Laserfiche WebLink
'L- <br />~ • ~ <br />These definitions are extremely broad, and would certainly include ranchette- <br />type farming activities. (However, I doubt that this type of activity was <br />contemplated when the regulations were ~~~ritten.) As they now stand, I believe <br />that the regulations require that the agricultural significance of these <br />ranchette type farms must be based upon the ranchette owner's agricultural <br />practices and not in terms of both the agricultural and non-agricultural activities <br />of the ranchette owner. Dan Mathews has outlined the type of agricultural <br />information that should be provided. In addition, the applicant should clearly <br />identify those portions of farms that could be affected by the mining operation. <br />The Division should consider whether ranchette-type farming is a sufficiently <br />significant agricultural activity that mining be denied in some cases, If not, <br />I would suggest that as a matter of policy or through a regulation change, the <br />Division state that rahchette-type farming is not considered a significant <br />agricultural activity and for the purposes of AVF determinations will be treated <br />in the same manner as undeveloped range land. We would then need to set up a set <br />of criteria to identify ranchette-type farming. <br />B. Importation of Irrigation Water <br />The transbasin diversion of water for flood irrigation is a common practice in <br />Colorado. Western Associated Coal has asked how the transbasin diversion of <br />water would be taken into account in the identification of alluvial valley <br />floors. The Regulations (Rule 2.06.8(3)(c)) require [hat the Division determine <br />that an alluvial valley floor exists if the unconsolidated streamlaid deposits <br />are currently flood irrigated. The regulations offer no guidance on how trans- <br />basin diversions should be taken into account. <br />Page two of the March 24, 1982 letter from Western Associated Coal includes an <br />excerpt from a discussion on U.S. Senate Floor concerning the identification <br />of alluvial valley floors. This excerpt indicates that when considering water <br />availability the Division should consider only the streams and aquifers within <br />the alluvial valley in question. Although this position makes sense when <br />considering the capability for flood irrigation (If you consider transbasin, <br />almost any area is flood irrigable), it would eliminate some areas of existing <br />flood irrigation from the alluvial valley flood protections of the Act. Such <br />areas should be protected. Someone has gone to the expense of constructing a <br />transbasin diversion, which seems to indicate the value of the land to agriculture. <br />If the Division decides that transbasin diversions do not indicate water <br />availability sufficient to support agricultural activities, the applicant should <br />still provide information to assess the capability for flood irrigation of the <br />alluvial deposits using waters produced within the basin under consideration. <br />If a negative AVF determination is made (i.e., the area is not an AVF), the <br />existing agriculture would fall under the protection of other sections of the <br />regulations, renewable .resource land, water rights, and possibly, prime farm, <br />land. <br />I have made a few additional comments on Dan Mathews' draft response to the <br />Western Associated Goal letter. <br />JZ:ys <br />cc: Dave Shelton <br />