OURAY — Ouray County is seeking nearly $16 million in federal stimulus funds to reconstruct and pave County Road 1 over Log Hill Mesa and connecting roads to Highway 62 west of Ridgway.
The Board of County Commis-sioners on Monday approved the final version of a Tiger Grant application, made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, following its review during a special meeting on Sept. 8. The grant application was due Sept. 15.
The proposed 15-mile project would upgrade County Roads 1 from Colona over Log Hill Mesa and CR24 and CR 24-D through the east end of Pleasant Valley. County commissioners conceded after last week’s review that the project could make the route a bypass of Ridgway by funneling traffic off Highways 550 and 62.
“This will be a more efficient bypass road," said Commissioner Keith Meinert last week. But, Meinert noted, issues of speed limits, signage, weight limits and traffic enforcement need to be addressed. “I may lean toward favoring it when these questions are answered. People will need to know what the implications are.”
BOCC Chairman Heidi Albritton said last week that the BOCC will fully field public comment to see if county residents “have the political will” for the project, should funding be obtained.
On Monday, Albritton complimented county staff, in particular Administrator Connie Hunt, for putting the grant application together so quickly and so professionally. Albritton said she knows the project may stir controversy.
“But I feel as elected officials it’s important for us to examine all options that will help the community,” said Albritton.
Meinert echoed Albritton’s comments. “I want to assure the public that it can air any concerns,” said Meinert. “We will hold a public forum … if we get this grant. We are not making a commitment today.”
The grant application cites a potential benefit of creating a more convenient and shorter route (by nearly four miles) than the 19-plus miles on the Highway 550 and Highway 62 corridor through Ouray County.
Other benefits include improving safety for school buses and emergency response vehicles, winter travel and by reducing the number of vehicles that use Highway 62 through Ridgway for commuter or delivery travel between Montrose and Telluride; reducing dependence on oil and gas by providing an alternate route that is about 20% shorter; and enhancing air quality by reducing vehicle emissions and particulate matter from (gravel road) dust and the road-surface placement of sand during winter.
“It was a huge project pulling this together,” said Albritton. “It (the application packet) is really well thought out and pulls the picture together. We have a lot of good information to share at a public forum.”
A complete digital copy of the grant application is available at the Ouray County website: www.ouraycountyco.gov/
— By Patrick Davarn, news editor
Friday, September 18, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Ouray Water and Real Estate
Written by: Allan Best - Ouray County Watch
Posted by: Erin Eddy
www.ridgwayland.com
www.ourayland.com
With demographers forecasting 35 percent more people in Colorado by 2035 and climate scientists predicting 15 percent less water available in the Colorado River Basin by mid-century, something has to give.
More and more, public officials, business groups and environmental organizations have been talking about additional dams and reservoirs to augment those built in the mid-20th century.
“The water inheritance is running out,” said Josh Penry, the minority leader in the Colorado Senate, in a speech at the summer meeting of the Colorado Water Congress, a consortium of water providers. “Colorado needs to embark on a new round” of storage construction.
“We study too much. We analyze too much,” added Penry, who is from Grand Junction and a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor.
Representatives of environmental groups concede the need for additional storage but also call for restraint.
“There are projects that have significant adverse environmental impact that we could not support,” said Melinda Kassen, managing director of the Western Water Project for Trout Unlimited. “And there are projects that have substantially fewer environmental impacts that we can support,” she said, if mitigation measures are included.
Hovering over these conversations is the ghost of Wayne Aspinall. A onetime schoolteacher and lawyer from the fruit orchards of Palisade, Aspinall possessed neither good looks nor a good speaking voice. He did have a solid command of legislative techniques, however, and an ardent belief in the need to harness and regulate the rivers of the Rockies.
Serving in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1949 to 1973, Aspinall helped obtain authorization and federal funding for a series of major dams in the upper Colorado River Basin. Utah’s Lake Powell was the most massive, but a trio of reservoirs on the Gunnison River also resulted from his legislative perseverance. Today, they are collectively designed as the Aspinall Unit.
Growing populations
But if Westerners saw the yoking of rivers into submission as the major task of the mid-20th century, today a more nuanced challenge exists. The limits of abundance have become more apparent.
Most, if not all, of the best dam sites have been taken. Few reliable water supplies remain unclaimed, and those that are unclaimed, such as on the Yampa River of northwestern Colorado, are far from population centers.
Coloradans in the future, as is already the case, can be expected to congregate along the urbanized Front Range corridor. More than three-quarters of the state’s residents currently live in a narrow swath less than 200 miles long. The State Demography Office projects that the population, now at 5 million, by 2035 will nudge 7.8 million – an increase roughly the existing size of metropolitan Denver-Boulder.
Even more staggering population growth has been projected by 2035 for what is called the Colorado River system, an area that includes Denver, Salt Lake City and Los Angeles. The existing population of 24 to 30 million people will have grown by another 12 to 15 million. Imagine Las Vegas 11 times over.
In contrast to this uphill population climb, climate scientists see a downward slope for water. Temperature is the major driver.
Computerized simulations differ substantially as to whether precipitation will increase or decrease. Further, existing precipitation patterns could change, as increased planetary heat alters flow of the jet stream. In other words, changes in Vail and Telluride might not be uniform.
There’s more certainty about increased heat. Rising temperatures will produce shorter winters, more evaporation and transpiration, and a substantial reduction of total flows in the Colorado River. Scientists in the last two years have settled on a 15 percent reduction as a central figure.
“We are expecting a 39 percent increase in population and, if you want an average, a 15 percent reduction in supplies,” said Taylor Hawes, of The Nature Conservancy, describing the seven-state Colorado River Basin.
“By most standards, that’s a crisis.”
Managing uncertainty
Further confusing water planning is the prospect of drought. Colorado had several significant droughts in the 20th century, but all are overshadowed the mega-droughts of the distant past. Study of tree rings across the Southwest conducted by Connie Woodhouse of Arizona State University and other dendrochronologists shows clear evidence of extended drought periods, from roughly 1,000 years ago, that lasted up to three decades.
The parched summer of 2002, a time of roaring wildfires near Denver, Durango and Glenwood Springs, caught water managers by surprise. Levels in Lake Powell dropped precipitously in 2003, and by late 2004 had left bathtub rings two-thirds below the high-water mark. Many wondered if the reservoir might actually drop to a dead pool, unable to generate any electricity.
Along Colorado’s Front Range, the situation looked equally bleak. Had it not been for a miraculously wet and heavy snowstorm in March 2003, cities and farmers might have faced another withering summer, hot and dry.
Water managers broadly embrace the theory of human-caused global warming. Their meetings for the last several years have focused on the sharp warnings coming from climate scientists.
“The science is all basically painting in the same direction,” says Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District.
But if the all signs point toward hotter and drier, great uncertainty remains. Faced with that uncertain hydrological future, Marc Waage, manager of water resources planning for Denver Water, says he has been “scratching my head for the last two years” about how to create a long-range water plan.
Before, water planning was a lot easier. There was always population growth, of course, but planners assumed a worst-case scenario that resembled a previous drought. Colorado’s documented worst drought came in the mid-1950s – about the time that Wayne Aspinall was proposing to dam the Gunnison, San Juan, and Green rivers.
Now, water planners realize much more serious droughts are possible and that even the average amounts of water will be less. Runoff will occur weeks and perhaps months earlier, leading to much longer, hotter and drier summers. Combined with population growth, all this suggests that the existing water infrastructure may be inadequate.
The elephant of Colorado
Colorado’s big question mark remains the urban Front Range corridor, especially Denver’s southern suburbs that overwhelmingly rely upon underground water that has become steadily more difficult to extract.
Prairie Waters Project, a major new diversion project to be completed in 2011, will draw water from the South Platte near Brighton several dozen miles south for use in Aurora, located on the eastern flanks of Denver. Short as the pipeline is, this project is expected to cost nearly $700 million.
Far more ambitious projects have been conceived. The most spectacular, proposed by former Montrose farmer Aaron Million, would draw water from the Green River near Rock Springs, Wyo., piping it along Interstate 80 and then down to the Front Range.
More recently, a rival plan employing the same idea has begun to emerge from a consortium of water providers in Denver’s southern suburbs.
Another so-called big straw would draw water from the Yampa River west of Craig. That idea comes from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the agency responsible for the Colorado Big Thompson project. The project, which takes water from Grand Lake to Estes Park, was described by Telluride native and historian David Lavender as a “massive violation of geography.”
These big straws have mostly been painted as saviors of agriculture. The thinking is that without further Western Slope diversions, the cities will end up buying farms for water.
But does the water exist?
Whether Colorado actually has sufficient water under the treaty apportioning the Colorado River Compact is open for debate. Kuhn, for example, has long suggested that Colorado has no more than a few hundred-thousand acre-feet of unallocated water. A study to be completed later this year by the Colorado River Water Board will, it is hoped, answer with greater certainty just how close Colorado is to the last drop.
Another set of studies will attempt to push the science of climate change even more rigorously. Tapping the expertise of scientists assembled in the federal laboratories at Boulder, these studies, it is hoped, will provide a better idea of how much water may exist in a hotter and drier future.
The focus naturally is on the Western Slope, where three-quarters of Colorado’s water originates, mostly in the form of snow. The studies will also attempt to predict how much precipitation regimes will change between basins – the San Juan, for example, as distinct from the Eagle.
While this gets sorted out, parallel roundtable discussions have been occurring regarding the state’s major river basins. The intent of these roundtables is to reach some larger consensus about water allocations, perhaps similar to the compacts that govern the Colorado River now.
Friction
If the roundtables have improved dialogue, tempers have occasionally flared. Disagreement was evident in one exchange at last month’s meeting of the Colorado Water Congress. Pitkin County Commissioner Rachael Richards complained that Western Slope water had not been given its due in generating revenue in Colorado’s second largest economic, tourism and recreation.
She got pushback from Rodney Kuharich, director South Metro Water Supply Authority. Aspen, he observed, seemed to have done quite well despite the diversion of waters from the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries that began decades ago. Resorts on the Western Slope, he said, have benefited handsomely from customers drawn from along the Front Range.
As for additional storage, future reservoirs will likely be smaller but perhaps at higher-elevation locations, to minimize evaporation. But whereas the reservoirs of Aspinall’s day were all about commerce, today they will be judged against a greater matrix of considerations.
The Nature Conservancy’s Hawes said her group believes that decisions about storage should be guided by multiple uses, “so that the environmental is part of the planning and not an afterthought.”
Posted by: Erin Eddy
www.ridgwayland.com
www.ourayland.com
With demographers forecasting 35 percent more people in Colorado by 2035 and climate scientists predicting 15 percent less water available in the Colorado River Basin by mid-century, something has to give.
More and more, public officials, business groups and environmental organizations have been talking about additional dams and reservoirs to augment those built in the mid-20th century.
“The water inheritance is running out,” said Josh Penry, the minority leader in the Colorado Senate, in a speech at the summer meeting of the Colorado Water Congress, a consortium of water providers. “Colorado needs to embark on a new round” of storage construction.
“We study too much. We analyze too much,” added Penry, who is from Grand Junction and a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor.
Representatives of environmental groups concede the need for additional storage but also call for restraint.
“There are projects that have significant adverse environmental impact that we could not support,” said Melinda Kassen, managing director of the Western Water Project for Trout Unlimited. “And there are projects that have substantially fewer environmental impacts that we can support,” she said, if mitigation measures are included.
Hovering over these conversations is the ghost of Wayne Aspinall. A onetime schoolteacher and lawyer from the fruit orchards of Palisade, Aspinall possessed neither good looks nor a good speaking voice. He did have a solid command of legislative techniques, however, and an ardent belief in the need to harness and regulate the rivers of the Rockies.
Serving in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1949 to 1973, Aspinall helped obtain authorization and federal funding for a series of major dams in the upper Colorado River Basin. Utah’s Lake Powell was the most massive, but a trio of reservoirs on the Gunnison River also resulted from his legislative perseverance. Today, they are collectively designed as the Aspinall Unit.
Growing populations
But if Westerners saw the yoking of rivers into submission as the major task of the mid-20th century, today a more nuanced challenge exists. The limits of abundance have become more apparent.
Most, if not all, of the best dam sites have been taken. Few reliable water supplies remain unclaimed, and those that are unclaimed, such as on the Yampa River of northwestern Colorado, are far from population centers.
Coloradans in the future, as is already the case, can be expected to congregate along the urbanized Front Range corridor. More than three-quarters of the state’s residents currently live in a narrow swath less than 200 miles long. The State Demography Office projects that the population, now at 5 million, by 2035 will nudge 7.8 million – an increase roughly the existing size of metropolitan Denver-Boulder.
Even more staggering population growth has been projected by 2035 for what is called the Colorado River system, an area that includes Denver, Salt Lake City and Los Angeles. The existing population of 24 to 30 million people will have grown by another 12 to 15 million. Imagine Las Vegas 11 times over.
In contrast to this uphill population climb, climate scientists see a downward slope for water. Temperature is the major driver.
Computerized simulations differ substantially as to whether precipitation will increase or decrease. Further, existing precipitation patterns could change, as increased planetary heat alters flow of the jet stream. In other words, changes in Vail and Telluride might not be uniform.
There’s more certainty about increased heat. Rising temperatures will produce shorter winters, more evaporation and transpiration, and a substantial reduction of total flows in the Colorado River. Scientists in the last two years have settled on a 15 percent reduction as a central figure.
“We are expecting a 39 percent increase in population and, if you want an average, a 15 percent reduction in supplies,” said Taylor Hawes, of The Nature Conservancy, describing the seven-state Colorado River Basin.
“By most standards, that’s a crisis.”
Managing uncertainty
Further confusing water planning is the prospect of drought. Colorado had several significant droughts in the 20th century, but all are overshadowed the mega-droughts of the distant past. Study of tree rings across the Southwest conducted by Connie Woodhouse of Arizona State University and other dendrochronologists shows clear evidence of extended drought periods, from roughly 1,000 years ago, that lasted up to three decades.
The parched summer of 2002, a time of roaring wildfires near Denver, Durango and Glenwood Springs, caught water managers by surprise. Levels in Lake Powell dropped precipitously in 2003, and by late 2004 had left bathtub rings two-thirds below the high-water mark. Many wondered if the reservoir might actually drop to a dead pool, unable to generate any electricity.
Along Colorado’s Front Range, the situation looked equally bleak. Had it not been for a miraculously wet and heavy snowstorm in March 2003, cities and farmers might have faced another withering summer, hot and dry.
Water managers broadly embrace the theory of human-caused global warming. Their meetings for the last several years have focused on the sharp warnings coming from climate scientists.
“The science is all basically painting in the same direction,” says Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District.
But if the all signs point toward hotter and drier, great uncertainty remains. Faced with that uncertain hydrological future, Marc Waage, manager of water resources planning for Denver Water, says he has been “scratching my head for the last two years” about how to create a long-range water plan.
Before, water planning was a lot easier. There was always population growth, of course, but planners assumed a worst-case scenario that resembled a previous drought. Colorado’s documented worst drought came in the mid-1950s – about the time that Wayne Aspinall was proposing to dam the Gunnison, San Juan, and Green rivers.
Now, water planners realize much more serious droughts are possible and that even the average amounts of water will be less. Runoff will occur weeks and perhaps months earlier, leading to much longer, hotter and drier summers. Combined with population growth, all this suggests that the existing water infrastructure may be inadequate.
The elephant of Colorado
Colorado’s big question mark remains the urban Front Range corridor, especially Denver’s southern suburbs that overwhelmingly rely upon underground water that has become steadily more difficult to extract.
Prairie Waters Project, a major new diversion project to be completed in 2011, will draw water from the South Platte near Brighton several dozen miles south for use in Aurora, located on the eastern flanks of Denver. Short as the pipeline is, this project is expected to cost nearly $700 million.
Far more ambitious projects have been conceived. The most spectacular, proposed by former Montrose farmer Aaron Million, would draw water from the Green River near Rock Springs, Wyo., piping it along Interstate 80 and then down to the Front Range.
More recently, a rival plan employing the same idea has begun to emerge from a consortium of water providers in Denver’s southern suburbs.
Another so-called big straw would draw water from the Yampa River west of Craig. That idea comes from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the agency responsible for the Colorado Big Thompson project. The project, which takes water from Grand Lake to Estes Park, was described by Telluride native and historian David Lavender as a “massive violation of geography.”
These big straws have mostly been painted as saviors of agriculture. The thinking is that without further Western Slope diversions, the cities will end up buying farms for water.
But does the water exist?
Whether Colorado actually has sufficient water under the treaty apportioning the Colorado River Compact is open for debate. Kuhn, for example, has long suggested that Colorado has no more than a few hundred-thousand acre-feet of unallocated water. A study to be completed later this year by the Colorado River Water Board will, it is hoped, answer with greater certainty just how close Colorado is to the last drop.
Another set of studies will attempt to push the science of climate change even more rigorously. Tapping the expertise of scientists assembled in the federal laboratories at Boulder, these studies, it is hoped, will provide a better idea of how much water may exist in a hotter and drier future.
The focus naturally is on the Western Slope, where three-quarters of Colorado’s water originates, mostly in the form of snow. The studies will also attempt to predict how much precipitation regimes will change between basins – the San Juan, for example, as distinct from the Eagle.
While this gets sorted out, parallel roundtable discussions have been occurring regarding the state’s major river basins. The intent of these roundtables is to reach some larger consensus about water allocations, perhaps similar to the compacts that govern the Colorado River now.
Friction
If the roundtables have improved dialogue, tempers have occasionally flared. Disagreement was evident in one exchange at last month’s meeting of the Colorado Water Congress. Pitkin County Commissioner Rachael Richards complained that Western Slope water had not been given its due in generating revenue in Colorado’s second largest economic, tourism and recreation.
She got pushback from Rodney Kuharich, director South Metro Water Supply Authority. Aspen, he observed, seemed to have done quite well despite the diversion of waters from the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries that began decades ago. Resorts on the Western Slope, he said, have benefited handsomely from customers drawn from along the Front Range.
As for additional storage, future reservoirs will likely be smaller but perhaps at higher-elevation locations, to minimize evaporation. But whereas the reservoirs of Aspinall’s day were all about commerce, today they will be judged against a greater matrix of considerations.
The Nature Conservancy’s Hawes said her group believes that decisions about storage should be guided by multiple uses, “so that the environmental is part of the planning and not an afterthought.”
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Historic Ouray Real Estate
Written by the Ouray County Watch
Sep 03, 2009 | 90 views | 0 | 1 | |
The Tanner/Viets house, built in 1901 in the Dutch Colonial Revival style, was owned by Frank and Ida Tanner. Frank was Mayor of Ouray from 1905-1907 and was director of the Bank of Ouray. This and other historic buildings are featured in the Ouray County Historical Museum’s newest exhibit: “Ouray’s Historic Homes,” on display now through Nov. 21 during regular museum hours. (Photo by Doris Gregory)
slideshow OURAY – The Ouray County Historical Museum’s newest exhibit originated as one of the OCHS Evening of History programs put together by Ouray resident Carolyne Kelly earlier this summer. Kelly’s program, “Ouray’s Historic Homes” received such an enthusiastic response that museum curator, Don Paulson, decided to wrap up the summer season with a special exhibit based on her presentation.
The exhibit features 12 homes built between 1877 and 1902 that represent several architectural styles: Pioneer Log, Folk Victorian, Late Victorian, Victorian/Italianate, Victorian/Queen Anne, Edwardian or Dutch Colonial.
“No one architectural style exists in Ouray,” explained Kelly. “Most of the homes in the Ouray National Historic District were built between 1876 and 1915, during the heyday of mining. These buildings are heavily influenced by architecture of the Victorian era which generally overlapped with Queen Victoria’s reign from 1837–1901.”
According to Kelly, the 12 homes selected for the focus of the exhibit were chosen for specific reasons: Kelly wanted to display a representative sampling of architectural styles, and some of the houses’ owners had interesting backgrounds and interconnected family histories.
The quality of available old photographs and the consideration of available exhibit space also dictated her selection.
The “Ouray’s Historic Homes” exhibit is located on the second floor of the Ouray County Historical Museum, which is housed in a beautiful 122-year-old stone building at the top of 6th Avenue in Ouray. The exhibit will run through Nov. 21. Museum hours are Monday through Saturday, 10 a.m.- 4:30 p.m. and Sunday, noon-4:30 p.m. Call the museum at 325-4576 for more information, or go online to ouraycountyhistoricalsociety.org.
Sep 03, 2009 | 90 views | 0 | 1 | |
The Tanner/Viets house, built in 1901 in the Dutch Colonial Revival style, was owned by Frank and Ida Tanner. Frank was Mayor of Ouray from 1905-1907 and was director of the Bank of Ouray. This and other historic buildings are featured in the Ouray County Historical Museum’s newest exhibit: “Ouray’s Historic Homes,” on display now through Nov. 21 during regular museum hours. (Photo by Doris Gregory)
slideshow OURAY – The Ouray County Historical Museum’s newest exhibit originated as one of the OCHS Evening of History programs put together by Ouray resident Carolyne Kelly earlier this summer. Kelly’s program, “Ouray’s Historic Homes” received such an enthusiastic response that museum curator, Don Paulson, decided to wrap up the summer season with a special exhibit based on her presentation.
The exhibit features 12 homes built between 1877 and 1902 that represent several architectural styles: Pioneer Log, Folk Victorian, Late Victorian, Victorian/Italianate, Victorian/Queen Anne, Edwardian or Dutch Colonial.
“No one architectural style exists in Ouray,” explained Kelly. “Most of the homes in the Ouray National Historic District were built between 1876 and 1915, during the heyday of mining. These buildings are heavily influenced by architecture of the Victorian era which generally overlapped with Queen Victoria’s reign from 1837–1901.”
According to Kelly, the 12 homes selected for the focus of the exhibit were chosen for specific reasons: Kelly wanted to display a representative sampling of architectural styles, and some of the houses’ owners had interesting backgrounds and interconnected family histories.
The quality of available old photographs and the consideration of available exhibit space also dictated her selection.
The “Ouray’s Historic Homes” exhibit is located on the second floor of the Ouray County Historical Museum, which is housed in a beautiful 122-year-old stone building at the top of 6th Avenue in Ouray. The exhibit will run through Nov. 21. Museum hours are Monday through Saturday, 10 a.m.- 4:30 p.m. and Sunday, noon-4:30 p.m. Call the museum at 325-4576 for more information, or go online to ouraycountyhistoricalsociety.org.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
New Ouray Real Estate Development
RiverSage the ‘Proper’ Way to Develop Land
by Gus JarvisAug 20, 2009
Posted by: Erin Eddy
www.ridgwayland.com
LAY OF THE LAND – Lot 3 in the first phase of the RiverSage sits next to cottonwoods that line the Uncompahgre River. It also has magnificent views of the Sneffels and Cimarron mountain ranges. (Photos by Gus Jarvis)
slideshow
slideshow Phase One Lots Now Available
RIDGWAY – Six years since the inception of the RiverSage subdivision, two miles north of Ridgway near the banks of the Uncompahgre River, seven two-acre home sites are now available for purchase. The sites represent the first phase of the development and provide future residents clear views of the Sneffels and Cimarron mountain ranges as well as access to over 100 acres of surrounding open space and the adjacent 60-acre Dennis Weaver Memorial Park.
The project’s developer Rick Weaver, who has been busy overseeing road paving at the subdivision, said that the process to create and annex the subdivision with the Town of Ridgway was a lengthy, but ultimately is a “win-win” development for potential lot owners as well as the those who will enjoy the 60-acre park. The development also encompasses the philosophy of Weaver’s late father, actor and environmentalist Dennis Weaver.
“We really wanted to preserve the river corridor, wetlands and wildlife habitat,” Weaver said in an interview last week. “We tried to keep his vision in approaching this project. The only way we could do this is donate land and develop just enough lots to make it financially feasible. The town got a 60-acre park and we got the lots we needed. Everybody wins with this project.”
Lots in the first phase of the subdivision are priced to sell from $289,000. With its location on the outskirts of Ridgway and within one hour’s drive of Telluride, the subdivision is perfect for those who want to be surrounded by San Juan Mountain beauty but not too far from the conveniences of town.
“What is really great about it is you get a rural country, private feel but you are only four minutes from town,” Weaver said. “You are also only four minutes from town if you want to ride your bike on the path. People can even go down to the [Ridgway] State Park without even getting into a car.”
The entire RiverSage subdivision is broken up into three phases and will, when it is complete, have just 20 lots on 115 acres of land.
“There is a lot of open space out there and a lot of great mountain views with no homes in front of another,” Weaver said.
In keeping with his father’s vision, Weaver said the subdivision will be environmentally sensitive and wildlife friendly. Guidelines in place ensure that each home is not only elegantly designed but energy efficient and economical.
“One of the things that we are excited to do is have a green development,” he said. “We have instituted voluntary green building codes that are based loosely on codes that are in effect in Telluride and in Gunnison. Most of it involves good building practices. We felt it is a worthwhile thing to do and we are proud of the fact we have taken those voluntary steps. I think it is absolutely necessary to worry about conservation.”
RiverSage is ideal for those who regularly get outside for recreation and exercise. For mountain bikers, the Eagle Hill loop is adjacent to the development, and for the angler, the fly-fishing on the nearby Uncompahgre River is “great,” according to Weaver.
“We have had a lot of compliments on the [Dennis Weaver Memorial] Park and its trail system,” he said. “This project is all about preserving the river corridor and open space while having a limited density and limited visual impact project that includes green building. It is something that is conscious of our environmental needs as well as conservation needs and we think it is the proper way to develop a piece of land.”
by Gus JarvisAug 20, 2009
Posted by: Erin Eddy
www.ridgwayland.com
LAY OF THE LAND – Lot 3 in the first phase of the RiverSage sits next to cottonwoods that line the Uncompahgre River. It also has magnificent views of the Sneffels and Cimarron mountain ranges. (Photos by Gus Jarvis)
slideshow
slideshow Phase One Lots Now Available
RIDGWAY – Six years since the inception of the RiverSage subdivision, two miles north of Ridgway near the banks of the Uncompahgre River, seven two-acre home sites are now available for purchase. The sites represent the first phase of the development and provide future residents clear views of the Sneffels and Cimarron mountain ranges as well as access to over 100 acres of surrounding open space and the adjacent 60-acre Dennis Weaver Memorial Park.
The project’s developer Rick Weaver, who has been busy overseeing road paving at the subdivision, said that the process to create and annex the subdivision with the Town of Ridgway was a lengthy, but ultimately is a “win-win” development for potential lot owners as well as the those who will enjoy the 60-acre park. The development also encompasses the philosophy of Weaver’s late father, actor and environmentalist Dennis Weaver.
“We really wanted to preserve the river corridor, wetlands and wildlife habitat,” Weaver said in an interview last week. “We tried to keep his vision in approaching this project. The only way we could do this is donate land and develop just enough lots to make it financially feasible. The town got a 60-acre park and we got the lots we needed. Everybody wins with this project.”
Lots in the first phase of the subdivision are priced to sell from $289,000. With its location on the outskirts of Ridgway and within one hour’s drive of Telluride, the subdivision is perfect for those who want to be surrounded by San Juan Mountain beauty but not too far from the conveniences of town.
“What is really great about it is you get a rural country, private feel but you are only four minutes from town,” Weaver said. “You are also only four minutes from town if you want to ride your bike on the path. People can even go down to the [Ridgway] State Park without even getting into a car.”
The entire RiverSage subdivision is broken up into three phases and will, when it is complete, have just 20 lots on 115 acres of land.
“There is a lot of open space out there and a lot of great mountain views with no homes in front of another,” Weaver said.
In keeping with his father’s vision, Weaver said the subdivision will be environmentally sensitive and wildlife friendly. Guidelines in place ensure that each home is not only elegantly designed but energy efficient and economical.
“One of the things that we are excited to do is have a green development,” he said. “We have instituted voluntary green building codes that are based loosely on codes that are in effect in Telluride and in Gunnison. Most of it involves good building practices. We felt it is a worthwhile thing to do and we are proud of the fact we have taken those voluntary steps. I think it is absolutely necessary to worry about conservation.”
RiverSage is ideal for those who regularly get outside for recreation and exercise. For mountain bikers, the Eagle Hill loop is adjacent to the development, and for the angler, the fly-fishing on the nearby Uncompahgre River is “great,” according to Weaver.
“We have had a lot of compliments on the [Dennis Weaver Memorial] Park and its trail system,” he said. “This project is all about preserving the river corridor and open space while having a limited density and limited visual impact project that includes green building. It is something that is conscious of our environmental needs as well as conservation needs and we think it is the proper way to develop a piece of land.”
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Ouray Real Estate and Land Use Issues
Commissioners to Address Mining Claim Issues With Current Regulations
by Gus Jarvis Aug 13, 2009
Posted by Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com and www.ridgwayland.com
OURAY – Instead of drafting an entire new section to the county’s Land Use Code to regulate residential development on patented mining claims, the Ouray Board of County Commissioners on Monday generally agreed that they would schedule series of work sessions that would be dedicated to specific concerns surrounding residential development on mining claims in hopes of better enforcing or tweaking existing codes.
Monday’s discussion was the first opportunity for the commissioners to formally discuss what they had heard at a July 27 forum held to discuss possible new regulations on the development of mining claims, attended by close to 200 county residents. It was apparent at the meeting that the community is sharply divided over the need for regulating residential development on mining claims.
While County Commissioner Keith Meinert said he thought that he and his fellow commissioners had clearly defined their concerns and objectives when they first started the process of drafting new regulations, he agreed that the commissioners should specifically outline why they are concerned about residential development on mining claims.
“I think the objectives and concerns still exist,” Meinert said. “I want to continue to pursue this to achieve clear cut objectives and address clear cut concerns and maybe we need to spend some time enumerating exactly what those concerns and objectives are.”
Meinert continued by saying that there is a possibility of addressing those concerns with existing site development permit regulations and visual impact regulations.
“The possibility of achieving those objectives and concerns by better enforcement and better tweaking of existing regulations is something we need to explore rather than the new section of code, which we had thrown out as a discussion vehicle for the planning commission.”
The commissioners set up a list of “bite sized” concerns that need to be addressed in future work sessions. First, they agreed to work with County Assessor Susie Mayfield to address the value that mining claims are assessed. Currently mining claims are generally valued by the assessor at $1,000 per acre, rather than the value assigned to other categories of vacant land in the county. “One issue that, to me, stood out is this taxation issue,” Commissioner Heidi Albritton said. “The valuation of mining clams is a touchy topic and a bit of a Pandora’s box. We need to have a discussion on how to deal with that.” Albritton added that she understood that it would be an expensive and lengthy process to reassess each mining claim.
Commissioner Lynn Padgett suggested that the first step the county could take is a mass appraisal system of mining clams and that the county look to the U.S. Forest Service as a partner in coming up with a means to survey the mining claims so the county can have “an accurate picture of where the parcels are.”
Albritton cautioned her fellow commissioners that if the valuations of those properties were to be changed, the board would first need to be completely educated on how the change would affect property owners.
“We also need to be cognizant of the impact to those people who have owned those properties and don’t plan to build on them,” Albritton said. “I don’t think we have a choice in the matter but there are going to be ramifications and it will affect people in a significant way. It could be the difference of people hanging on to [a mining claim] or putting it on the market.”
The commissioners also said they still had not heard concerns from residents about the visual impacts of unregulated residential development on mining claims and agreed that the current visual impact regulations need to be addresses so they can be better enforced and possibly broadened to more areas. Meinert said their were “obvious shortcomings” with the visual impact code and that it is currently “unworkable and is unenforceable.
“It allows a kind of discretion by staff that puts staff in a difficult position,” Meinert said. “I think we need to put a lot more thought into the visual impact code.”
Albritton agreed by suggesting that the commissioners schedule “a decent amount of time to workshop our visual impact regulations. We all know there are issues with that section of code and then also have simultaneous discussions about expanding the visual impact corridors.”
Continuing on, the commissioners agreed that road grade issue needs to be addressed as well. Meinert suggested that there be, in the LUC, a variance process to allow for road grades above 12 percent.
“I think there needs to be a variance process and it needs to recognize that some need to be more than 12 percent,” Meinert said. “The other issue is the need for a permitting process before any blade is put to the earth. That would potentially address some of the issues in getting the right kind of engineering.”
He added that the “biggest stumbling block” to development in mining claims areas is they are up private roads.
“Our regulations were intended in keeping those primitive,” he said. “I am not trying to resolve the issue here but it is another area to be addressed.”
Along with that, Meinert said the commissioners need to look into whether or not the county will require owners who develop off primitive roads to sign a waiver that would take away the county’s liability in providing emergency services.
“Something that clearly forces them to recognize that what they are doing in that location may have consequences to them,” Meinert said. Padgett added that she is concerned with what responsibility the county has in taking care of wildfires around those mining claims.
The commissioners directed County Attorney Mary Deganhart to draft a resolution that would specifically outline what the commissioners intend to work on in upcoming work sessions. It was unclear at Monday’s meeting what role the Ouray County Planning Commission would play in each of the work sessions, but the commission would be invited to all of them.
by Gus Jarvis Aug 13, 2009
Posted by Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com and www.ridgwayland.com
OURAY – Instead of drafting an entire new section to the county’s Land Use Code to regulate residential development on patented mining claims, the Ouray Board of County Commissioners on Monday generally agreed that they would schedule series of work sessions that would be dedicated to specific concerns surrounding residential development on mining claims in hopes of better enforcing or tweaking existing codes.
Monday’s discussion was the first opportunity for the commissioners to formally discuss what they had heard at a July 27 forum held to discuss possible new regulations on the development of mining claims, attended by close to 200 county residents. It was apparent at the meeting that the community is sharply divided over the need for regulating residential development on mining claims.
While County Commissioner Keith Meinert said he thought that he and his fellow commissioners had clearly defined their concerns and objectives when they first started the process of drafting new regulations, he agreed that the commissioners should specifically outline why they are concerned about residential development on mining claims.
“I think the objectives and concerns still exist,” Meinert said. “I want to continue to pursue this to achieve clear cut objectives and address clear cut concerns and maybe we need to spend some time enumerating exactly what those concerns and objectives are.”
Meinert continued by saying that there is a possibility of addressing those concerns with existing site development permit regulations and visual impact regulations.
“The possibility of achieving those objectives and concerns by better enforcement and better tweaking of existing regulations is something we need to explore rather than the new section of code, which we had thrown out as a discussion vehicle for the planning commission.”
The commissioners set up a list of “bite sized” concerns that need to be addressed in future work sessions. First, they agreed to work with County Assessor Susie Mayfield to address the value that mining claims are assessed. Currently mining claims are generally valued by the assessor at $1,000 per acre, rather than the value assigned to other categories of vacant land in the county. “One issue that, to me, stood out is this taxation issue,” Commissioner Heidi Albritton said. “The valuation of mining clams is a touchy topic and a bit of a Pandora’s box. We need to have a discussion on how to deal with that.” Albritton added that she understood that it would be an expensive and lengthy process to reassess each mining claim.
Commissioner Lynn Padgett suggested that the first step the county could take is a mass appraisal system of mining clams and that the county look to the U.S. Forest Service as a partner in coming up with a means to survey the mining claims so the county can have “an accurate picture of where the parcels are.”
Albritton cautioned her fellow commissioners that if the valuations of those properties were to be changed, the board would first need to be completely educated on how the change would affect property owners.
“We also need to be cognizant of the impact to those people who have owned those properties and don’t plan to build on them,” Albritton said. “I don’t think we have a choice in the matter but there are going to be ramifications and it will affect people in a significant way. It could be the difference of people hanging on to [a mining claim] or putting it on the market.”
The commissioners also said they still had not heard concerns from residents about the visual impacts of unregulated residential development on mining claims and agreed that the current visual impact regulations need to be addresses so they can be better enforced and possibly broadened to more areas. Meinert said their were “obvious shortcomings” with the visual impact code and that it is currently “unworkable and is unenforceable.
“It allows a kind of discretion by staff that puts staff in a difficult position,” Meinert said. “I think we need to put a lot more thought into the visual impact code.”
Albritton agreed by suggesting that the commissioners schedule “a decent amount of time to workshop our visual impact regulations. We all know there are issues with that section of code and then also have simultaneous discussions about expanding the visual impact corridors.”
Continuing on, the commissioners agreed that road grade issue needs to be addressed as well. Meinert suggested that there be, in the LUC, a variance process to allow for road grades above 12 percent.
“I think there needs to be a variance process and it needs to recognize that some need to be more than 12 percent,” Meinert said. “The other issue is the need for a permitting process before any blade is put to the earth. That would potentially address some of the issues in getting the right kind of engineering.”
He added that the “biggest stumbling block” to development in mining claims areas is they are up private roads.
“Our regulations were intended in keeping those primitive,” he said. “I am not trying to resolve the issue here but it is another area to be addressed.”
Along with that, Meinert said the commissioners need to look into whether or not the county will require owners who develop off primitive roads to sign a waiver that would take away the county’s liability in providing emergency services.
“Something that clearly forces them to recognize that what they are doing in that location may have consequences to them,” Meinert said. Padgett added that she is concerned with what responsibility the county has in taking care of wildfires around those mining claims.
The commissioners directed County Attorney Mary Deganhart to draft a resolution that would specifically outline what the commissioners intend to work on in upcoming work sessions. It was unclear at Monday’s meeting what role the Ouray County Planning Commission would play in each of the work sessions, but the commission would be invited to all of them.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Ouray Real Estate Land Use Issues
Split continues on mine claims regs
Written by: Patrick Davarn 07.AUG.09
Posted by: Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com
Unscheduled discussion on the current hot-button topic of residential development on mining claims dominated an otherwise light agenda for the Board of County Commissioners.
Yet more discussion, albeit this time scheduled, takes place during a work session on Aug. 10 between the BOCC and the Ouray County Planning Commission (OCPC).
Last Monday, OCPC member Ken Lipton came before the BOCC during its informal Call to the Public to read a statement of timelines that included summaries of directives by the BOCC and meetings and work sessions since the process began in May 2008.
“The question as to whether or not a new section to the code should be written was already decided by the BOCC and earlier agreed to by the PC and this should not be negated by self-interested parties or ideology or fear of angering a portion of the community that holds unrealistic views on property rights or the county’s right to regulate land use,” said Lipton from a portion of his document.
According to a news report in the July 31 Plaindealer, nearly 200 citizens packed the county courthouse two days earlier to register their views on the issue of restrictions and regulations for residential development on mining claims. Opinions were as diverse as the backgrounds of those in attendance; some owned property in the area currently defined as the South Alpine Zone, some did not.
Commissioner Keith Meinert said at Monday’s meeting that a news report in last week’s Plaindealer needed clarification. County Attorney Mary Deganhart did not write or propose regulations for that zone. “We need to be careful in the way this is portrayed to the public,” said Meinert. “I want to dispel completely (any belief) that such work is driven by any individual on the staff. The county attorney is working at the instruction of the board.”
Meinert said he agreed with Lipton that there needs to be a better understanding between the BOCC and the Planning Commission.
BOCC Chairman Heidi Albritton said the county’s six-month moratorium on mining claims development was intended to allow time for discussion and consideration of specific regulations; but the timetable was not realistic. “We have a large demographic interested in the issue,” said Albritton. “If there are ways to work with them, we need to do that and get a consensus, understanding that we are not going to please everyone.”
Ridgway area resident Craig Fetterolf, who served on the county’s Study Group that earlier this year completed its report on two separate analysis on the affects of growth, asked why mining claims are not taxed the same as other buildable residential properties. “It’s unfair to the rest of us who are paying our taxes,” he said.
Meinert said mining claims are being assessed at the proper rate of 29%; there is no special treatment by the Assessor’s Office. Commissioner Lynn Padgett explained that the difference is the land’s valuation. Padgett said the state requires the county to assess all property at market value, but there is simply not enough data on local sales.
Padgett added that while a higher assessment of market value may add to property tax revenues, it may also harm opportunities for the public, such as the Red Mountain Project or the Trust for Public Land, to obtain mining claims. A higher valuation will mean a higher price.
Written by: Patrick Davarn 07.AUG.09
Posted by: Erin Eddy - www.ourayland.com
Unscheduled discussion on the current hot-button topic of residential development on mining claims dominated an otherwise light agenda for the Board of County Commissioners.
Yet more discussion, albeit this time scheduled, takes place during a work session on Aug. 10 between the BOCC and the Ouray County Planning Commission (OCPC).
Last Monday, OCPC member Ken Lipton came before the BOCC during its informal Call to the Public to read a statement of timelines that included summaries of directives by the BOCC and meetings and work sessions since the process began in May 2008.
“The question as to whether or not a new section to the code should be written was already decided by the BOCC and earlier agreed to by the PC and this should not be negated by self-interested parties or ideology or fear of angering a portion of the community that holds unrealistic views on property rights or the county’s right to regulate land use,” said Lipton from a portion of his document.
According to a news report in the July 31 Plaindealer, nearly 200 citizens packed the county courthouse two days earlier to register their views on the issue of restrictions and regulations for residential development on mining claims. Opinions were as diverse as the backgrounds of those in attendance; some owned property in the area currently defined as the South Alpine Zone, some did not.
Commissioner Keith Meinert said at Monday’s meeting that a news report in last week’s Plaindealer needed clarification. County Attorney Mary Deganhart did not write or propose regulations for that zone. “We need to be careful in the way this is portrayed to the public,” said Meinert. “I want to dispel completely (any belief) that such work is driven by any individual on the staff. The county attorney is working at the instruction of the board.”
Meinert said he agreed with Lipton that there needs to be a better understanding between the BOCC and the Planning Commission.
BOCC Chairman Heidi Albritton said the county’s six-month moratorium on mining claims development was intended to allow time for discussion and consideration of specific regulations; but the timetable was not realistic. “We have a large demographic interested in the issue,” said Albritton. “If there are ways to work with them, we need to do that and get a consensus, understanding that we are not going to please everyone.”
Ridgway area resident Craig Fetterolf, who served on the county’s Study Group that earlier this year completed its report on two separate analysis on the affects of growth, asked why mining claims are not taxed the same as other buildable residential properties. “It’s unfair to the rest of us who are paying our taxes,” he said.
Meinert said mining claims are being assessed at the proper rate of 29%; there is no special treatment by the Assessor’s Office. Commissioner Lynn Padgett explained that the difference is the land’s valuation. Padgett said the state requires the county to assess all property at market value, but there is simply not enough data on local sales.
Padgett added that while a higher assessment of market value may add to property tax revenues, it may also harm opportunities for the public, such as the Red Mountain Project or the Trust for Public Land, to obtain mining claims. A higher valuation will mean a higher price.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Ouray Land Use
Four groups have stake in high-country issues
Posted by Erin Eddy: www.ourayland.com
Having attended the BOCC meeting regarding the Alpine Zone Regulations a number of thoughts come to mind. First and most obviously, the Ouray BOCC is conscientiously performing its duty to the citizens of Ouray County by gathering public thoughts on a difficult and sensitive issue. The issue being one of private property rights versus maintenance of the status quo in regards to potential Alpine Zone development via the mechanics of the “1872 Mining Law.”
First, it must be said that an increase in the potentiality of the regulatory process is a direct result to an increase in population pressure. No matter what the inherent political persuasion of the individuals involved, these conflicts will occur as finite resources, whatever their stripe or color, become contested. The finite resource here is the wildness and beauty of nature.
If this issue were the relatively simple issue of mining and environmental concerns it would be easy for me to come to a conclusion. I agree whole heartedly with underground, hard-rock mining in Ouray County. The environmental concerns due to mining would be dealt with in a responsible 21st-century manner to protect the quality of our exceptional environment and we would start drilling and shooting, period. End of story. As I said at the meeting, I hard-rocked from ’71 to ’79. I’m pro-mining. In my world, mineral and metals are as necessary as sunshine and clean air.
If one’s head is out of the sand today, all it should take is a cursory look at the nation and the world at large to realize that Ouray County would do well to get back into the business of hard-rock mining. That being said, do not misconstrue my words as license to trash our environment. (Also, period. End of story.)
However, the meeting on Monday evening was not of a topic so easily dealt with, so easily worked through. While the topic at hand is a direct corollary of the “1872 Mining Law” it is more complex with several permutations. Listening to the 50 or so speakers, I identified four separate groups utilizing four distinct platforms for projecting their points of view. They are:
1. Environmentalists: Their desire is to maintain the status quo without disruption of the back-country reality such as it exists today.
2. “Old-Time” Ouray County patented mine owners: They are staunch on their use by right of private property as stipulated by the “1872 Mining Law.”
3. Patented claim owners from out of the area: Their interest lies in building their “dream second home” in the mountains. This could be a small, secluded low-impact cabin or a neon-pink trophy home perched out on a cliff for the whole world to see.
4. Land Speculators: The claims are strictly and specifically to be used as ‘spec’ real estate investments to the highest bidders regardless of the impact on the local community or environment. Do not be surprised to see leveraged land trades in this group. Threats to build mega-mansions “or else” will show up in this group. This is the trophy home contingent.
So what do we do? Protection of private property rights is essential to the American way of life. Protecting the magic of the environmental aesthetics for the alpine terrain of Ouray County is also essential to the citizens of Ouray County. It is also essential to those that come to Ouray County to visit here, to look at, and to travel in our mountains.
• Private property rights
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are the words of Thomas Jefferson from our Declaration of Independence. It could be said that Jefferson “borrowed” or was inspired by similar words from John Locke: “Life, liberty or possessions.” (Chapter 11, “The Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government” from “The Extent of the Legislative Power,” 1690.)
It is thought that Jefferson originally penned “Life, liberty and property.” The right and concept of property as a “natural right” of “natural law” was so strong, so fundamental with the founders. However, “property” was changed to “pursuit of happiness” because the founders believed that slaves would be considered as “property” and so the founders purposefully changed “property” to “pursuit of happiness.” The cessation of the abomination of slavery by the founders was an ultimate goal and this explains the substitution of word usage found in the Declaration of Independence.
“First a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property.” (“Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men” in “The Report of the Committees of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting,“ November 22, 1772, Sam Adams and Ben Franklin.)
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
As we see from all of this, “private property” is a very big and serious issue in America. It goes deep into English and Celtic origins. Patented mining claims are private property not to be trifled with lightly.
• The Environmental Aesthetic
To conserve, to preserve, the natural beauty and wildness of Ouray County is a worthy goal. This is a respectful endeavor. The protection of the environment is a sacred duty, as is the protection of private property. I believe those duties are divinely inspired. The perpetuity of the appreciated environment is a belief already well established in Ouray County. It is decades and decades old. When the Europeans first arrived in what is now Ouray County, they “took” it away from those who were before. The land was “taken” at this time in an excellent condition. There has always been someone before; there will always be someone after. We haven’t had a monopoly on ownership of these mountains nor stewardship of them. I would venture that we hold these mountains in a trust for the future.
Once again, the questions come back to us, “What do we do? How do we continue to protect as well as to use the “Alpine Zone?” I have friends that own mining claims. I know that their intent is to respect that land, those mountains. They will build small, low-impact cabins on their patented claims. Some already have. Zoning regulations – legal, also – are an attempt to insure the expression of the will of the people in the use and protection of the land.
Regulations? More regulations? I agree with many at the meeting: we do have way too many! Those that know me know what I think about the barrage of regulations today. Large and potential future growth was alluded to by several people at the BOCC meeting. This is an absolute reality in Ouray County’s future. I do believe that it is with the utmost concern, wisdom and sincerity that all three of the County Commissioners are approaching this situation in the Alpine Zone.
As I said to the commissioners at the end of my two-minute comment period on Monday evening, “Do your job.” This was not said as a command. It was said as a re-enforcement to pursue the sacred duties, the sacred honor that the oath of your office requires and demands of you.
Joe Ryan owns and operates the San Juan Hut Systems out of Ridgway.
Posted by Erin Eddy: www.ourayland.com
Having attended the BOCC meeting regarding the Alpine Zone Regulations a number of thoughts come to mind. First and most obviously, the Ouray BOCC is conscientiously performing its duty to the citizens of Ouray County by gathering public thoughts on a difficult and sensitive issue. The issue being one of private property rights versus maintenance of the status quo in regards to potential Alpine Zone development via the mechanics of the “1872 Mining Law.”
First, it must be said that an increase in the potentiality of the regulatory process is a direct result to an increase in population pressure. No matter what the inherent political persuasion of the individuals involved, these conflicts will occur as finite resources, whatever their stripe or color, become contested. The finite resource here is the wildness and beauty of nature.
If this issue were the relatively simple issue of mining and environmental concerns it would be easy for me to come to a conclusion. I agree whole heartedly with underground, hard-rock mining in Ouray County. The environmental concerns due to mining would be dealt with in a responsible 21st-century manner to protect the quality of our exceptional environment and we would start drilling and shooting, period. End of story. As I said at the meeting, I hard-rocked from ’71 to ’79. I’m pro-mining. In my world, mineral and metals are as necessary as sunshine and clean air.
If one’s head is out of the sand today, all it should take is a cursory look at the nation and the world at large to realize that Ouray County would do well to get back into the business of hard-rock mining. That being said, do not misconstrue my words as license to trash our environment. (Also, period. End of story.)
However, the meeting on Monday evening was not of a topic so easily dealt with, so easily worked through. While the topic at hand is a direct corollary of the “1872 Mining Law” it is more complex with several permutations. Listening to the 50 or so speakers, I identified four separate groups utilizing four distinct platforms for projecting their points of view. They are:
1. Environmentalists: Their desire is to maintain the status quo without disruption of the back-country reality such as it exists today.
2. “Old-Time” Ouray County patented mine owners: They are staunch on their use by right of private property as stipulated by the “1872 Mining Law.”
3. Patented claim owners from out of the area: Their interest lies in building their “dream second home” in the mountains. This could be a small, secluded low-impact cabin or a neon-pink trophy home perched out on a cliff for the whole world to see.
4. Land Speculators: The claims are strictly and specifically to be used as ‘spec’ real estate investments to the highest bidders regardless of the impact on the local community or environment. Do not be surprised to see leveraged land trades in this group. Threats to build mega-mansions “or else” will show up in this group. This is the trophy home contingent.
So what do we do? Protection of private property rights is essential to the American way of life. Protecting the magic of the environmental aesthetics for the alpine terrain of Ouray County is also essential to the citizens of Ouray County. It is also essential to those that come to Ouray County to visit here, to look at, and to travel in our mountains.
• Private property rights
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are the words of Thomas Jefferson from our Declaration of Independence. It could be said that Jefferson “borrowed” or was inspired by similar words from John Locke: “Life, liberty or possessions.” (Chapter 11, “The Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government” from “The Extent of the Legislative Power,” 1690.)
It is thought that Jefferson originally penned “Life, liberty and property.” The right and concept of property as a “natural right” of “natural law” was so strong, so fundamental with the founders. However, “property” was changed to “pursuit of happiness” because the founders believed that slaves would be considered as “property” and so the founders purposefully changed “property” to “pursuit of happiness.” The cessation of the abomination of slavery by the founders was an ultimate goal and this explains the substitution of word usage found in the Declaration of Independence.
“First a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property.” (“Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men” in “The Report of the Committees of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting,“ November 22, 1772, Sam Adams and Ben Franklin.)
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
As we see from all of this, “private property” is a very big and serious issue in America. It goes deep into English and Celtic origins. Patented mining claims are private property not to be trifled with lightly.
• The Environmental Aesthetic
To conserve, to preserve, the natural beauty and wildness of Ouray County is a worthy goal. This is a respectful endeavor. The protection of the environment is a sacred duty, as is the protection of private property. I believe those duties are divinely inspired. The perpetuity of the appreciated environment is a belief already well established in Ouray County. It is decades and decades old. When the Europeans first arrived in what is now Ouray County, they “took” it away from those who were before. The land was “taken” at this time in an excellent condition. There has always been someone before; there will always be someone after. We haven’t had a monopoly on ownership of these mountains nor stewardship of them. I would venture that we hold these mountains in a trust for the future.
Once again, the questions come back to us, “What do we do? How do we continue to protect as well as to use the “Alpine Zone?” I have friends that own mining claims. I know that their intent is to respect that land, those mountains. They will build small, low-impact cabins on their patented claims. Some already have. Zoning regulations – legal, also – are an attempt to insure the expression of the will of the people in the use and protection of the land.
Regulations? More regulations? I agree with many at the meeting: we do have way too many! Those that know me know what I think about the barrage of regulations today. Large and potential future growth was alluded to by several people at the BOCC meeting. This is an absolute reality in Ouray County’s future. I do believe that it is with the utmost concern, wisdom and sincerity that all three of the County Commissioners are approaching this situation in the Alpine Zone.
As I said to the commissioners at the end of my two-minute comment period on Monday evening, “Do your job.” This was not said as a command. It was said as a re-enforcement to pursue the sacred duties, the sacred honor that the oath of your office requires and demands of you.
Joe Ryan owns and operates the San Juan Hut Systems out of Ridgway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
