{"id":25737,"date":"2024-09-12T16:27:50","date_gmt":"2024-09-12T22:27:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/what-programs-were-lost-and-how-do-weeds-impact-montezuma-county\/"},"modified":"2026-03-30T23:26:06","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T05:26:06","slug":"what-programs-were-lost-and-how-do-weeds-impact-montezuma-county","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/what-programs-were-lost-and-how-do-weeds-impact-montezuma-county\/","title":{"rendered":"What programs were lost, and how do weeds impact Montezuma County?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Maps
Maps showing the expansion of Russian olive and saltcedar populations over nearly a decade in the county. Unmanaged, these phreatophyte populations can grow 75% in five years. (Courtesy photo)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n

Editor\u2019s Note:<\/strong> This article is the second of three articles about Montezuma County\u2019s noxious weed program. Part 1 on Tuesday provided insight into why the weed program, considered a model for Southwest Colorado, was cut back. Part 3 on Thursday considers the problem of roadside weeds. All three parts are published in Wednesday\u2019s printed edition of The Journal. <\/em><\/p>\n

Part 2<\/div>\n

After Montezuma County\u2019s Noxious Weed Department lost its director at the end of last year and its advisory board earlier this year, all but one of the once flourishing programs were lost, too.<\/p>\n

The Board of County Commissioners absorbed the role of overseeing the program, which historically had been done by experts in the field.<\/p>\n

In their newfound role as noxious weed advisers, county commissioners cut programs and attributed the cuts to a tight budget, though the general fund grew by nearly $4 million in 2023.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe were finding that expenses were outpacing revenues,\u201d said Travis Anderson, the county administrator.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnfunded mandates from the state of Colorado are just tough to deal with, because where do we get the funds?\u201d said Commissioner Jim Candelaria.<\/p>\n

Between 2019 and 2022, the county\u2019s noxious weed department was awarded $352,000 in grants, which were mostly matched by funds from landowners.<\/p>\n

Grant money made projects like the Phreatophyte Project and Backpack Sprayer Loaner Program possible. Such funds paid for equipment and two additional full-time workers.<\/p>\n

Priorities are priorities, though, and there really is only so much money to go around.<\/p>\n

\u201cMuch like the counties, at the state level, there are so many priorities to focus on. To try to get legislators excited about noxious weeds is a bit of a challenge,\u201d Sen. Cleave Simpson said.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m hopeful through the Department of Agriculture there\u2019s a mechanism or a tool or an idea or something to ring more sense of urgency to how the state deals with noxious weeds.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the state level, the Noxious Weed Act says that counties must appoint a local advisory board, which Montezuma County no longer has.<\/p>\n

It also requires counties to manage List A and targeted List B species \u2026 and manage noxious weeds in public rights of way, said Olga Robak, the director of communications and public awareness at the Colorado Department of Agriculture in an email.<\/p>\n

There are more than 300 species of weeds on the State Noxious Weed List. They\u2019re divvied up into three lists: A, B and C. List A weeds must be eradicated, List B must be managed, and List C weeds fall under \u201crecommended management.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Before
Before and after photos of weed removal done by the county\u2019s noxious weed department. (Courtesy photo)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

Under state law, though the county is supposed to have an advisory board. \u201cThe local governing body shall have the sole and final authority to approve, modify, or reject the management plan.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI characterize it as an unfunded mandate from the state that said \u2018We don\u2019t have any funding to help you.\u2019 It makes it kind of hard to prioritize,\u201d Simpson said.<\/p>\n

Still, Montezuma County was able to create a program in years past that was exceptional enough to inspire other counties in their own weed management, said Eddy Lewis, an advisory board member for 26 years.<\/p>\n

\u201cA lot of it depends on county commissioners at the time. I\u2019ve seen this in La Plata County and other counties too,\u201d said Lewis. \u201cIf you lose their (commissioners) backing, the program is probably going to die.\u201d<\/p>\n

Oma Fleming, the manager of a mandatory weed control district in Dolores County, echoed Lewis\u2019 point when asked how high of a priority weed control ought to be for a county.<\/p>\n

\u201cI guess that depends on your commissioners,\u201d said Fleming. \u201cI have commissioners that are farmers, they know what the weeds do.\u201d<\/p>\n

Noxious weeds outcompete native species and create a monoculture. Lack of diversity directly impacts wildlife, and so on.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe reason they are noxious is because they are that aggressive. They can move in, take over your land. I wouldn\u2019t say ruin your land, but completely change its ability to produce, forage or anything beneficial,\u201d said Walt Henes, a former advisory board member and owner of Southwest Seed Inc.<\/p>\n

When looking at noxious weeds that infest profitable land in Montezuma County \u2013 nearly 50,000 of 1.24 million acres \u2013 that\u2019s used for things like growing wheat, corn, grass, hay, raising alfalfa, water, rangeland and forest, the county stands to suffer a $5.1 million loss.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt impacts everybody,\u201d said Miles. \u201cFrom the small acreage landowners to the large farmers and ranchers. It\u2019s not just, you know, the farming community it impacts. It impacts everybody.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cheatgrass, for example, \u201cis highly flammable, and as it has expanded, the extent and frequency of fire in the Great Basin has increased by as much as 200%,\u201d according to U.S. Geological Services<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Just last year, the county\u2019s weed program had a Backpack Sprayer Loaner Program. Residents could rent the equipment for $20 \u2013 completely covering the cost of the program \u2014 and do their own spraying.<\/p>\n

The weed department went over how to use the sprayers to ensure landowners with small patches of weeds were spraying the right herbicides on their property.<\/p>\n

That program was recently slashed.<\/p>\n

The noxious weed department oversaw a nonnative Phreatophyte Removal Project, which mitigated the cost of removing Russian olives and saltcedar trees for landowners.<\/p>\n

\"Noxious
Noxious weed and invasive plant cleanup and restoration along a fork of McElmo Creek. (Matthew Tangeman\/Special to the Journal)<\/span>Matthew Tangeman<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Noxious
Noxious weed and invasive plant cleanup and restoration along a fork of McElmo Creek. (Matthew Tangeman\/Special to the Journal)<\/span>Matthew Tangeman<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

A private contractor doing the same kind of excavation and treatment work charges roughly $1,750 per acre; the weed department did it at $805 per acre. Costs were projected to drop further once the department secured more equipment.<\/p>\n

Nonnative phreatophytes are List B species \u2013 which requires them to be managed \u2014 are especially worrisome because the water they consume and their impacts on agriculture. They also increase wildfire danger.<\/p>\n

A single saltcedar or Russian olive can consume nearly 200 gallons of water a day. Where Russian olives and saltcedars grow densely, they can consume almost 1.5 million gallons of water each year. Groups of saltcedars increase salinity in water and soil, creating agricultural problems, according to previous presentations from the weed department.<\/p>\n

\"Maps
Maps showing the expansion of Russian olive and saltcedar populations over nearly a decade in the county. Unmanaged, these phreatophyte populations can grow 75% in five years. (Courtesy photo)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

These phreatophytes promote mosquito breeding grounds, decrease bird diversity, change stream bank dynamics and harm native fish populations, the Colorado Department of Agriculture said in a letter supporting Montezuma County\u2019s Phreatophyte Project on Sept. 22, 2021.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe longer we wait to restore the land from these two species, the more difficult and expensive it will become,\u201d the state Department of Agriculture wrote.<\/p>\n

\"One
One of several letters of support for the county\u2019s past noxious weed department. This one is from the Colorado Department of Agriculture and quoted in the article.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

The roughly 7,800 acres of nonnative phreatophytes in Montezuma County take in an estimated 35,956 acre-feet of water every year, more than Narraguinnep Reservoir\u2019s capacity of 22,000 acre-feet.<\/p>\n

This project alone received $375,940 in grant funding from the Regional Conservation Partnership Program to target agriculture-designated properties since it started in 2019.<\/p>\n

With this money, the team removed 60,566 Russian olives and 63,671 saltcedars from 595 acres in Montezuma County. That removal saved an estimated 4,754 acre-feet of water, enough to fill 2,347 Olympic-size swimming pools.<\/p>\n

When left untreated, populations of Russian olives and saltcedars increase by 75% every five years. Montezuma County has 100,000 suitable acres for them to thrive in waterways, riparian areas and irrigated fields.<\/p>\n

The last phreatophyte removal project is finishing up deep in McElmo Canyon now, said James Dietrich, the new director of the noxious weed department.<\/p>\n

Once complete, that program will be slashed too.<\/p>\n

\"Maps
Maps of Russian olive and salt cedars, before and after removal, as part of the county\u2019s former Phreatophyte Project. (Courtesy photo)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

In addition to those programs, the weed department in years past prioritized enforcement.<\/p>\n

Though some counties have enforcement policies as part of their weed plan and others do not, counties are supposed to uphold the Noxious Weed Act, and enforcement is key.<\/p>\n

Mapping noxious weeds is central to enforcement.<\/p>\n

Historically, the department would map and then send notices to landowners whose properties were infested with noxious weeds. If the landowner didn\u2019t reply within a certain window \u2014 depending on the severity of the weeds \u2013 the weed department would get an inspection warrant and possibly spray the weeds.<\/p>\n

This kind of enforcement is made legal under the state\u2019s Noxious Weed Act and past county resolutions.<\/p>\n

Anderson, the former weed manager, would use this GIS mapping to help landowners recognize and target weeds on their property.<\/p>\n

\u201cSome of the people she (Anderson) went and enforced, some of them came back and thanked her,\u201d said Brad White, a former advisory board member and farmer in Pleasant View. \u201cShe saved their property.\u201d<\/p>\n

Complying with enforcement is made financially viable for landowners with the county\u2019s Cost Share Program, which does just that: it shares the cost \u2013 up to 50% \u2014 of the herbicide with the private landowner.<\/p>\n

The program is made possible by a $20,000 Colorado Department of Agriculture grant and a $10,000 county match.<\/p>\n

That program is the only one still up and running.<\/p>\n

As it stands, there is no capacity in the weed department to go to people\u2019s houses or send out notices requiring people to manage their weeds.<\/p>\n

The county is also targeting only List A \u2013 not List B \u2014 species, which must be eradicated, Dietrich said.<\/p>\n

With Cost Share, landowners are expected to turn in a map of their property and circle where they\u2019ve sprayed weeds.<\/p>\n

This is the only mapping of noxious weeds happening now in the county.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey sort of, sometimes do that. The mapping is just based off what I can determine from what comes in,\u201d said Dietrich. \u201cIt\u2019s just not going to be hyperaccurate. We\u2019re basically relying on people to self-report and, as you can imagine how that goes, it\u2019s not real well.\u201d<\/p>\n

At an undefined future date, the weed technician will start driving roads to do mapping, but it\u2019s all ocular, Dietrich said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s kind of a problem, identifying things that are, say, 400 yards away from the road. That gets really hard. I mean, you can use binoculars but jeez, it\u2019s pretty tough. Unless you\u2019ve got a really big patch of something that\u2019s fairly identifiable,\u201d Dietrich said.<\/p>\n

Robak at the state Department of Agriculture underscored \u201clocal programs are vital to an effective statewide strategy,\u201d because the state depends on smaller county departments to submit annual maps tracking noxious weeds in its area.<\/p>\n

Candelaria said it is property owner\u2019s responsibility to manage weeds on their property.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe need to do the outreach and the education, but it\u2019s your responsibility, not mine,\u201d said Candelaria. \u201cIf you purchased it and you own it, good stewardship starts with you.\u201d<\/p>\n

A 2014 county resolution echoed that \u201cownership of private property assumes management and stewardship of the land.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYou could Google any weed you have, and you could probably find it. I fail to see people don\u2019t have any avenues for knowing what kind of species that they have,\u201d Candelaria said.<\/p>\n

But for people who are new to the area or don\u2019t have a keen eye to identify these weeds, they might not realize their land is infested or what that means for their property, Henes said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you want to put a couple of cows on your 20-acre parcel and you find out that the vegetation is Russian knapweed or Canadian thistle, the value for your animals is gone,\u201d Henes said.<\/p>\n

As far as responsibility on county lands, the county still manages weeds on properties like the fairgrounds. Education remains a priority to help landowners manage weeds on their own.<\/p>\n

This winter, the weed technician will get more familiar with the role and develop some programs to start working with people in spring, Dietrich said.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo eliminate or decrease the current level of management makes it much harder and expensive to recover in the future,\u201d the former advisory board wrote. \u201cGoing backwards would likely erase ongoing successes.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

remaining program is Cost Share. The Phreatophyte Project is finishing its last removal in McElmo Canyon<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":25738,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[28,60,109,237,29],"naviga_topic":[],"class_list":["post-25737","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-headlines","tag-montezuma-county","tag-montezuma-county-commissioner","tag-montezuma-county-government","tag-newsletter"],"acf":[],"author_name":"dh_admin","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25737","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25737"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25737\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79072,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25737\/revisions\/79072"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25738"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25737"},{"taxonomy":"naviga_topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/naviga_topic?post=25737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}