During a work session held by the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on May 5, Director of Development Eva Kruse discussed differences between a floodplain and a wetland delineation, and how those could affect property owners attempting to develop their land.
“This was just prompted by several calls, concerns over wetlands regulations,” Kruse said, explaining that those are currently included in the county’s land use regulations.
Kruse explained the main difference between a wetland and floodplain is that wetlands are “always wet” with wet soil, whereas a floodplain is an area that may flood with water coming into it from rain or snowmelt.
Kruse then explained that if property owners are looking to have a wetland delineation changed, they have the option of contacting the Army Corps of Engineers to review the delineation “to look more specifically at their property.”
She mentioned there is currently one Army Corps staff member in Durango who is willing to review wetlands delineations at no cost.
According to Kruse’s presentation, property owners can apply for an approved jurisdictional determination with the Army Corps, which is a courtesy service that identifies the presence or absence of wetlands and their boundaries. To apply for this, visit https://rrs.usace.army.mil.
Kruse explained that floodplains are usually more intense, posing special flooding hazards.
“This is something we look at with every development,” Kruse said, explaining wetlands and floodplains are always considered.
She also mentioned that county residents are able to participate in national flood insurance programs with the county using wetland and floodplain regulations.
Kruse went on to mention that an issue being seen recently in the Development Services Department is that property owners are wanting to use surveys that are three to four years old, explaining that a “stamped engineer site plan” showing floodplain or wetlands delineations is needed.
“If you don’t have that, then it puts the onus back on the county — the liabilities back on the county,” Kruse said, explaining that an engineered site plan that has a floodplain delineated is needed “so that we know your development is not going to be in the floodplain.”
Kruse acknowledged that getting a stamped engineered site plan may be more costly to property owners, “but the county cannot permit development in a floodplain.”
“And if you don’t have an engineered site plan or drawing stamped by a licensed Colorado engineer, the liability is on the county if we permit anything in that floodplain,” she added, stressing the importance of addressing this matter and not taking old surveys, “because conditions have changed.”
Kruse also mentioned that she receives frequent calls from people outside of Colorado looking to purchase property within Archuleta County, and since the October 2025 historic floods, people are wanting to know about wetlands and floodplains, “because it does determine whether or not you can develop on the property.”
“There’s not a whole of option if you’re in the floodplain,” Kruse said, explaining the only option really is to move the development out of the floodplain. “So, that’s your recourse.”
In response to a question from Commissioner John Ranson asking if the county takes on any liability with wetlands, Kruse said, “Absolutely.”
She explained that the county is liable for anything it permits.
“These are federal guidelines that we follow,” she said, explaining that the county adopts a floodplain map from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.
Ranson then asked how long it might take for the one Army Corps staff member in Durango to look at a specific property in the Lower Blanco area, noting the owners have invested thousands of dollars in equipment.
“I feel somewhat responsible at the county,” he added, commenting that before Kruse’s arrival the county’s Development Services Department was in “disarray.”
Kruse agreed that the situation could’ve been handled differently from the start, explaining she wants people to be aware of these things on the front end, before getting into a project.
She also explained that a surveyor is unable to make a floodplain or wetland determination, noting they likely do not want to take on that liability.
Multiple property owners were then given the chance to speak about their specific situations with stalled-out projects due to their proposed developments being found to be located in either a floodplain or wetland.
One property owner was joined by their builder, who explained that only a portion of the development lies on a wetland, claiming they’ve taken all of the correct steps to properly build on the land.
The owner commented that finding out part of the property was on a wetland was a “shock,” adding that she already had a septic tank installed and was permitted by the county.
“No issue was raised at that point in time,” she said.
The property owner also commented that she is aware the county is working through issues in the Development Services Department, but asked for consistency.
“Hopefully we can get to a point where there’s consistent messaging, consistent policies and procedures, because … the different aspects we’ve been involved with … the process with the county, it’s definitely as soon as someone new is hired, the game changes again,” she said.
Ranson commented that the county has a “good crew” now and is doing everything it can to keep its employees.
Property owners of another residence also spoke about troubles they’ve run into with trying to get a new garage built and permitted, replacing existing buildings on their property.
They explained that the county’s maps show a wetlands determination on their property, and that they’ve been unable to get an Army Corps employee to come to their property.
They noted that the Army Corps will review data, but will not come look at the property.
Commissioner Veronica Medina commented that constituents are in these situations at no fault of their own, suggesting there may be other options for residents.
>