Crop duster controversy in Colorado

9news said:
FAA regulations state that any aircraft flying in a developed area must first obtain written approval for the operation from the local government.

The public must also be given some notification of the operation through local media or door-to-door notices, and the FAA must also give approval for the operation before it begins.

Really?
Is this a rule for ag ops?
 
I wonder if they would like their corn with or with out worms (or what ever)
 
Can't move into the country and then complain that the farmers do country stuff.

§ 35-3.5-102. Agricultural operation deemed not nuisance--state agricultural commission-- attorney fees--exceptions
[FONT=Verdana,Verdana][FONT=Verdana,Verdana](1)(a) Except as provided in this section, an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production.
(b) An agricultural operation that employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance as a result of any of the following activities or conditions:
(I) Change in ownership;
(II) Nonpermanent cessation or interruption of farming;
(III) Participation in any government sponsored agricultural program;
(IV) Employment of new technology; or
(V) Change in the type of agricultural product produced.
(2)(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if such agricultural operation:
(I) Was established prior to the commencement of the use of the area surrounding such agricultural operation for nonagricultural activities;
(II) Employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production; and
(III) Is not operating negligently



Rather than standing out there like the idiots they are and shooting video while getting sprayed, they should have gone home, closed their windows and shut off the AC for an hour.


[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Coloradoans aren't much used to many bugs nor spraying. Too dry here.

I remember visiting family in Houston while the fogger truck drove the neighborhood.

These NIMBYs would have put up with that if they lived there.
 
I can appreciate having to be low over the crops but that was pretty low over the houses. Not surprised at the complaints.
 
Really?
Is this a rule for ag ops?

If it is over a "congested area."

§ 137.51 Operation over congested areas: General.

(a) Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, an aircraft may be operated over a congested area at altitudes required for the proper accomplishment of the agricultural aircraft operation if the operation is conducted—

(1) With the maximum safety to persons and property on the surface, consistent with the operation; and

(2) In accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft over a congested area except in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.

(1) Prior written approval must be obtained from the appropriate official or governing body of the political subdivision over which the operations are conducted.

(2) Notice of the intended operation must be given to the public by some effective means, such as daily newspapers, radio, television, or door-to-door notice.

(3) A plan for each complete operation must be submitted to, and approved by appropriate personnel of the FAA Flight Standards District Office having jurisdiction over the area where the operation is to be conducted. The plan must include consideration of obstructions to flight; the emergency landing capabilities of the aircraft to be used; and any necessary coordination with air traffic control.

(4) Single engine aircraft must be operated as follows:

(i) Except for helicopters, no person may take off a loaded aircraft, or make a turnaround over a congested area.

(ii) No person may operate an aircraft over a congested area below the altitudes prescribed in part 91 of this chapter except during the actual dispensing operation, including the approaches and departures necessary for that operation.

(iii) No person may operate an aircraft over a congested area during the actual dispensing operation, including the approaches and departures for that operation, unless it is operated in a pattern and at such an altitude that the aircraft can land, in an emergency, without endangering persons or property on the surface.

(5) Multiengine aircraft must be operated as follows:

(i) No person may take off a multiengine airplane over a congested area except under conditions that will allow the airplane to be brought to a safe stop within the effective length of the runway from any point on takeoff up to the time of attaining, with all engines operating at normal takeoff power, 105 percent of the minimum control speed with the critical engine inoperative in the takeoff configuration or 115 percent of the power-off stall speed in the takeoff configuration, whichever is greater, as shown by the accelerate stop distance data. In applying this requirement, takeoff data is based upon still-air conditions, and no correction is made for any uphill gradient of 1 percent or less when the percentage is measured as the difference between elevation at the end points of the runway divided by the total length. For uphill gradients greater than 1 percent, the effective takeoff length of the runway is reduced 20 percent for each 1-percent grade.

(ii) No person may operate a multiengine airplane at a weight greater than the weight that, with the critical engine inoperative, would permit a rate of climb of at least 50 feet per minute at an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the elevation of the highest ground or obstruction within the area to be worked or at an altitude of 5,000 feet, whichever is higher. For the purposes of this subdivision, it is assumed that the propeller of the inoperative engine is in the minimum drag position; that the wing flaps and landing gear are in the most favorable positions; and that the remaining engine or engines are operating at the maximum continuous power available.

(iii) No person may operate any multiengine aircraft over a congested area below the altitudes prescribed in part 91 of this chapter except during the actual dispensing operation, including the approaches, departures, and turnarounds necessary for that operation.
 
It's funny how a guy flying an Air Tractor is a danger or nuisance when doing Ag work but all of a sudden he is a hero when he is putting out a forest fire. People are so phony some times.
 
"Hey Hon. This is a nice place. We have a beautiful QUIET farm right across the street. We'll be able to sleep in Saturdays."
Some people shouldn't be allowed to buy a house. The crop duster is just doing his job. The farmer is just raising his crops. Both doing what they've done for years.
You get the same thing from people who buy next to land zoned industrial, next to the airport, gun club, trucking wharehouse... My local airport once received a complaint. The person kept hearing AIRPLANES.
'Magine that!
 
"Hey Hon. This is a nice place. We have a beautiful QUIET farm right across the street. We'll be able to sleep in Saturdays."
Some people shouldn't be allowed to buy a house. ...

Guess what happens when people buy a house next to a farm? some of the Mensa-wannabes discover that farms use fertilizers, fertilizer with a rich aroma, and can't figure out why they can't let their dogs run free on that "open" land...
 
Guess what happens when people buy a house next to a farm? some of the Mensa-wannabes discover that farms use fertilizers, fertilizer with a rich aroma, and can't figure out why they can't let their dogs run free on that "open" land...

They want open land they can pay several thousand an acre for it.
 
I can appreciate having to be low over the crops but that was pretty low over the houses. Not surprised at the complaints.

I dont think the pilot could do anything different. Has to spray in the direction the wind gives him and he can only climb as fast as is prudent.
 
I dont think the pilot could do anything different. Has to spray in the direction the wind gives him and he can only climb as fast as is prudent.
According to what Richard posted...

(4) Single engine aircraft must be operated as follows:

(i) Except for helicopters, no person may take off a loaded aircraft, or make a turnaround over a congested area.

(ii) No person may operate an aircraft over a congested area below the altitudes prescribed in part 91 of this chapter except during the actual dispensing operation, including the approaches and departures necessary for that operation.

(iii) No person may operate an aircraft over a congested area during the actual dispensing operation, including the approaches and departures for that operation, unless it is operated in a pattern and at such an altitude that the aircraft can land, in an emergency, without endangering persons or property on the surface.
The cropduster sure looks like it was making a turnaround over a congested area. That wasn't just one house, it was a subdivision. Maybe it's just the camera angle and there is a field behind those houses. However, as I stated earlier, I'm not surprised there were complaints.
 
It's funny how a guy flying an Air Tractor is a danger or nuisance when doing Ag work but all of a sudden he is a hero when he is putting out a forest fire. People are so phony some times.

You should have been in west denver when they had the green mountain fire a couple years ago. People were at the fairgrounds complaining about not being allowed back to their homes and bitching to high hell about the dangerous airplane flying so close to their houses. About every other pass the plane made was putting water practically on their lawns. The way they were going on about it, I would have been seriously tempted to call the plane off and let their houses burn to the ground.
 
"Hey Hon. This is a nice place. We have a beautiful QUIET farm right across the street. We'll be able to sleep in Saturdays."
Some people shouldn't be allowed to buy a house. The crop duster is just doing his job. The farmer is just raising his crops. Both doing what they've done for years.
You get the same thing from people who buy next to land zoned industrial, next to the airport, gun club, trucking wharehouse... My local airport once received a complaint. The person kept hearing AIRPLANES.
'Magine that!

Farmer's land goes up orders of magnitude when the developments get close. It works both ways.
 
Farmer's land goes up orders of magnitude when the developments get close. It works both ways.

Which is only worth something for the farmer if he is actually interested to sell the land. If not, it just drives up the taxes.
 
Which is only worth something for the farmer if he is actually interested to sell the land. If not, it just drives up the taxes.

gotta pay to put all the suburbanite kiddos through school
 
Which is only worth something for the farmer if he is actually interested to sell the land. If not, it just drives up the taxes.

You are the only person I have ever heard say that having an asset increase orders of magnitude in value is a bad thing.
 
According to what Richard posted...

The cropduster sure looks like it was making a turnaround over a congested area. That wasn't just one house, it was a subdivision. Maybe it's just the camera angle and there is a field behind those houses. However, as I stated earlier, I'm not surprised there were complaints.

There is a NTSB decision on a very similar case, yes to turn around over a subdivision you need a 'congested area plan'. The operation would have looked exactly the same, except that there would have been a copy of a map and a couple of paragraphs of verbiage in a file at the FSDO :mad2:.
 
You are the only person I have ever heard say that having an asset increase orders of magnitude in value is a bad thing.

It is a bad thing if you actually want to farm and you are in an area where you can't replace the acreage easily.

If you have the option to move your operation, you swap the land in a 1031 exchange for some ag land that the developer buys for you further out. In that setting, it actually allows you to expand your operation because you get more ag land in exchange for your development land (my neighbor did that back when our subdivision got developed, she has a nice retirement from it).
 
Last edited:
You are the only person I have ever heard say that having an asset increase orders of magnitude in value is a bad thing.


Then you obviously have not talked to too many farmers or seen what some local tax districts have done to change the tax rate on farmland regardless of it's value. If the tax rates are not set for farm set asides then the farm must be sold because it can't generate enough money to pay residential tax rates.
 
Another nanny state woman afraid of her own shadow. Probably a California transplant. There, someone had to say it! :D

Worse, she said, is what could have happened if the airplane, a 1972 Grumman G-164A biplane, had lost power and crashed into homes.

Oh, the horror! What if, what if, what if, what if?

What about the person texting and driving a 2.5 ton SUV down I-75 while tailgating you honey?
 
You are the only person I have ever heard say that having an asset increase orders of magnitude in value is a bad thing.

There is way too much emphasis put on money nowadays. People can't see past their wallets.

There's been more than one farmer that got run off his own land due to increased value. If a developer or whoever wants the farmers land, all they have to do is put pressure on the local gov't and keep jacking the taxes up every year until he goes bankrupt or sells before going bankrupt. At that point, just buy the land cheap and slap in a new subdivision. It's a very effective and completely legal method to steal from someone who has land.

There simply aren't many farmers out there that can afford to pay 1/16th of an acre snobbish subdivision land tax rates on, say, 3000 acres. And if they can, they won't be able to do it for long.
 
Last edited:
And the local farmers get squeezed out, and then people complain their food prices go up, or they can't get fresh vegetables anymore. I am ALL for smart, planned real esate development, its part of what I do for my job, however, there needs to be a balance.

Newbies, move near an airport or farms, then try to dictate that these uses shouldn't exist near their Mcmansions.
 
Perhaps those who buy residential properties in such areas should be signing waivers granting the farmer the right to continue as he did before the residents came. Or the farmer should have the right to sue the developer and residents if he finds himself being forced out. Why should the latecomers have all the rights?

Where I come from a guy bought some rural land, built a nice house and moved in. Across the road was a log-house building operation, one of those that builds the house, then marks the logs for reassembly, takes it apart, and ships it. The operation had been there for years. This homeowner disliked the sound of chainsaws all day and had the courts shut it down.

Dan
 
Perhaps those who buy residential properties in such areas should be signing waivers granting the farmer the right to continue as he did before the residents came.

The law I posted above already guarantees that right, no waiver necessary.

The problem is on the local level when muncipalities start to write their rules in a way that impede the farmers. Silly width restrictions on 'city' roads and the power of taxation for land that was annexed against the owners will.

This ag operator may be in trouble with the FAA for doing his turns over a congested area without having filed a 'congested area plan' and having mailed postcards to the homeowners in that subdivision. He could also face 'wind drift' claims if he indeed got some of his product into the residential yards (your decorative plants are rarely 'roundup resistant' :) ).
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of interesting situations near me. Several propertiy owners refused to be incorporated when the city expanded. Developments went up all around them anyway. Because they are unincorporated, they don't get city services and have to contract trash, water, whatever from the county or other sources. They also get to burn trash, when the neighbors can't. The downside for them, though - now that the land rush is over, all the demand for that land has dropped. Some of them have had for-sale signs up for years, but they are really landlocked now and their property isn't worth much for developers anymore.
 
There are a couple of interesting situations near me. Several propertiy owners refused to be incorporated when the city expanded. Developments went up all around them anyway. Because they are unincorporated, they don't have to purchase city services and are free to contract trash, water, whatever from the county or other sources.

Edited.
 
Fair enough.

Goes the other way around as well, property owners who want to get annexed. I wish there was a way to do a screen capture. We have a situation where a powerful landowner wanted to have a lot about a mile outside of the city annexed but the city told him they could only annex lots that abut city limits. So he had about a mile of land between the lot and the city re-surveyed and created a 1 mile long 3 ft wide lot that connects his lot to the city (the ultimate flag-lot). Problem solved :wink2:.
 
They want open land they can pay several thousand an acre for it.

Here in massachusetts, open land is quite a bit more than several thousand an acre.
 
Farmer's land goes up orders of magnitude when the developments get close. It works both ways.

The land's value as farm land doesn't increase. In fact, the farmer now has the extra expense of dealing with idiot neighbors.

And I don't believe your "orders of magnitude" estimate of value increase.
 
You are the only person I have ever heard say that having an asset increase orders of magnitude in value is a bad thing.

Sell that farm land so that a bunch of people can build homes...

keep doing that.

I can imagine someone eventually asking how come there isn't enough food...where'd all the farm land go?

Not exactly the best approach to land use management...
 
I can imagine someone eventually asking how come there isn't enough food...where'd all the farm land go?

Not exactly the best approach to land use management...

As long as we have enough space to raise crops to burn them in our cars in the form of ethanol, I dont see us running out of food production land.

But yes, development is the enemy of production agriculture.
 
You are the only person I have ever heard say that having an asset increase orders of magnitude in value is a bad thing.

It can be very bad. Say you bought a house that you really enjoy living in. House is paid for. In a span of 10 years your property value (living in a city) goes from $375,000 to $2,100,000. And now you have to pay taxes on a 2 million dollar home.

Did I mention property tax has gone up as well.
 
It can be very bad. Say you bought a house that you really enjoy living in. House is paid for. In a span of 10 years your property value (living in a city) goes from $375,000 to $2,100,000. And now you have to pay taxes on a 2 million dollar home.

Did I mention property tax has gone up as well.

And sometimes the bottom drops out of the housing market. So the stuckee pays property taxes on the $2 million dollar home for a while...but then can't sell it for anything close to $2 million. But I'm sure property values are going to go up, stay up, and never crash down.
 
And sometimes the bottom drops out of the housing market. So the stuckee pays property taxes on the $2 million dollar home for a while...but then can't sell it for anything close to $2 million. But I'm sure property values are going to go up, stay up, and never crash down.
Nyet. The assessed value can drop too. Sure, there is usually a lag following the drop in market but the savvy homeowner can minimize that by visiting the county assessor's office pronto.
 
But I'm sure property values are going to go up, stay up, and never crash down.

My assessment just decreased by about 25%, every 5 years the state goes around and adjusts the values. To make up for it, the county raised the mill-rate, something they can apparently do around here without putting it to a vote :( .
 
Back
Top