circulated in draft on April 29, 2026, was intended to guide engineering staff on when permits are needed and who pays permit fees, not to change Ordinance 19. "It wasn't necessarily geared towards any big change," Evans said, adding the draft was aimed at internal permit practice.

Council members asked multiple legal and factual questions: who owns prescriptive easements, how Ordinance 19 was drafted and whether the city or shareholders are liable when piped laterals carry stormwater. Panelists said Ordinance 19 was adopted roughly a decade ago to address urban encroachment and that shareholders hold prescriptive rights and maintenance obligations, though people have converted laterals to pipe over time.

A proposed incremental solution from South Canyon would identify five or six problematic entry points where the city could install screens and then clear those points after major storms; ditch representatives framed it as a targeted maintenance partnership rather than a comprehensive legal fix.

With two council members recused because of ditch-board service or share ownership, the council remained seated with five members for the vote. Council member Maloney moved that the council enter an executive session to consult with the city's attorney for legal advice under CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) concerning Fremont County Court case number 25C1138 about ditch maintenance and stormwater; Council member Tony seconded. The clerk called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously. The council then entered executive session.

Next steps discussed on the record included potential working sessions, further legal review and coordination with ditch stakeholders; the executive session will allow the council to receive legal advice before deciding any changes to the ordinance or city procedures.