SAGUACHE COUNTY — Although the Saguache County Planning Commission (SCPC) and the Saguache Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) claim they have no obligation to block the approval of marijuana grows if adjacent property owners complain, county documents indicate otherwise.

In June 2010, following a contentious debate process conducted by the SCPC, the BoCC approved the state-required master plan which the SCPC had developed and submitted to the board. At that time there were objections to the county’s failure to include a comprehensive plan protecting individual property rights. The SCPC countered these objections by including references in the plan to the future creation of a “Landowner’s Bill of Rights.” But in the past nearly eight years, no such bill of rights has ever been formulated.

It will be useful here to quote from the master plan and refresh the memories of Saguache County residents regarding its contents. Pertinent passages will be italicized and a summary will follow.

Introduction

“The Saguache County Master Plan guides the conservation and development of the unincorporated portions of Saguache County. Its purpose is to guide Planning Commission decisions, the adoption of land use regulations, and aid community development in ways that reflect and perpetuate its citizens’ core values.

“The plan update (from 1974) has been underway for several years. Residents from all walks of life and many different parts of the county have contributed to its formation. There have been numerous rounds of community inputs including a survey, facilitated forums in all areas of the county, write-in comments and a public hearing.

“Therefore, land use policies and regulations should be developed only to the extent necessary to prevent harm or interference with the rights and freedoms of residents of Saguache County. Individual liberty and private property rights shall be of great concern when considering land use regulations. 


“Residents and stakeholders in Saguache County…value their high quality of life filled with peace, quiet, and solitude; clear, dark, starry night skies; the spectacular views created by wide open spaces surrounded by beautiful mountains; and the high quality of the natural resources and unpolluted environment of the region. [They]want to maintain the fresh air, clean water, and abundance of wildlife present today into the future… Priority is placed on protecting the mountains, foothills, environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and riparian areas, wildlife habitats and corridors, and agricultural lands, especially those irrigated with water rights.

Relevant points in the plan

“Planning and land use regulation is a democratic process. Therefore, land use decisions and policy making should be carried out in a transparent manner and with great integrity. Citizen input should be actively sought in reviewing or adopting plans, policies, and regulations. Saguache County landowners have expressed interest in a “Landowners Bill of Rights,” which would be very proactive and should be explored. Recognition, acknowledgement and protection of private property at the county level will go a long way in the citizens accepting regulations that protect other cherished core values.

Economic growth was the concern Saguache County residents expressed the most during the master plan process. They voiced a clear need for the county to encourage activities that can ensure economic stability for residents while remaining consistent with core community values. Some goals and ideas include:

• Provide for individualism and fairness for property owners and businesses, while protecting public health, safety, and welfare.
• G1-3: Consider offering incentives to businesses looking to locate in Saguache County that are consistent with the County’s economic development. 

• G1-5: Pursue the creation of a “Landowners Bill of Rights.”
• G2-5: Accommodate compatible growth while preserving agricultural and rangeland, open space and wildlife habitat and personal property rights.
• G2-9: Encourage commercial development in identified areas in order to increase revenue.

“This plan has been created with the general purpose of “guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the county which, in accordance with present and future needs and resources, will best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the county, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development, including such distribution of population and of the uses of land for urbanization, trade, industry, habitation, recreation, agriculture, forestry and other purposes as will tend to create conditions favorable to the county and its inhabitants” (CRS 20-28-107).” (End of master plan quotes)

Summary

From the beginning, the master plan was presented as a legitimate representation of the views of the entire county. The plan repeatedly stresses the importance of citizen input in the SCPC’s formation of plans, policies and regulations. The importance of property rights and their protection is stressed throughout the document, and a bill of landowner’s rights is proposed as a future project to be explored by the commission.  

The core beliefs, found under the subhead “Introduction” above, also are referred to repeatedly as a major consideration in this document. The protection of public health, safety and welfare are described as part of the plan’s purpose and the county states this is in agreement with the state statute cited above. However, both the SCPC and the BoCC and administrators have deviated from this document in dealing with marijuana cultivation and sales applications, as previous reports show. Especially at SCPC meetings but also at BoCC regular meetings and work sessions, they have forbidden or limited public comment and input and have routinely dismissed the importance of property rights.

The SCPC also has forgotten the “core values and beliefs” of citizens which was surely more representative of the entire county per that topic than the 2012 vote on Amendment 64 held only two years later. The BoCC has minimized the importance of public health and safety by refusing to consider the necessity of an adequately funded and staffed sheriff’s office equipped to deal with the issues surrounding both legal and illegal grows. Furthermore, the pledge in the Master Plan to “preserve agricultural and rangeland” and only allow development in “identified areas in order to increase revenue,” violates their own stated principles in the Land Use Code.

“Agricultural users of the land are not expected to change their long-established agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusion of urban users into a rural area. Well-run agricultural activities will generate off-site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; dust from animal pens; field work; harvest and gravel roads; odor from animal confinement, silage and manure; smoke from ditch burning, flies and mosquitoes; the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying” (“Right to Farm and Ranch,” Article XIX of the current Saguache County Land Use Code).

The county is proceeding on the assumption that marijuana is an agricultural crop and that adjacent land owners must more or less “put up and shut up.” But this is not what the Colorado State Legislature has decided, although Saguache officials say state law does not bind them.

“Under the Colorado Farm Products Act (act), dealers of farm products are required to be licensed with the Colorado Department of Agriculture (department). Farm products are defined as unprocessed products of the soil, such as vegetables and fruit, livestock, milk, honey, and hay. The act requires that businesses purchasing and storing agricultural products be licensed and bonded by the Colorado Department of Agriculture. House Bill 17-1197 excludes marijuana from the definition of farm products in the act, thereby exempting marijuana businesses from these licensing and bonding requirements. The production and distribution of marijuana is regulated by other state laws” (Colorado Legislative Council Staff, 2017 summary of legislation, http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/agriculture.pdf).

So while farmers and ranchers are protected from having to answer to urban dwellers new to the county regarding their practices, marijuana producers do not fall into this same category. If those currently objecting to the practices of the SCPC and BoCC wish to resolve their property rights and other issues, based on all the above already proposed by the county, it would seem that the following steps are in order:

• Determine whether the BoCC and SCPC are required by law to follow state regulations in approving marijuana cultivation and sales or whether, as they claim, they may act outside these laws;
• Demand that the SCPC honors the master plan and land use code; and
• Insist that before the SCPC even begins to tackle the revision of the marijuana regulations, they first attend to their prior commitment of formulating a Landowners Bill of Rights, with full participation of Saguache County landowners.