REV89452 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

near the county's for non compliance. Most fruit growers have watched Mesa County Commissioners purposefully destroy Orchard Mesa's fruit7and through subdividing, granting of conditional use permits, laxity in tax collecting practices, total disregard for enforcement of their rules, and most seriously attempting to, by resolution, change federal law. The most recent subdivision was granted to the owner of land recently producing apples. This ]and is one property east of Mr. Crist's home. Title 34-32-115(4) of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act reads: The board or the division shall not deny a permit, except for one or more of the following reasons: ...."(c) Any part of the proposed mining operation, the reclamation Aroaram, or the proposed future use is contrary to the laws or regulations of this state or the United States." Colorado Statute 35-102-(3) states "Any ordinance or resolution of local government that makes the operation of an agricultural operation a nuisance or provides for the abatement thereof as a nuisance under circumstances set forth in this section is void:" February 18, 1922, The Unit~o plates of America (Secretary), according to the act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat.,388), referred to as the "Reclamation Law", the Grand Valley Water Uses Association (Association) and the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District (District) entered an agreement wherein the Secretary would transport shares of irrigation water, owned by the District, from the Colorado River, at the Cameo diversion, through government owned canals to serve Orchard Mesa agricultural lands. This contract is in force today, with the latest amendment (Contract No. 92 07 40 R1400) entered March 5, 1992. Through the years, this agreement has been amended to include a contract with Public Service Company (PSCO) of Colorado for generating power. Subject 30, Distribution of water by District., of this agreement, in part states: "'The District agrees in the distribution of water delivered to it through the canal of the United States to comply with all laws and regulations of the United States applicable thereto..." If Orchard Mesa Irrigation District agrees to deliver District irrigation water, or any Colorado River water owned by Parkerson Construction, for reclamation of any kind, including growing crops on the excavated pit floors, contract terms will be violated, On two occasions Mesa County Planning has been apprised the District's water or it's facilities are not available for reclamation. The Commissioners were advised of this at their most recent public hearing on the matter. Both pits are ]ocated on Orchard Mesa where all farmlands within district boundries are irrigated with water delivered according to this agreement. It divides these farmlands into five agricultural categories and two non agricultural categories, with commercial activities being the lowest. When water is short (Which is every year because of insufficient canal capacity.) headgates are locked down according to these priorities, with commercial being r"first locked down and fruit lands being last. Any variation from this proirty suggests pandering. When Parkerson Construction started excavation of the 31 7/2 Road gravel ;, it, which is located within the District, he relinquished his agricultural priority in favor of a commercial priority. Changing the pit usage back to