Protecting Ouray's Future

Posted by Erin Eddy

www.ourayland.com
www.ridgwayland.com

Written by:

Christopher Pike

December 19, 2008

OURAY — Before he leaves office next month, Don Batchelder wants to address an issue he believes is important for the future of ranching in Ouray County.

The issue: Incentives for the preservation of ranch lands and, in tandem, keeping water rights with those lands in the county.

"The county hasn't done anything in preserving those facets of the Master Plan," said Batchelder at Monday's Board of County Commissioners meeting. "There is potential for losing some of the ranch lands in the valleys, with only the potential for breaking those tracts into 35s."

Batchelder believes that the Ouray County Master Plan's goal of "encouraging the continued use of lands for agricultural productivity" will not be met without larger tracts being protected from non-ag uses, including housing development.

"The tendency in land use issues is to assume that what exists is how things will remain. However, there are a number of factors, economic and personal, facing a number of smaller ranches in the county's valleys that indicate agricultural lands are at risk," said Batchelder in a two-page white paper titled, "Incentivizing Cluster Development in the Valley Zone through the Development Agreement Process."

The current code, Batchelder points out, "does nothing" to prevent the subdivision of agricultural land into 35-acre parcels and by state law there is no governmental review of these property divisions. And, he adds, the county's Land Use Code does nothing to keep water rights in the county.

With land prices being as high as they are, 35-acre parcels have become the target for non-agricultural development, be it straight-ahead commercial, recreational or industrial, Batchelder said. "Ranchers have a saying about 35-acre lots: 'too small to farm and too big for a lawn'."

The catch is finding an incentive for property owners to preserve productive ag land without diminishing the land's value and to keeping land from being separated from water rights, which ultimately results in land being more conducive for subdivision development — not agriculture.

Regulation alone will not suffice, noted Batchelder.

"Ranchers are typically no-nonsense, self-employed business people with distaste for government regulation. The proposal needs to be understandable, simple, straightforward, and not burdened by unnecessary bureaucratic process."

Batchelder's proposal will be discussed informally at the BOCC's Dec. 22 meeting. One key component is to set maximum densities "except for property divided in accordance with a development agreement." The landowner would have to reciprocate, however, by restricting use of the parcel to agriculture uses, keeping the water rights on the land, and locating any home or homes in a clustered fashion.