HomeMy WebLinkAbout790498 t.- .. (/
4
c -.
j ,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE
c
COUNTY OF WELD AND STATE OF COLORADO
79-CV-431
Division II
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )
OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO; THE )
TOWN OF FREDERICK, COLORADO; )
THE CITY OF FT. LUPTON, COLORADO; )
THE WEISNER SUBDIVISION PRESERVA- ) FIRST AMENDED
TION ASSOCIATION, ) COMPLAINT FOR
Plaintiffs , ) DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
vs . )
)
THE CITY OF NORTHGLENN, COLORADO,
Defendant. )
COME NOW the Plaintiffs , by and through their attor-
neys , Francis K. Culkin and Thomas O. David , Weld County
Attorney, and for their Complaint against the Defendant City
of Northglenn, Colorado allege as follows :
I . INTRODUCTION
This is a suit for declaratory relief and injunctive
relief brought by the Plaintiffs in order to determine
whether or not the City of Northglenn must receive permis-
sion from Weld County for the construction and operation of
a sewage treatment facility in the southwestern portion of
Weld County.
II . PARTIES
1. Your Plaintiff Weld County, by and through the
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, is a political subdivision of the State
of Colorado and is a Home Rule County pursuant to
the statutes of the State of Colorado.
2 . That the Plaintiff City of Ft. Lupton is a poli-
tical subdivision located in Weld County, Colorado
-1-
P1.0079 790498
and is organized and exists pursuant to the sta-
tutes of the State of Colorado.
3 . That the Plaintiff Town of Frederick is a poli-
tical subdivision located in Weld County, Colorado
and is organized and exists pursuant to the sta-
tutes of the State of Colorado.
4 . That the Plaintiff Weisner Subdivision Preserva-
tion Association is a non-profit association of
citizens living in Weld County and Adams County,
Colorado and is organized for the purpose of
protecting the health, safety and welfare of the
members of said organization as hereinafter set
forth in this Complaint.
5 . That the Defendant City of Northglenn, Colorado is
a Home Rule City duly organized and existing under
the statutes of the State of Colorado and located
in the County of Adams , State of Colorado .
III . GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6 . That this is an action brought pursuant to Rule
57 , C. R.C. P. , and §13-51-101 et seq. , CRS 1973 ,
seeking a declaratory judgment for the purpose of
determining certain questions of actual contro-
versy which exist between the parties as herein-
after set forth and for injunctive relief pursuant
to Rule 65 , C.R.C.P .
7 . That the Defendant City of Northglenn has pur-
chased land located in Section 36 , Township 1
North of Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. in an
unincorporated portion of Weld County, Colorado,
for the purpose of constructing a sewage treatment
plant on said property to serve the residents and
inhabitants of the City of Northglenn, Colorado
and further to serve certain residents and in-
habitants of Thornton, County of Adams , Colorado.
-2-
8 . That the real estate described in paragraph 7
above is zoned A-Agricu] tural pursuant to the Weld
County Zoning Resolution.
9 . That the installation and operation of a sewage
treatment facility requires a Special Use Permit
pursuant to Section III. 3 . 3 .E (4) (n) of the Weld
County Zoning Resolution.
10 . That the Defendant City of Northglenn did make
application to the Department of Planning Services
of Weld County, Colorado for a Special Use Permit
for the operation of 'a sewage treatment facility
pursuant to the above stated Section of the Weld
County Zoning Resolution. The Weld County Plan-
ning Commission, on February 20 , 1979 , voted
four (4) to one (1) with three (3) members of the
Weld County Planning Commission being disqualified
from the hearing and one (1) member of the Weld
County Planning Commission being absent on the
date of the hearing, on a motion to approve said
Special Use Permit.
11 . That the Defendant City of Northglenn, pursuant to
the Weld County Zoning Resolution appeared before
the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, who , by virtue of the Weld County Zoning
Resolution has the sole authority to approve
Special Use Permits in Weld County, Colorado. Said
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County, Colorado was held on the 21st day
of February, 1979 . Following the hearing, the
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado denied the application of the City of
Northglenn for a Special Use Permit by a two to
two vote. The Weld County Home Rule Charter,
Section 3-13 requires that three (3) members of
the Board of County Commissioners must concur
-3-
before any official action of said Board of County
Commissioners shall be effective .
12 . That unless this Court declares that the City of
Northglenn must, prior to the construction of the
sewage treatment facility, obtain a Special Use
Permit pursuant to the Weld County Zoning Resolu-
tion, the Defendant City of Northglenn will con-
struct said sewage treatment facility all to the
detriment of the citizens and members of the
various Plaintiffs named in this Complaint.
13. That on or after the 22nd day of February, 1979 ,
the City of Northglenn by and through its City
Council , formally or informally and, without
notice to any of the Plaintiffs , did resolve that
it would go forward with plans to construct the
sewage treatment facility on the real estate
described in paragraph 7 of this Complaint, and,
in so doing purported to overrule the decision of
the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado in denying the application of the said
City of Northglenn for a Special Use Permit .
IV. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14 . Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference.
15 . That Plaintiff Weld County is a Home Rule Charter
County pursuant to the Colorado Constitution,
Article XIV, Section 16 and Section 30-11-501 et
seq. , CRS 1973 and that under these provisions ,
the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
is the governing Board of Weld County and, further,
that the above referenced statute provides that
any power, function, service or facility vested by
statute in a particular Weld County Board may be
exercised or performed by any other County Board
designated in the Home Rule Charter .
-4-
16 . That Section 4-4 (A) (4) of the Weld County Home
Rule Charter provides that the Weld County Plan-
ning Commission is to perform all functions and
duties as directed by the Board of County Com-
missioners . Further, that all decisions of the
Weld County Planning Commission are subject to
appeal to, and review by, the Weld County Board of
County Commissioners in accordance with State law
and the rules and regulations established by the
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County.
17. That Section 3 . 3 .E (4) (n) of the Weld County Zoning
Resolution, adopted by the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Weld County, provides that installation
and operation of a sewage treatment facility
requires the grant of a Special Use Permit by the
Board of County Commissioners .
18. That , therefore, the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County has assumed the final authority to
approve or disapprove any public building, struc-
ture or utility, including a sewage treatment
facility located within Weld County, pursuant to
Section 30-28-110, CRS 1973 , and that the Board of
County Commissioners of Weld County has exercised
that authority by its action of February 21 , 1979
which disapproved of the application by the City
of Northglenn for a Special Use Permit for a
sewage treatment facility.
V. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19 . Paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference.
20 . That the By-Laws of the Weld County Planning
Commission provides that all plans , reports , and
recommendations of the Planning Commission must be
-5-
approved by a majority of the members of the '
Commission.
21 . That the motion to recommend approval for the
Special Use Permit for the City of Northglenn
sewage treatment facility received less than a
majority of the votes of the members of the Weld
County Planning Commission at its meeting of
February 20 , 1979 , and therefore, said vote con-
stituted a disapproval of said Special Use Permit
or, in the alternative, said vote constituted no
action by the Weld County Planning Commission.
22 . That if the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County is not vested with the final authority to
approve or disapprove the Special Use Permit for a
sewage treatment facility in Weld County , Colo-
rado, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County does possess the authority under Section
30-28-110 , CRS 1973 to review the disapproval of
said Special Use Permit by the Weld County Plan-
ning Commission and to overrule such disapproval
or to act where there has been no action by the
Weld County Planning Commission.
23. That the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, at its meeting of February 21 , 1979 ,
failed to take any action to overrule the dis-
approval of the application for a Special Use
Permit by the City of Northglenn for a sewage
treatment facility or, in the alternative , failed
to take any action to approve said Special Use
Permit.
VI . THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24 . Paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference.
25 . That the Defendant City of Northglenn voluntarily
-6-
made application to the Department of Planning
Services of Weld County, Colorado for a Special
Use Permit for the construction and operation of
a sewage treatment facility pursuant to Section
3 . 3.E (4) (n) of the Weld County Zoning Resolution.
26 . That following the vote of February 20 , 1979 , by
the Weld County Planning Commission , the Defendant
City of Northglenn voluntarily appeared before the
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County to
seek approval of said Special Use Permit.
27. That the action of Defendant City of Northglenn ,
in voluntarily proceeding with the Special Use
Permit application process pursuant to the Weld
County Zoning Resolution, estops said Defendant
from denying the validity of said process .
28 . That the action of Defendant City of Northglenn ,
in voluntarily proceeding with Special Use Permit
application process pursuant to the Weld County
Zoning Resolution, constitutes a waiver of any
immunity from such a process said Defendant might
possess .
VII . FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
29 . Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference .
30 . That the construction and operation of a sewage
treatment facility by Defendant City of Northglenn
is a proprietary function of said City.
31. That Defendant City of Northglenn cannot ignore
the Zoning Resolution of Weld County in construc-
ting and operating a project in the exercise of a .
proprietary function of said City.
VIII . FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
32 . Paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference .
-7-
33 . That sludge from the sewage treatment facility to
be constructed on ' he real estate described in
paragraph 7 of this Complaint will be deposited,
collected , and stored within said facility and
further that final treatment and processing of the
sludge will take place within the facility .
34 . That Defendant City of Northglenn intends to
utilize or dispose of the treated sludge by appli-
cation to the land on said facility and in the
immediate vicinity of said facility.
35 . That Section 30-20-102 , CRS 1973 , of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, provides that--
" ( 1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of
this Section, it is unlawful for any person
to operate a solid wastes disposal site and
facility in the unincorporated portion of any
county without having obtained therefor a
certificate of designation from the board of
county commissioners of the county in which
such site and facility is located.
( 3) The final use for beneficial purposes ,
including fertilizer, soil conditioner, fuel ,
and livestock feed, of sludge which has been
processed and certified or designated as
meeting all applicable regulations of the
department (of health) and the department of
agriculture shall not require a certificate
of designation for such final use . "
36. That Section 30-20-101 , CRS 1973 provides the
following definitions--
" (6) ' solid wastes ' means . . . sludge of sewage
disposal plants . . . .
(7) ' solid wastes disposal ' means the col-
lection , storage , treatment , utilization,
processing, or final disposal of solid
wastes .
( 8) ' solid wastes disposal site and facility '
means the location and facility in which the
deposit and final treatment of solid wastes
occur. "
37 . That Defendant City of Northglenn has not obtained
a solid wastes disposal site and facility certi-
ficate of designation from the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County for the operation of
such a facility on the real estate described in
paragraph 7 of this Complaint.
-8-
38 . That Defendant City of Northglenn has not obtained
certification or designation of sludge from said
facility to be used as fertilizer, soil condi-
tioner, fuel , or livestock feed from the Colorado
Department of Health and the Colorado Department
of Agriculture .
IX. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
39 . Paragraphs 1 through 38 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference .
40 . That Defendant City of Northglenn has not, at any
time, sought judicial review pursuant to Rule 106
(a) (4) , C. R.C.P . of the action taken by the Weld
County Board of County Commissioners in denying
Defendant City of Northglenn ' s application for a
Special Use Permit for a sewage treatment facility .
41. That Defendant City of Northglenn is estopped from
asserting the invalidity of the action of the
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County in
denying the application for a Special Use Permit
for failure to file a Rule 106 (a) (4) , C.R.C .P.
action within the requisite thirty ( 30) days .
X. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 . Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference .
43. That at no time did any of Plaintiffs receive
notice from Defendant City of Northglenn that ,
acting through its City Council , Defendant City of
Northglenn intended to take action purporting to
overrule the decision of Plaintiff Weld County in
denying the Special Use Permit for the sewage
treatment faciltiy to be constructed by Defendant
City of Northglenn.
44 . That as a result of the failure of Defendant City
of Northglenn to notify Plaintiffs , Plaintiffs
-9-
have had no opportunity to provide public input
into the administrative process nor to seek
judicial review of Defendant City of Northglenn' s
decision.
XI . EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
45 . Paragraphs 1 through 44 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference .
46 . Plaintiff, Town of Frederick, will suffer irre-
parable harm if the City of Northglenn is allowed
to proceed with construction of the sewage treat-
ment facility for the following reasons :
a) The City of Frederick is located approxi-
mately five (5) miles downstream on the Bull
Ditch from the site of the proposed sewage
treatment facility. The facility will empty
secondarily treated sewage into the Bull
Ditch which passes uncovered through the Town
of Frederick close to the municipal school .
This will be dangerous to the health and
welfare of the citizens of Frederick.
b) Frederick is surrounded by fields which are
owned and irrigated by the Farmers Reservoir
and Irrigation Company (FRICO) members . The
partially treated effluent will be used by
FRICO members to irrigate their fields ,
causing health problems to the citizens of
Frederick.
c) The proposed sewage treatment facility is
either located on, or in, the immediate
vicinity of the fault . Given the close
proximity of Frederick to the proposed sewage
treatment facility, this constitutes an
extreme danger to the health and welfare of
the citizens of Frederick.
-10-
d) The water that will be discharged from the
sewage treatment facility into the Bull Ditch
will be excessively high in Nitrates . Frederick' s
water supply will be irreparably harmed by
the high level of nitration in this water.
e) The Town of Frederick will be deprived of an
adequate water supply for recently annexed
land if the sewage treatment facility is
constructed. The water supply of Frederick
is drawn, at least in part , from the Arapahoe
Aquifer. The location of the projected
facility is on the recharge area of the
Aquifer . If the facility is constructed, it
will cause irreparable damage to the water
supply of Frederick.
47 . Plaintiff, City of Ft. Lupton, is located down-
stream from the proposed sewage treatment facility.
Although Ft. Lupton is not located on the Bull
Ditch, a cross connection exists between Ft.
Lupton' s water supply and the Bull Ditch. The
combination of Ft. Lupton' s water supply with the
nitrate laden water being discharged into the Bull
Ditch and the sewage treatment facility will cause
irreparable harm to the City of Ft . Lupton.
48 . Weisner ' s Subdivision Preservation Association
consists of the inhabitants of Weisner Subdivi-
sion. Weisner Subdivision is located a short
distance , from the proposed sewage treatment
facility. The members of the Weisner Subdivision
Preservation Association will be irreparably
harmed in the following fashion by the construc-
tion of the proposed sewage treatment facility :
a) The wells of the inhabitants of Weisner Sub-
division will become contaminated by sewage
from the sewage treatment facility.
-11-
b) The Aquifer which supplies the members of the
Association ' s wells , will be damaged by the
sewage treatment facility which is to be
constructed on the replenishment area of the
aquifer.
c) The members of the Association will be sub-
jected to a foul odor from the sewage treat-
ment facility .
d) The members of the Association will suffer
aesthetically from being forced to live in
close proximity to this 55 foot high re-
taining wall constructed as part of the
facility.
e) The property value of the members of the
Association will drop drastically.
f) The members of the Association will be
plagued by mosquitoes and other noxious
insects as a result of proximity to the
facility.
g) The members of the Association will be sub-
ject to severe health problems as a result of
the use of treated sewage to irrigate the
farms that surround their homes .
h) The proposed sewage treatment facility will
be constructed on, or in close proximity to a
fault. This will endanger the health and
safety of the members of the Association.
49 . Plaintiff, Weld County, is charged by statute with
the maintenance of the health and welfare of the
citizens of Weld County, Colorado, living in
unincorporated areas of Weld County. Inhabitants
living in unincorporated areas of Weld County will
be irreparably harmed in the following fashion by
the construction of the proposed sewage treatment
facility:
-12-
a) The inhabitants of the unincorporated areas
of Weld County will become contaminated by
sewage from the sewage treatment facility.
b) The Aquifer which supplies the inhabitants of
the unincorporated areas of Weld County will
be damaged by the sewage treatment facility
which is to be constructed on the replenish-
ment area of the Aquifer.
c) The inhabitants of the unincorporated areas
of Weld County will be subjected to a foul
odor from the sewage treatment facility.
d) The inhabitants of the unincorporated areas
of Weld County will suffer aesthetically from
being forced to live in close proximity to
this 55 foot high retaining wall constructed
as part of the facility .
e) The property value of the inhabitants of the
unincorporated areas of Weld County will drop
drastically.
f) The inhabitants of the unincorporated areas
of Weld County will be plagued by mosquitoes
and other noxious insects as a result of
proximity to the facility .
g) The inhabitants of the unincorporated areas
of Weld County will be subject to severe
health problems as a result of the use of
treated sewage to irrigate the farms that
surround their homes .
h) The proposed sewage treatment facility will
be constructed on, or in close proximity to,
a fault. This will endanger the health and
safety of the inhabitants of the unincorporated
areas of Weld County .
i) The water supply of unincorporated areas of
Weld County will be endangered by the construc-
tion of said sewage treatment facility.
-13-
50 . None of the Plaintiffs to this action have an
adequate remedy at law.
XII . NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
51 . Paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference .
52 . That the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County is designated by the Larimer-Weld Regional
Council of Governments Areawide Water Quality
Management Plan (hereinafter , Larimer-Weld Manage-
ment Plan) as the "waste treatment management
agency" for wastewater treatment or discharge
within the non-urban areas of Weld County including
the real estate described in paragraph 7 of this
Complaint.
53 . That the Larimer-Weld Management Plan was condi-
tionally approved by the Environmental Protection
Agency Regional Administrator, Alan Merson, in a
letter of May 11 , 1979 , to the Honorable Richard
D. Lamm, Governor of the State of Colorado, which
is attached as Exhibit "A" .
54 . That Defendant City of Northglenn has applied for
or will apply for approximately 7 . 0 million dollars
in federal grants from the Environmental Protection
Agency for the construction of the aforementioned
sewage treatment facility pursuant to Section
201 (g) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA) , 33 U.S .C . Section 1281 (g) .
55 . That Section 208 (d) of the FWPCA, 33 U. S .C. Sec-
tion 1288 provides that grants under Section
201 (g) (1) of the FWPCA are to be made only to
designated management agencies and further that
Section 208 (d) , 33 U.S. C. Section 1288 (d) and
Section 204 (a) ( 1) , 33 U. S .C. Section 1284 (a) (1) of
the FWPCA provide that such grants will not be
-14-
available unless wastewater treatment facilities
comply with the applicable Areawide Waste Treat-
ment Management Plan.
56 . That Section 25-8-503 , CRS 1973 , and regulations
promulgated pursuant thereto, 5 CCR 1002-2 Section
6 . 1 . 5A, provide that no permit for the discharge
of any pollutant into State waters may be issued
unless such discharge is in compliance with the
applicable Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Plan developed under Section 208 of the FWPCA or
unless said permit contains limitations and a
schedule for compliance with said plan.
57 . That the Larimer-Weld Management Plan provides
that federal grants will be available for the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities
located or discharging within the jurisdiction of
a management agency only if said management agency
reviews and approves said grant of funds for the
construction of said wastewater treatment facilities .
58. That Section 30-28-110 (c) , CRS 1973 provides that
the action of a Board of County Commissioners in
disapproving of the construction or authorization
of certain public facilities may be overruled by
another public body only if the authorization or
financing of the public facility does not fall
within the province of the Board of County Com-
missioners or other county officials or boards .
59 . That under the FWPCA, the Solid Wastes Disposal
Act, Section 25-8-503 , CRS 1973 , and regulations
promulgated pursuant thereto, and the Larimer-Weld
Management Plan, a portion of the financing and
the authorization for Defendant City of North-
glenn' s sewage treatment facility is within the
jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County and that the City of Northglenn
possesses no authority to overrule the decision of
-15-
the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
to deny a Special L'se Permit for said facility.
WHEREFORE, YOUR PLAINTIFFS PRAY AS FOLLOWS:
1 . For a judgment declaring that prior to construc-
tion of a sewage treatment facility by Defendant
City of Northglenn within the boundaries of the
County of Weld , State of Colorado , Defendant City
of Northglenn must obtain a Special Use Permit
from the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County.
2 . For a judgment declaring that the Defendant City
of Northglenn has not yet obtained valid permis-
sion from the County of Weld to construct a sewage
treatment facility within the boundaries of Weld
County .
3 . For a judgment declaring that the Defendant City
of Northglenn is estopped from asserting the
invalidity of the action of the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County in denying the appli-
cation for a Special Use Permit for a sewage
treatment facility, located on the real estate
described in paragraph 7 of this Complaint, for
failure to file a Rule 106 (a) (4) , C.R.C.P. action
within the requisite thirty (30) days .
4 . For a judgment declaring that any action taken by
Defendant City of Northglenn purporting to over-
rule the decision of the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Weld County in denying the Special Use
Permit for the sewage treatment facility located
on the real estate described in paragraph 7 of
this Complaint is null and void and that such
action by Defendant City of Northglenn does not
constitute an overruling of the decision of the
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County.
5 . For a judgment declaring that prior to the con-
-16-
struction of the sewage treatment facility,
located on the real estate described in paragraph
7 of this Complaint , Defendant City of Northglenn
must obtain a certificate of designation for a
solid wastes disposal site and facility from the
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County.
6 . For a judgment declaring that prior to operation
of the sewage treatment facility, located on the
real estate described in paragraph 7 of this Com-
plaint, the Defendant City of Northglenn must
obtain certification or designation of compliance
for its sludge from the Colorado Department of
Health and the Colorado Department of Agriculture.
7 . For a Preliminary Injunction enjoining Defendant
City of Northglenn, their servants , agents and
employees from the construction of a sewage treat-
ment facility on the real estate described in
paragraph 7 of this Complaint pending final
hearing and judgment in this action.
8. On final hearing, for an Order permanently en-
joining Defendant City of Northglenn, their
agents, their servants and employees from con-
structing and operating a sewage treatment facility
on the real estate described in paragraph 7 of
this Complaint.
9 . For an Order directing the Defendant to appear, on
a date certain to be fixed by the Court , and then
and there show cause, if any, said Defendant has
why Preliminary Injunction should not be issued
restraining the Defendant, its agents , servants
and employees from the construction of a sewage
treatment facility located on the real estate
described in paragraph 7 of this Complaint pending
the final judgment in this action.
-17-
10 . For any such additional relief as may seem just,
proper and equitable to the Court.
ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFFS : WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY
The Board of County Commis-
sioners �/ �
of Weld County, Colo- By �
rado LE , D. MORRI ON #8067
915 10th Street Assistant Weld County Attorney
Greeley, Colorado 80631 915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
The Town of Frederick, Colorado ( 303) 356-4000 ext. 369
City Hall
Frederick, Colorado 80530
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS ,
The City of Ft. Lupton, THE TOWN OF FREDERICK, COLO-
Colorado RADO; THE CITY OF FT. LUPTON,
City Hall COLORADO; THE WEISNER SUBDI-
Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621 VISION PRESERVATION ASSOCIA-
TION
The Weisner Subdivision
Preservation Association
Route 2 Box 16480 By : i:1.7;.= ; z, ( /i / -
Brighton, Colorado 80601 FRANCIS K. CULKIN #2969
720 South Colorado Blvd .
Denver, Colorado 80222
( 303) 759-3495
County of Weld
ss . VERIFICATION
State of Colorado
I , the undersigned, Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of the County of Weld, Plaintiff herein, being
sworn states : That the facts set forth in the foregoing
COMPLAINT are true to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief.
Norman Carlson
Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,41? ' day of
July, 1979.
WITNESS my hand and official seal .
My commission expires : (c ;,, / , °
,
Notary Public
-18-
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF was placed in the U. S . mail, postage prepaid to :
Alan E. Schwartz
Musick, Williamson , Schwartz,
Leavenworth & Cope, P .C .
Attorney at Law
75 Manhattan Drive - Suite 1
P .O. Box 4579
Boulder, Colorado 80360
DATED this ,, L day of July, 1979.•
_
To ie Antuna
` % EXHIBIT "A"
q
S
V. ,i/ !.INITLI) b ., FE-` t-f;V;H' iyII I1 I Al_ !'F:9I E.C, i ION AF,t-t1UY S,'
4.
y
,.t
11 R V , 1 i I'M
REF : 8W-WP
lh
Honorable Richard D . Lamm 1,_
Governor of Colorado
State Capitol
Denver,, Colorado 80203
Dear Dick : /
I am pleased to inform you that I am approving with con- .
ditions the Areajide Water Duality Management Plan for Larimer
and Weld Counties as certified to us on February 14 , 1979 . I
feel that the Larimr r-t;Old 708 Plan addresses very complex
issue ;nrl the efforts of the 708 :tiff , advisory committees ,
COG , and local elected official - ar-o commendable . An attachment
it
to this letter outlines / thy conditions that need to be completed ,
prior to full approval of the Plan by F1'A . Of these conditions ,
five should receive priority consideration in the development .
of future 208 activities . They are : '<
1 . revision of thr Plan to he con ,;int 'nt with any
change; in stream clan '- [ flee ions and standards 4 .
which may be as igned at the time of reel.a s : i. CI -
cation for Larimer and Feld Counties particularly `'
as they might affect discharge permits . t
2 . increased emph;r-; i.s of an urban runoff management ,
program to include identification of problem areas
and control programs . 'in
IV
3 . increased coordination between EPA , State and local ,k,�• -
entities to address modifications in population "`'''
projections for the Larimer-Weld area as they arise . CJ
4 . analysis and updating of land treatment issues to
include utilizing wastewater for irrigation during �f
the summer , rapid infiltration systems , and reuse
.f
of treated sewage. effluent . .4.''!
5 . future analysis of water quality of lnl: es '�''6'
, rosor- �•i
1 voirs and groundwater and recommendations to main- 't{�
tarn or improve quality as related to use . ill
::IN
F1
1!,,
y I11,
- " py
b 1 • •
r
5 \
- \,. //P''
\vV W
I am approving the de . ' Inat ion of
and thes Irr arr and Weldsties
-,� mnnicipalit_e=; of e'�rthoud , ,Loveland , Ti�nnath , Eaton , Estes Park ,
:load , Greelc� Fort Collins ,oli
Lunn , Plattcv' 11e co Hudson ,Windsor
Johnasflla
r agencies - , Severance , and Windsor Kersey,
The renaisin:: munict a ': management agenctone , Fort remaining
ed municipalities of Ault ,
;rover , Lupton , �'r--ocrick , t . ilcrentono , Evans ,
Kecnesburg , LaSalle , Garden City , G ew R aC ,
Pierce , i,,oc hbu ie , Flilli ken , Me;; Rai,n,„r
and Posedale a-_;2 conditionally designated as management
agencies pending their
agencinirac. ceptanc , of management agency responsi_
In the
biliti as the rnahe er�.. � appropriate county is nated
are aware , agency. for those municipalities
future As
m^nt aw grant reguerts for •:;astewater treat -
-ties will ho awarded only to
agencies a Pproved management
The
State/Npr r _
Program within EP < : - - out ;;i11. ho used to guide the 208
fprogram
applicationsihi _ o' Colorado . Consequently , all
_ _r 20,13 fundin with this agreement , g should be consistent
We 1AO1: a I-
for;:ar_. ` � continuing our r- '�lntionr:hiP with
t-Ire State and. the rdri-ier- .eld C• the Plan is im;tlems:i = - .: and r ,, . ouncil of Governments an
°'e feel the implement :-.:
jrtir.�; - r ,� -, i ^ions are made , In
preterits an summary ,
upon uhich to hut1 . _ Rqualityt foundation nrent
pr.,-)ram within i,nri m..,_ - - er_ t � ve ccatcr quality f-, nr.
d Weld t ureat 'n .
Larimer -:inl � _ Coiui tin•; an,l
c Pegion..rl can -si] r the Sstl The
and its advisory ' f Gco �z end
isory g.,�,;: -: are to ntr , its sCaff ,
b" commended .
Sincerely yours ,
{7, -
Alan
icrson
4,
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
cc : Irma Princic
Gary 13roetzman
I
I
( - The following identifl ., . ��
`:'at flea1ir I'" • ' r•c ituaf. ion Weld
the Arp•a•.:ide
.}' Management 1' L-in for Lorimer and PleJd Counties .
The format of this review follows the requirements of 40
Part 131 . 1 - ��!
(a ) through d t
provide direction to1LI'1RCr))G 1�P,1 ` li concrr_o are structured to .1
and the State on what additional.
item; need to be completed for the Plan to comnly with current
EPA policies and 700 program requirements . Where IN
additional work arc identified , they are to i items for IN
conditions of Plan approval .
he infer r `'-
interpreted as
4
(a ) C'(•i :]i1li1C, P, )t1I11)ir!l1C
- Boundaries for 200 planning LnrPones
are approv d IIo evrsr , i h:• Plan needs to further define
the relationship of the 2Lrl l,lanning areas to thr_ manage__ .
mont agencies for point coerces and the responsibilities
lj�:.
for preparation of a 201 i0 ineed
r-", t• wtl - facilitros plan needs f
to be defined between the r,
agenc-
ies . These intergovernmental
reeluid management arlc'nc-
- uvcrnncntai agreements are the focal
point for the success pf
future er.dr•avors ,
Ki
01 ) WATE:2 QUALITY S 1 /1 f' S / 11., 1'(• (. 1 /1J(, II 1 <'[lT IUId.S Pir r'4
realizes that the / stream clap o --- - Ii : �
c; � tication n• recommended
by th 1. !rim .nld 20'1 Flan m- be qy
classificationsalt one ; Crean are adopted h, the State and EPA approvesLi
55
Anlpr.Sian Sf :r n,l d.; package (criteria and cl i :: sifi.c_ aCions) .
f" s should be inr.rl'r'r"aLerl into the Plan uudato
pc ,ce . The State,
condition t1: -' . '•
.
assessment of ' - in to the qualrCy peeltt.-oam classifications within
the area .
is
j;
The present_ water" quality assessment
adeuuatal ��;,h,�;rrs not to
y support nor dory th�• PLan ' recommendationrecommcndtion for
classificationsstreaclassifications and stand rdn . EPA caorl: closely with the c+bu.l c! like to
State and Lorimer-Weld 200 effort
toward the, development of a more defined water
• .,.
data base with which t quality
o ensure improved water quality , r
decisions . In addition , the L!1RCOr, should work closely
with EPA to evaluate - •,-'
the feasibility of Clean Lakes
Funding for the area .
(o) IIIV hbITOPTEc :
Al1U I'Po rI C PIOuI.S : The Plan pr gamic inventory - -- -- evade an ado-
.4..
of municipal source:; of pollutants and
projections of municipal wastes . Lesser detail was pre- ,
sented in the Plan for industrial soured: which ma ,
contribute pollutant . from point .E sources 1
projected industrial wnstn ' and ul+r:,:cjne needed
on Norr information is needed .
theseindustrial sources and suhnequant projected .in-
dustrial waste. - . More information is
industrial loadin ° needed on these
9s as well as loading from nonpoint :4r
i,'1 +F
llr(
4
;t�Wi r
'it
! f
��ources ^_cialiv u ! 1 (,
find:: . The no . �cl � runoff , silviculture and leach G'
at ' a projections use ,l in the Plan to [.
calculate future point source loading must be revised as �pi�.
more current information is generated . if
(d ) HOWPOINT SOURCE _ _t rr, t It is recognized that the
major non point pollutant problem in the Larime_r -geld
Region is associated with irrigated agriculture +.
}, exerted and a the
majority of the effort wasjustifiably toward
defining .{
J the impacts of irrigated agriculture and suhse-
quest control programs can the waters of the area . How-
ever , there I - justification to assume other nonpoint f
sources of pollution such as those from silviculture , j
urban runoff , and leachate from septic tanks , are con- '1
tributiny to the pollutant load . Future 208
't.a rce sou asseassessment work will need to he directed nonpoint toward i
i.dend F yi.ng and controlling their associated water quality
problems . 1
c4
(e) [7,lrr r OUALf rl ,'iA )A 7c; '
The plan used the latest in For-
0
nation on otreati classifications and criteria available firs r_i: Slat ._ at tir Lime an that wasThee Plan will need to Plan formulation . ,`
;
he modified to reflect several
lichanges made in those standards since the time they were t.
useQ by Larf er-:'eld in iI :; Plan development . Ti,e Plan
W1 ti
11 also need to he
modified to accommodate
between stream classifications is differences ..,
; ifictt- fun-; -fcl;,l.f , cl by i
those recommended the Plan ' se shoe and
�trind in for
waters .
the are-a ' _• surface , '
(f ) TO TAI, Fl tr i,,,� rliny 10A PS : if ��:
the stream
adepts and EPA
approves the Plan ' 0A -
recommended stream classifications ,
the maximum d. �any load for point sources is satisfactory . r_r
No./ever , if the State does not adopt or EPA does not
s recommendations approve all of the Plan ' ndat:ions then the Plan will need to be
revised accordingly . The gross
allotment for nonpoint load
ghat r . sources nerds further detail than
' presented in the Plan . This information will
'
need to be included in the plan update
(g) POINT SOURCE LfAt3 ALLOCATIONS :OC:ATION. :Ili
TE the State adopts and f I.. 1.
EPA approveshe Plan ' s recommended
the Po tot sourcestream classifications , r .
evaluated .trl load allocations aY i-en aresatisfactory for ihc ,e
parameters If not , lhen , r.
will I need to p,,• modified I oi.nt source allocations I
I
lb)
e accordingly . The monitoring as
discussed .in f of value for the dalrne•ation of
point ounce allocations . Tho Al1l m,_ f 3��a further addresses memo 1979 lit( ,
eat in March +
_ the water quality management role in rf�lt,'
point source load allocations and should he consulted ,
a ;
1
P,
;Ii
.
,(t.
r;//‘ 4 " - 3 -
In addition , toxic:; , ' in ' 'Hlint heavy natal ': n ' - require
further wort depending on the. ah ;,
able loads . —` `rnent o ` total allow-
(h) ii901CIPAL ' r , i`r: lrA'iilhtJt SY flit i:l'KUS : The Proposals
relating to municipal waste treatment system needs are
dependent on the State ' s accmi,-• ,:nnce of the stream classi- .
ficati.on; as proposed in the 208 Ilan . At any rate ,a much more detailed evaluation regarding land treatment '
( including rapid infiltration ) , rouse , and wastewater ex-
change i :; nee : ,s:ary . The. results and findings futnrn 201 studio.; should be I:; of ongoing , ..y
Plan . '[n theincorpor<at-"cl into the
,'atcr fina I I ty :'ann,a�lcment N' g 11at Ions under �
Section 3 !; . 9I / (c ) of Subpart- E ; it is: staLe'-1 that after
October 1 , 1979 , EPA shall not approve a '!rant for any
r i nmunicipal rr..al ;t' nr worksworksunde faci .lita- seta ' t nn ii oetion ell where such
�d information is not available i an � �
approved 2r11 plan except when '1
nation w,. not ,,i thin •t_nnIncftIne ty related infur-
or that the n�;,: tid of -� ° of the 708 t;r, rk program c.
the 201 grant is necessary to achieve illr
water quality goals .
(i ) O1USIJ>I h I Ii: J1 r;11 r .,
the po , , i.hiI t o ' ' . 'I: done
Except for •'r ,
}' f toxic s , nnk done to data is
rr
acceptable if the ° tateadopts the Plan ' s 1i-commendations
for stream classifications . n
will h^ nnerl '.l Otherwise , adui ti r�nnl work
- to revise tha Ilan to mate it consistent
vi Lb the St di ^ ' •: adohtctl _and EPA ;i ,et'ov^d II,
fir,ations . The appropriate place ] - ream hchianger w
will be in the - L - cc to make tlror;�, changes
plan update .
(j ) IJ OIIPOTIJ1 ^nUPs r' COIIlROf, NEEDS : , �
a The Plan recommendations
for nonpoint source control :. are commensurate level of detail - with the I '
- presented in the none
Site joint source assessment .. ':
specific problems relating to nonpoint sources other
than irrigated agriculture were not identified in the Plan .
Therefore , few control measures arc specificallyrecommended , , r,..
other than those for irrigated agriculture . In addition ,
sources ,
cost- estimates are not: presented for the control. of .1
other nonp�sinf- popollutionupollutionio these ."(.
nor air, cost estimates i
Presented for the controls which are needed to meet EPA ' s
1993 goals . A . stated in (d ) EPA recognizes the substan-
C.ial contrnhntion of pollutants from irrigated ��
and the assessment from other snnnac.,, of rated agriculture
iol ti
are dependent in a large kart on nt fu dl pollution
it
must- be ev, 1subsequent fundin and ilualed accordingly _ LI'A regulations I 1 `: whichs
apply to all the nonpoint rein-ce categories discussed in
.the Plan ( :soe 40 CFR 13.1 . 11 (j ) ) include : ( 1 ) development/ ��
identification of regulatory program; to achieve the pro- 4' '
a
a{
ilt ;
r;!
r'l
I
Ir
rposedcontrol > t.3
( : ) Uhal ' i ficat i_on of milestones s, fur when t.
t-=rr' desired controls ill he implemented ; ( 3 ) identifica-
tion of management agencies that will be r-_ •
4.
implement the, d, responsible to r `.
i .:,mod controls ; (4 ) presentation of costs f
by agency and activity 5 your increment: to achieve the
desired controls ; ri,
( 5) and a description of the proposed
actions necessary to achieve the desired controls .
Ry
v
Tho agriculture portions of the Plan includes sufficient
de,t_a i l and meets EPA regn i rem nt; for the expend i to e
of HCD)p funds, in the Little Thompson Ravin . In so far
as the State Pnral Clean Water Program Coordinating . !
Committee has IdcntiIicd the Little Thompson Ravin as
a top priority within the State , EPA ant c loot c_ .; that
the expenditure of funds in e isle ,
in the development - area would g ,- ,rtl�' assist
lopment of control i'rograms Car agriculture ,t
for the entire Penton . I'Sndinas from the study ,should he }t
incorporated into thr_ ,Ilan amendment process .Plan of solid waste magagsmest facilities within the
twos-county rr'gior was not considered to be a high priority . S'r.
Consequently , only ;r cursory review of major land disl'osal
sites are connect - d .end t ' -
;'ralrl—� possibility <• f ad verse v ,rtcr y impact r, on both, ur race end grohurdr.'ator rr t,:
f sore prior p rrc !- i c r^� ":ul Li nq
- i I- . Ti.ln,Thimlinn : of na it arc from r
concentrated aninir 'r,_.dr .q. ., ,
racer operations fleas' may contribute to
. _ in grounc ater nitrogen levels In addition , t,
Ie-'clra �� from Failing sortie .
and systems ms. may d .Trade ground .n:
surface, tarter quality in the •`. :
c'yion . Rdcauce the, „ l.'p
nay be violations of sta;:lard:: regarding landfills , more i -'`
trod: needs to be conducted in regard to n ❑ ser,s ins 'i, .
extent , nature and loc- J t:he
atron or ;i_qn i. C leant c •, or • .r.,
potential ground and surface water fisting , r(;
er quality degradation
resulting from residual waste control and a control
program , if needed , to prevent such degradation . There
is a definite need to 1 ._.
- - coordinate water quality planning ;k
to meet the requirements of the Re5;ource Conservation
and recovery Act , the Toxic Substances Control. Act , and
the y
Safe Drinking Oster Act .
1 it
I •
(1 ) 1APc1;T ARA'1'Irltfl'P 17AIfs :
_ __- - An implementation schedule is �I
presented for each of the significant recommendations
found in the flan . TURCO(, should taorl closely with the
State and EPA in defining future activitic-: .
r 1�
(m) fl/ANAfl IIFIIT AGENCIES : The i`_--__ State designated Lari.arc's and �.
Weld counties municipalities and 15 municip, r
as 1r•management agencies P.
' aftY
*.•..
t '!1.
v 8'
without_ condition ; and I '• others with condition : For 'tF'.
those 10 nunicipalitie,. , ' he 1ItatP has icrlue _ ted that they 7 ['
receive designation when and if they accept: the resl.onsi- Ai.
Iilitien as a management agrrncy • In the interim , the `,i
appropriate county is designated as the management agency `�',,
for those municipalities . EPA feels the State has acted
'(c 1
within its legal authority in the designation of manage- L ':::,
rienC agencies and is !supportive of the recommendations . {1
Tut-cements between nanarl00nnt agencies and operating ItIl. .
agencies must he completed . ,1
(n ) [ il_i1POlUIP;1J'IAI SOCI",L A P7 1;CO11(1�! IC Irl[ AC I' : An cnviroe- t�Ft'1
mental social , and economic impact assessment and techni - •7
� r
cal supporting documents which address each specific reeom- t
mondaCion are presented in th;. Plan . The assessment is
generally aluluate for t'urposc ; of 20H planning . A more r
dc, {. ,ail od assessment will h^ nac,rl^d for each 7.O1 project r�t.t" .
that is funded by 1:i'A . Thane 2O1 assessments should "t(
address site specific / impacts . e.
f
(o) Ft PL' C I AI:'[ It 11 ATLO,I • Th : t' lati document _; very well the y. i
Viblie participation and decision ma�.inc! e. r
proco : s that
r
was followed during develo ma nt of the Plan The ,c
Ltl"Cgr1 is to he coplauded for ; hoi r efforts i n .ic-h,i ev- 4("�
ind public invelve•ntent: . This alert^nt in approved except t°
a
Coy obt aim ; n_Y specific nil _ ,,t nt ut nay r7orlmilnents
(n r; di . cussed in (m) ) to r le it. t.ho.se sections of the
Plan for which they will have responsibility . el 1
1
tt
!qt.
r{t:.
�t (:
Rot.
n
,
re .
,r4
,i_
)
ii
, ,
Hello