Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />1 organizations is despite these forces, we need to protect this land base in order to protect <br />2 the food supply, Lots of arguments on how to be~t do that. I will discuss some of our <br />3 study findings. Population growth changes from 1990-1997, The areas losing <br />4 population and the areas gaining. The interior w~st is growing. There is a lot of rural <br />5 sprawl. We want to identify prime farmland in Colorado, We are looking at alternative <br />6 patterns for Future Growth in the Tri-River Area (Delta, Mesa & Montrose Counties). <br />7 We want to assess different land use policies and how they impact these counties. <br />8 Property tax revenue on Ag land is more than the services demanded, General rule: for <br />9 every $1.00 ofrevenue generated from a residential area, there is a $1.15 in service <br />10 requirements, $1.00 of revenue from ag lands only requires ,37 in services. We have <br />11 developed different urban growth models (1) business as usual for 25 years, (2) Rural <br />12 clustering, Land protection model restricting de"elopment on Ag lands, Urban growth <br />13 area model looks at usual urban infill with basically no growth boundaries, Modeling <br />14 shows that with different management tools you can tell predict how areas will look. Less <br />15 land consumed using rural clustering and urban growth and land protection. All models <br />16 show fiscal savings over 25 years, A full report will be released next week. My <br />17 organization is about work in 3 main program areas, outreach and education, land <br />18 protection policies, and working with landowners to actually protect land, Land and <br />19 water protection are two arrows in the quiver to fIght growth and Ag land loss, Land and <br />20 water law are incredibly complex, but they have to come together, The population in <br />21 Colorado is begiuning to make the connection with Ag lands and the public values that <br />22 are connected with Ag land, This connection makes things like GOCO and other <br />23 environmental legislation possible. But, there's hot enough money out there to buy what <br />24 is needed through conservation easements, Creative solutions are out there, Questions? <br />25 <br />26 Dave Smith - I believe that HB 35 is the most dpstructive piece oflegislation existing, <br />27 its created weed patches where there's no viable'Ag or anything, other than I horse and 1 <br />28 cow, and yet they claim Ag status, Creation of 55-acre parcels bothers me. As you point <br />29 out, the clustered development on large areas would be much better <br />30 <br />31 Ben Way - Clustering is one tool, but maybe its not the best tool. Unconnected <br />32 residential areas make it difficult to farm in between, but it's better than 35-acre parcels, <br />33 <br />34 Eric Wilkinson - It preserves the aesthetics of open space, but is it viable for agriculture, <br />35 Farm equipment in the road, aerial applications,jbailing at night, communities don't like <br />36 these activities, . <br />37 <br />38 When Ag land is broken into 35-acre parcels, it won't show up in some of the accounting <br />39 methods. Since the use is the same. It is hard to really determine real land use, <br />40 <br />41 Is it correct, when you do a conservation easem"nt, the water doesn't say with the land? <br />42 <br />43 Ben Way - Right, a lot of easements have not tllken into account water rights. There is <br />44 still some legal debate on whether you can take a water right and permanently attach it to <br />45 land, and stop change in use, Trying to establish a permanent attachment of a water right <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />