HomeMy WebLinkAbout790499.tiff_ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
Civil Action No. , Division No.
THE TOWN OF FREDERICK, 7 1 C V 3 8 1 6
THE CITY OF FORT LUPTON, )
THE WEISNER SUBDIVISION )
PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, )
MELVIN POTTER, EDWARD QUINLAN, )
FERNE SKIDMORE, AND )
BARBARA HERNANDEZ , )
)
Plaintiffs ,
vs . )
COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL )
)
COMMISSION, and COLORADO WATER
)
QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION,
Defendants, )
and
)
THE CITY OF NORTHGLENN, )
Defendant named
)
pursuant to the
requirement of CRS )
)
1973 0 24-4-106 , as
amended.
COMPLAINT
�cn79 ��a<94
Plaintiffs state:
1. This is an action brought pursuant to CRS (1973) 24-4-106
as amended. Defendants other than the Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission are joined by virtue of their status as
"parties " pursuant to the statute.
2 . Plaintiffs are adversely affected and aggrieved by
virtue of the action by the Colorado Water Control Commission
(the Commission) . Specifically,
On May 7 , 1979, the Commission granted a site permit
for a sewage treatment plant to be constructed by the city of
Northglenn in southwestern Weld County. This plant will treat
sewage from the city of Northglenn. After receiving secondary
treatment, the sewage will be emptied into the Bull
Ditch, an irrigation ditch belonging to the Farmers Irrigation
and Reservoir Company (FRICO) . The treated sewage will then be
used by' FRICO members to irrigate their crops. On May 6 , 1979
the Commission denied a request for reconsideration in this matter.
3. The Plaintiffs are parties who will be both adversely
affected and irreparably harmed by the construction of the
Northglenn plant. Granting a site permit for the sewage plant
substantially, adversely, and irreparably affects their rights
as set forth in the following paragraphs.
4 . The City of Frederick is located approximately
5 miles downstream from the proposed sewage plant. The
Ditch flows uncovered through Frederick, passing close to the
municipal school. Frederick is surrounded by fields which are
owned and irrigated by FRICO members. The treated effluent will
be used to irrigate these fields if the Northglenn plant is
constructed. Finally, Frederick will lose the use of a
substantial part of its municipal water supply if the plant is
constructed.
5. The city of Fort Lupton is located downstream from the
Northglenn plant. Fort Lupton will be harmed by cross connection
of the treated effluent in the Bull Ditch and its own water syste
Fort Lupton is at this time experiencing severe difficulties with
nitrates in its water system. The high nitrate level of the
effluence emptied into the Bull Ditch will cause irreparable -
harm to the city of Fort Lupton if it becomes intermingled with
Fort Lupton's already nitrate laden water.
6. The Weisner Subdivision Preservation Association
(hereinafter Association) consists of the inhabitants of Weisner
Subdivision. Weisner Subdivision is located a short distance from
the proposed sewage treatment plant and will be harmed in the
following fashion:
a) The wells of the inhabitants of Weisner Subdivisior
may become contaminated by seepage from the sewage treatment plant- 51
acquifers which supply the inhabitants ' wells may be damaged
by the sewage treatment plant. •
b) The inhabitants of Weisner Subdivision will be
subjected to a foul odor.
c) The inhabitants of Weisner Subdivision will suffer
aesthetically from living in close proximity to a 55 foot high
wall constructed as a part of the plant.
d) The property values of the inhabitants of Weisner
Subdivision will drop drastically.
e) The inhabitants of Wesiner Subdivision will
be plagued by noxious insects as a result of the plant.
f) The inhabitants of the subdivision will be
subjected to severe health problems as a result of the use of
treated sewage to irrigate the farms that surround their homes.
7. Melvin Potter, Edward Quinlan, Ferne Skidmore,
and Barbara Hernandez are inhabitants of the Weisner Subdivision.
These individuals live in close proximity to the sewage treatment plant
and will be harmed in the following faniion:
a) The wells of the inhabitants of Weisner Subdivision
may become contaminated by seepage from the sewage treatment plant. Th
acquifers which supply the inhabitants ' wells may be damaged
by the sewage treatment plant.
b) The inhabitants of Weisner Subdivision will be
subjected to a foul odor.
c) The inhabitants of Weisner Subdivision will suffer
aesthetically from living in close proximity to a 55 foot high
wall constructed as a part of the plant.
d) The property values of the inhabitants of Weisner
Subdivision will drop drastically.
e) The inhabitants of Wesiner Subdivision will
be plagued by noxious insects as a result of the plant.
f) The inhabitants of the subdivision will be
subjected to severe health problems as a result of the use of
treated sewage to irrigate the farms that surround their homes.
8. The granting of a site permit to Northglenn by
the Commission was arbitrary, capricious , and in violation of
the law, in that:
a) CRS (1973) 25-8-704 requires that in determining
whether to grant or deny a site permit, the Commission must
consider the long-range, comprehensive planning for the area
-4-
wherein the plant is to be constructed. The Commission has
attempted to implement this statutory mandate by adopting a
policy that sewage plant locations be in accord with the
federal and state planning process. The Commission has
also adopted a policy that sewage permits be granted in accord
with the zoning or long-range comprehensive plan for the
area in which the plant is to be located. In order to implement
these policies , the Commission has adopted a further procedure
of seeking guidance from the local governments concerned with
the possible effects of the plant. The Commission also seeks
the input of interested persons. In this case, the Commission
ignored both the statutory mandates and the Commission' s own
policies when it granted the site permit. The Commission ignored
the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, the Weld County Commissioners '
action in denying a special use permit to the 'proposed sewage
plant, the opposition of the Weld County Health Department, the
opposition of the cities of Frederick, Dacona, Firestone, Ft. Lupton ,
and Brighton, testimony that the plant would have adverse effects
on the health of the inhabitants of the surrounding area, and.
evidence presented by the inhabitants of Weisner Subdivision that
they would be severely and adversely affected by the construction
of the plant.
b) CRS (1973) 25-8-704 (2) requires that the
Commission consider the consolidation of small sewage treatment
plants to avoid the proliferation of such plants . The Commission
acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it ignored evidence,
including the recommendation of its own staff that the permit
should be denied as leading to the proliferation of small
sewage treatment plants.
c) CRS (1973) 25-8-703 mandates that the Commission
consider coordinated waste treatment management as required by
303 (e) and § 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act granting site
permits . In order to fulfill this mandate, the Board has adopted
a criteria that prospective site permits must comply with the
long-term water quality planning for the area in which the
sewage treatment plant is to be built. Further, the Commission
has adopted a policy of seeking guidance from the Regional Council
of Governments, applying the Federal 208 Plan, in this case the Larimel
Weld Council of Governments . The Larimer-Weld Council of
Governments recommended that the plan not be approved. The Commission
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in ignoring the recommendations
of the Larimer-Weld Council of Governments and other evidence
that the plan was not compatible with long-term water quality
preservation planning for the area in which the plant would be built.
d) The Commission ignored their own policy that
the plant be planned and constructed in a timely manner as needed
in granting of the site permit. Further, the Board is required by its
own regulations and policies to take into consideration the effects
of the proposed sewage treatment plant on the water supply of
the surrounding area. The Commission acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in not considering the effect of the proposed
plant would have on the water supply of Ft. Lupton, Frederick,
and the Consolidated Ditch Co. and on the Weisner Subdivision.
e) The Board ignored its own guidelines and acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in ignoring evidence that the
proposed sewage plant was- endangered by a fault underlying
the property on which the plant is constructed.
f) The Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously
by ignoring its criteria that input from local governments
be sought in the granting of a sewage treatment plant. In this
case , the Weld County Commissioners , of the cities of Brighton,
Ft. Lupton, and Frederick were unaimously opposed to the program.
g) The granting of the site permit in general is
without support from the evidence produced at the hearing or
it is contrary to such evidence or contrary to fact.
41, h
h) The Commission failed to follow procedures
mandated by applicable statutes, regulations , and the principles
of due process.
i) The Commission failed to hear new evidence
produced by the opponents of the project within their Motion
for Reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:
1. For an Order requiring the Commission to certify
to the Court a transcript of the records, proceedings , documents ,
and evidence presented at the hearings held by the Commission on
April 2 & 3 , 1979 and May 7 , 1979, or other public hearings
held by the Commission pertaining to the granting of a site permit
for Northglenn' s sewage treatment project.
2. For judicial review of the action of the Commission.
3. For a determination by the Court that the actions
of the Commission in granting the site permit were arbitrary,
capricious , contrary to the statutes, constitutionally defective ,
and invalid.
4 . That the action of the Commission be set aside.
5. That the Commission be enjoined from granting a
site permit to the proposed Northglenn sewage treatment plant.
6 . For such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper in the premises.
Plaintiffs ' Address: Francis K. Culkin, No. 2969
Town of Frederick Special Counsel for the Town of
City Hall - Frederick, the City of Ft. Lupton,
Frederick, CO Weisner Subdivision, Melvin Potter,
Edward Quinlan , Ferne Skidmore,
City of Ft. Lupton
and Barbara Hernandez
City Hall
Ft. Lupton, CO
The Weisner Subdivision Preservation Association
Rt. 2 , Box 16480
Brighton, CO 80601
Plaintiffs ' addresses :
Edward Quinlan
Rt. 2 , Box 16480
Brighton, CO 80601
Melvin Potter
2750 East 165th Ave.
Brighton, CO 80601
Ferne Skidmore
16441 York St.
Brighton, CO 80601
Barbara Hernandez
16520 Filmore, Route 2
Brighotn, CO 80601
VERIFICATION
I , (C4/1 /1. .e( 1 . -1/ HI )1 lrt ,; , being duly sworn upon
oath, depose and say that I have read the above and foregoing
Complaint, know the contents thereof, and that the same is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
'1
( <I)_('rnt,i t
( Clrt <t,+-
Affiant
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this ( ,. day of June, 1979.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires : 7-26-82.
/ ,
Notary Public
�O 19SC \ Rev. t- S '\
'77 sl now:SIN IL 1 CTIDY, -01978 B adf rd Publishing Co.,I9d6S tu treef.Denver,Colorado(593.,-
_ .— _
•
Court Filing Stamp
— - _.- _
I
I
IN THE DISTRICT COURT I
IN AND FOR
CITY..-ANII._COUNTY OF.......DENVER
AND STATE OF COLORADO
•
•
•
Civil Action No. Div.
;I. THE TOWN OF FREDERICK, THE 7 9 C V J 8 i
CITY OF FT. LUPTON, THE WEISNERI I O V
SUBDIVISION PRESERVATION
ASSOCIATION, MELVIN POTTER,
• EDWARD QUINLAN, FERNE
• SKIDMORE and BARBARA HERNANDEZ , I
Plaintiff
vs.
�
i jr SUMMONS
COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL
•
COMMISSION, and COLORADO WATER
l
QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, I
I and
THE CITY OF NORTHGLENN,
Defendant named pursuant to
p
Defendants the requirement of CRS 1973
@ 24-4-106, as amended.
•
i THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT GREETINGS: •
Ii You are hereby summoned and required to file with the clerk an answer to the complaint within
20 days after service of this summons upon you. If you fail so to do,judgment by default will be taken
against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
If service upon you is made outside the State of Colorado, or by publication, or if a co i,
p> of the
complaint be not served upon you with this summons, you are required to file your answer to the com- I
plaint within 30 days after service of this summons upon you.
I Warning: If this summons does not contain the docket number of the civil action, then the
r; complaint may not now be on file with the clerk of the court. The complaint must be filed within ten •
days after the summons is served, or the court will he without jurisdiction to proceed further and the
action will he deemed dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Information from the
court rnnCe :;iii!: this civil action may not be available until ten days after the summons is served.
II This is an action'
•
f
II
i.
•
Dated June 6 19 79
ir
II
•
Clerk of said Court "F'r aI1c1S...'n-'y or Plaintiff
.N.O...._2
:Attorney for Ylai stiff .96. ...E
By 720 So. Colorado Blvd. Suite 962
Deputy Clerk Denver,._.C.O_.8.02.2.2
759-34
95 ress of Attorney
(Seal of Court)
'This summons s 1 cant t Rule I. C.R.CP.
after the 1 'is tine' state therelief demanded. If 1 samended. II the summons is published h-i
11' execution ,s sought the summons must stat a"This without a copy of the upon bxin"
a on action (minded upon brt.'
Hello