HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081459.tiff r
CORRESPONDENCE RESPON
,� / i
DEPARTMENT OF j�1Gtc, 761/iL '
* * * PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN THREE DAYS.* * *
IF RESPONSE WILL BE DELAYED,
PLEASE NOTIFY "CTB GROUP" BY E-MAIL
OF EXPECTED DATE FOR RESPONSE.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Narrative:
I:6, t4
BOARD ACTION: (Initial by Approval) DL BJ RM DR BG
AGREE WITH RECOMMENDATION - J
WORKSESSION -
METHOD OF RESPONSE:
Board Action
Work Session
k. Letter (Attached)
Telephone Call
No Response (explain) We hat V` , k
Depa ment Head Signature
�/ M:\CAROL\OPMAN\RDCOMP2
t (7 2t �.1/7 -Mill
` (�0 : ( 2008-1459
C`/ /v///,)'
MELBON RANCH INC.
William D. Sarchet, President
8627 CR 41
Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621
Fred W. Sarchet,Treasurer
3173 52""Avenue
Greeley,Colorado 80634
April 9, 2008
WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
915 10`h Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
DAVID BAUER
WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
1111 H Street
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Sirs:
We received your "recommendations" regarding the flooding conditions at the intersection of
CR 41 and CR 18. The flooding is caused by the County forming a dike with a resulting lake
behind it. The so-called recommendations are really your way of transferring responsibility to
the harmed landowner. It was the build-up of the road that has caused the whole problem.
Until the road is lowered allowing for the natural drainage, the problem will continue.
In your "recommendation" numbered 1, you have said that there would be additional culverts,
but no information regarding the capacity of the culverts. Your lack of information shows that
there is no commitment from you. As I presented when we met with you,the culverts that are
presently there don't even come near taking care of the drainage needed. The design for the
road, I assume,was designed by your engineer. How could a competent engineer design a dike
and resulting lake bed and call it a road. We had no problem with flooding our property from
1942 until 45 years later when the road was built up. The County caused the problem and it is
your responsibility to remedy it. It has already caused us thousands of dollars in repairing the
damage, let alone the decreasing value of our property as a result of your actions.
In your "recommendation" numbered 2,there is again no information regarding number of
culverts or capacity. You point out that the culvert there is partially blocked. The culverts are
the responsibility of the County, so whose fault is this but yours?
In "recommendation" numbered 3, you again shift the responsibility to the landowners by
cutting the value of our property again by your proposing swales and "sheetflow runoff". We
make our living on the farm and each diversion from farming is your taking our resources for
making a living. You are also directing us to construct these swales and also stating that they be
completed before you do anything.
In "recommendation numbered 4, you again demand that the construction be on our property
with no compensation for this property and maintained by us. We are the damaged
landowner!! YOU are the damaging party!! This is your responsibility!!
In "recommendation" numbered 5, you have the nerve to ask us to release you from the
liability that you have caused. You want to be sure that it is signed, legalized and isn't it
wonderful that you so willingly will get the Commissioner's signature. What you are doing is
transferring your serious mistake to make us take the fall and would damage our case if we
seek a legal remedy.
The road is not as high in front of other property along the way and it does not need to be that
high in front of our property. The only true way of solving the problem is to lower the road two
feet and admit your mistake when it was built. Lowering the road two feet should not disturb
the utilities that are in or next to the road and it would make it manageable for us to handle the
water around the house and machinery areas when heavy rains occur. The engineer at that
time should have studied the run-off area and water it would produce. As part of the design of
the road, consideration for drainage should have been dealt with. Now it up to you to correct
his error.
Sincerely yours, y
AS—SC/La—tr.
William D. Sarchet, president
Melbon Ranch Inc.
Fred W. Sarchet, treasurer
Melbon Ranch Inc.
WILLIAM D. SARCHET
8627 County Road 41
Ft. Lupton,CO 80621
st ‘o MEMORANDUM:
BOCC DATE: 1-May-2008
IFROM: David Bauer,P.E.,Public Works Dept. `\ �)
SUBJECT: Response to William and Fred Sarchet, Melbon Ranch,
•II8627 WCR 41, Fort Lupton Regarding Drainage Issues
COLORADO
Issue Summary:
1. Mr. Fred and Mr. William Sarchet contacted Commissioner Masden regarding flooding of
their residence located at 9061 WCR 41 following a rainstorm that occurred overnight on
August 2nd to 3rd, 2007. The Sarchets met with Commissioners Rademacher and Jerke,
and engineers Drew Scheltinga and David Bauer on February 14, 2008 at Public Works.
2. Rain gauges located a few miles southeast of this area recorded a 1.10 inch storm on July
28, 2007. In less than 12 hours, over 6-inches of rain fell on this area on the evening of
August 2-3, 2007.
3. The August 2-3, 2007 rainstorms occurred during irrigation season. Those rainstorms fell on
fields wet by the July 28 storms; multiple wettings by irrigation and rainstorms earlier in the
week prevented absorption of the new rain and increased the runoff from the near-saturated
fields upslope (west and southwest) of the WCR 20 and WCR 41 intersection and Sarchet
home.
4. On August 2-3, 2007, the hay in the Sarchet-owned field to the south of the Sarchet home
was cut and windrowed; absorption of the extreme rainfall that occurred that day would be
reduced compared to a tall stand of hay.
5. Per the Sarchet's description, the windrowed hay was swept off the fields and across the
roads following the August 2-3 storms.
6. During a field visit to the area on August 3, 2007 Public Works staff observed quantities of
hay clogging the WCR 20 roadside swales and culvert pipes under WCR 41. According to
the Sarchets, this hay came from their fields.
7. During a field visit to the area on August 3, 2007 Public Works staff observed a pile of soil,
and informal berm on the northeast corner of the Sarchet property at the intersection of
WCR 20 with WCR 41. This soil pile appeared to impede sheetflow off their field toward the
WCR 20 intersection resulting in ponding in the field and overflow onto WCR 41.
8. The USGS topographic map of the area between WCR 18 and WCR 22, (in the vicinity of
the home at 9061 WCR 41) shows that the Sarchet home is located at a low point of the
natural topography (estimated elevation 4893 feet).
9. The WCR 41 profile also has a low point located approximately 500 feet north of its
intersection with WCR 20. This is the lowest point of WCR 41 along over 4 miles of its
alignment.
10. Existing culverts under WCR 41 on the north and south sides of WCR 20 convey flows to
the east. Additional culverts at this location have been recommended. Culvert options may
need adjustment depending on the location of utilities and provision for adequate cover and
ROW.
Page 1 of 2 5/2/2008
M:\DAVE B\WCR 41 &20(Sarchet)\Response to BOCC GreenSheet 5-1-08.doc
11. An existing 24-inch corrugated metal culvert is located under WCR 41 approximately 500
feet north of the intersection of WCR 41 and WCR 20. This culvert drains the Sarchet
property from west to east under WCR 41. Additional culvert capacity at this location has
been recommended to the Sarchets. The culvert size options may need adjustment
depending on the location of utilities and provision for adequate cover.
12. Following the February 2008 meeting, Public Works evaluated possible mitigation
alternatives and proposed additional culverts and grading in a March letter to the Sarchets
that was accompanied by the County's standard Right to Enter form.
13. Access to the Sarchet property to install the additional culverts is needed. They have
refused to sign a right to enter.
14. Shallow swales, to be located on the Sarchet property upslope (west) approximately 200
feet from the existing home, to deflect runoff toward the WCR 41 culverts was
recommended to the Sarchets to reduce flood risk within their property. They have refused
to consider construction of this minor drainage feature.
15. Weld County Road 41 is the major north-south paved thoroughfare for the area. A
September 2007 traffic count found an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1162 vehicles. The
closest alternative north-south paved road is 4 miles to the east.
16. The Sarchets have requested the County to lower the centerline elevation of WCR 41 in
front of their property. However, lowering the WCR 41 profile elevation would increase the
likelihood of road overtopping and prevent vehicle passage on this essential roadway during
rainstorms.
Discussion
The Sarchets have not expressed willingness to assist in resolving the situation except with their
own solution. Consideration of mitigation must be balanced with an understanding of historic
drainage conditions, frequency of extreme storms, site-specific events, and public roadway needs.
The rainstorms of August 2-3, 2007 were in excess of the 500-year event (0.2 percent chance of
occurrence). Factors contributing to August 2007 shallow flooding along WCR 41 include the
Sarchet home location at the area low point, culvert blockage by freshly mown hay, and possible
near saturation of adjacent fields due to irrigation and prior rainstorms.
Lowering of WCR 41 would allow more frequent road overtopping and increased risk to the
travelling public and emergency responders. Additional culvert capacity under WCR 41 would
mitigate some, not all of the shallow flooding risk.
Site-specific constraints include fitting additional pipes between existing utilities, the fact of the
historic topographic lowpoint at the Sarchet home location, and the need to maintain a functioning
road during rainfall events. The value of additional culverts is reduced if measures are not taken to
direct runoff toward these pipes.
Recommendations
Lowering of WCR 41 is not recommended. A construction easement is needed to affect any of the
mitigation steps described above. An additional outreach to the Sarchets to request their
assistance in mitigating the situation can be attempted.
Page 2 of 2 5/2/2008
M:\DAVE B\WCR 41 &20(Sarchet)\Response to BOCC GreenSheet 5-1-08.doc
I.
♦ Y
'• .
4. - I
• . •
i
•
1 4, •
t
I t
r It
I.
1 1 Al
1
' I
1
11
-a
. 1
:\IIIIIIIIIPIS .
•
illir Mill4 I ' • -- •
it
Ufa1 li . .
t
lir ..
r- -
a a i S••'_ t.._--'•itir
, • Sorthet
rfr Nise
Ibir ' ,' ill W- 14.-
OW
•
MI .
e 5 . I i a 4-.* At .. •ll .
�...`�'
I.
i ill
_ I
III\ .
a
r
6
•
N . r
t
4
•
ti•
P
« 1
I
Hello