HomeMy WebLinkAbout830030.tiff .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, COLORADO
Case No. 83-CV-908 , Division II
CERTIFICATE OF RECORD
TOWN OF MILLIKEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD,
Defendant.
COMES NOW the Board of County Commissioners of the County of
Weld and hereby transmits to the Court the full and complete
transcript of all records, exhibits, matters, and proceedings of
the Board of County Commissioners and the verbatim record of all
proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners on November
16 , 1983, and December 12, 1983, relative to the application of
Arvin G. Martensen, d/b/a E-VAP, Ltd. , for Use by Special Review.
The attached documents are certified to be a full, true and
complete record of all such proceedings.
DATED this 31st day of January, 1984 .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF WELD,
Defendant.
i
B : , .-'%
JEANNETTE SEARS
u,ty Clerk to the Board
Tenth Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Yw (303) 356-4000
'Sr S.l.
830030
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Certificate of Transcript was placed in the United
States mail , postage prepaid, addressed to:
Laura E. Shapiro
Attorney at Law
822 Ninth Street, Suite B
Greeley, CO 80631
DATED this 31st day of January, 1984 .
4er ,
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY , COLORADO
DOCKET NO. 83-72
IN RE: PPLICATONVIN N) OR
A USE BYASPECIALIREVOIEWFRAND A OAD 4 CERTIFICATE OF E-VAP PARK RDESIGNATIONL FFORAN
OIL AND GAS WELL PRODUCTION WATER DISPOSAL SITE
HEARING CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 16 , 1983 , AT 2 : 00 P .M.
TAPES 83-137 , 83-138 , AND 83-139
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
CHUCK CARLSON , CHAIRMAN
JOHN T. MARTIN , PRO-TEM
GENE R. BRANTNER
NORMAN CARLSON
JACQUELINE JOHNSON
ALSO PRESENT:
ARVIN MARTENSEN , APPLICANT
KENNETH LIND, ATTORNEY , REPRESENTING ARVIN MARTENSEN
CHARLES KAROWSKY , ATTORNEY , REPRESENTING MR. & MRS .
GUS VETTER
TOM NORTON, FROM
RTHE
ED & E
ENGINEERING FIRM OF NORTON ,UR. RUSSELL ANSON , ASSISTANT WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY
TOMMIE ANTUNA, ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD
ROD ALLISON , CURRENT PLANNER, REPRESENTING THE WELD
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Next item must be what everybody' s
waiting for . Docket number 83-72 , Arvin G. Martensen.
MR. ANSON : Okay, this is Docket number 83-72 which is an
application from Arvin G. Martensen, 2121 North Lincoln Avenue ,
Loveland Colorado, for a Use by Special Review and a Certificate
of Designation for an Oil and Gas Well production water disposal
site on Part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26 and Part of
the Northwest Quarter of Section 25 , Township 5 North ; Range 67
West of the 6th P.M. Weld County , Colorado. Notice of this
hearing has been published on November 3 , 1983 , in the LaSalle
Leader . The Board of County Commissioners in considering a Use
by Special Review must be satisfied that the applicant has
demonstrated the following: That the proposal is consistent with
the Weld County Comprehensive Plan; that the proposal is
consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is
located; that the uses which would be permitted will be
compatible with the existing surrounding land uses; that the uses
which would be permitted would be compatible with the future
development of that surrounding area as permitted by the existing
zone , and with future development as projected by the
Comprehensive Plan of the County and the adopted master plans of
affected municipalities. That if the uses proposed to be located
in the A District, that the applicant has demonstrated a diligent
effort has been made to conserve productive agricultural land in
a locational decision for the proposed use, and that there' s
-1-
adequate provision for the protection cf the health, safety and
welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and of the County .
MR. ALLISON: Okay Mr. Chairman, there are two motions
associated with Case Number, Use by Special Review 540-83-3 . The
first motion was for a favorable Resolution to be passed on to
the Board of County Commissioners. This motion failed. The vote
for passage was Sharon Linhart and Jack Holman; against passage ,
Ed Reichert, Doug Graff, Paulette Weaver , and Bob Ehrlich. The
second motion , it was moved by Doug Graff that an unfavorable
Resolution for Case Number, Use by Special Review 540-83-3 be
introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission for
the following reasons :
1 . The applicant has failed to provide evidence that the
submitted application materials are in compliance with the
following sections of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance:
Section 24 . 4 . 1 .3 - that the uses which would be permitted
will be compatible with existing surrounding land uses , and
Section 24 . 3 . 1 . 7 - that there is adequate provision for the
protection for the health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County.
This motion was seconded by Paulette Weaver , vote for passage, Ed
Reichert, Doug Graff , Paulette Weaver, Bob Ehrlich; against
passage , Sharon Linhart and Jack Holman. Representatives of the
applicant are here if the Board has any questions.
CHAIRAN C. CARLSON: Yes.
-2-
MR. LIND: Mr. Chairman , Board of County Commissioners , my
name is Kenneth Lind, Attorney at Law, 1011 11th Avenue , here in
Greeley. I am here to represent the application and the
applicant of, commonly known as E-VAP Park, and very briefly I
would like to review your Use by Special Review Standards and
make a few general comments on those.
As far as the proposal being consistent with the intent of the
District , right now this property is located in the Ag District
and the facility, the uses for this facility, are allowed by
Special Review process. It' s in line with the uses such as an
asphalt plant, gravel mining, junk yards , land fills , sewage
systems and it is obviously consistent with that District intent.
Now, uses which are permitted in the surrounding area, we have
mainly Ag uses . There is a substantial amount of dryland
agriculture , some irrigated agriculture, radio towers, Mountain
Bell towers, and of course, a substantial amount of oil and gas
production. Your next review item is , if it is located in an
Agricultural District what efforts have been made to conserve
Agricultural land? This site had a pivot sprinkler covering
approximately one half of the acreage and there was that
irrigated agriculture on approximately twenty to twenty-five
acres . The remaining twenty to twenty-five acres, were devoted
to some dry land agriculture in some years and in some years not
devoted to that. The reason for that it' s between two pivot
sprinklers and the use between two pivot sprinklers does not
readily adapt itself to irrigated farming. In fact, the existing
-3-
pivot that was covering part of the location has been removed and
my understanding is that the land owner , Mr. Blehm, is probably
not going to re-erect that pivot sprinkler. So in effect, we had
a irregular shaped parcel of land which would not be devoted to
prime agricultural purposes. Next, protection for the health,
safety and welfare of the County. I 'm sure that you will see the
Operation Standards , promulgated by the County Planning
Department, as well as those recommendations from the State
Health Department and the plan for operation of this facility,
which will be presented to you as part of the application, will
clearly protect the health, safety and welfare. Then that gets
into the consistency with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and
uses being compatible with what was designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. Would point out that this was brought up
yesterday in the Planning Commission hearing, there ' s some
discussion that this was in Greeley' s Comprehensive Planning area
and specifically in a proposed residential use area by the City
• of Greeley. We've had the opportunity to pick up the
Comprehensive Plan of Greeley Future Land Use , and I ' ll present
one of several of these to the Commissioners. First, I would
point out that specifically it is not within either the Greeley,
Evans or Milliken Comprehensive Plan area. It is not in any
proposed residential area. In fact, the location for this
facility is approximately two miles off of this map which covers
the Comprehensive Plan, so it may be of limited value to you. Of
course, several years ago, Weld County promulgated a
-4-
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, this is the only copy I have of
that, what we ' re talking about is a location approximately three
miles north of Milliken. You will note that it is not in a
designated flood plain area , it' s not in a plain or reservoir,
flood plain or reservoir area, it' s not in a future town growth
residential area. It is in a non-area for growth. That is the
case today. Milliken, it ' s my understanding, has not adopted a
Comprehensive Plan of it' s own any different from the proposed
County' s Plan. So as far as its meeting its compatibility with
the County, as well as Greeley, Milliken, or Evans, future land
growth plan, it definitely meets that criteria. I would pass
around this map, circle the location of that , if it will be a
benefit to you. I 've circled that and marked it with an X, it is
right in the very middle of the map. Before proceeding a little
further , Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to ask
one individual to make his comments , he has an appointment prior
engagement this afternoon in Denver and he has asked me if it
would be permissible for him to make his presentation out of
order.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s fine.
MR. LIND: Mr. Chairman, the individual ' s name is Mr. Ross
Wabeke. Mr. Wabeke is an Attorney from Loveland, his emphasis
and his practice is bankruptcy, specifically, he is a Bankruptcy
Trustee for the United States Federal Bankruptcy Court. The
reason we have asked Mr. Wabeke to be present today, yesterday
there was an issue as to whether or not the Planning Commission
-5-
in effect, Weld County, even had the authority to review this
application and in addition to that whether or not the property
owner, Mr. Blehm, had the right to lease the property or propose
the use for this property. I would ask Mr. Wabeke to address
those issues.
MR. WABEKE: As Mr. Lind said, I am a Bankruptcy Trustee and
an attorney. I will address simply the question of Mr. Blehm' s
authority as a debtor in possession in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy to
enter into a lease with the applicant. Under the Bankruptcy
Code, specifically Section 1107 , a debtor in possession, such as
Mr. Blehm, is given all of the rights and powers of a trustee
serving in such a case if a trustee is not appointed, as has been
the case here, there is no trustee appointed for the case. As
such, the very simple and direct answer to the question is that
he does have the authority to enter into a lease with the
applicant. I can answer further questions on that, but the
statute is very clear and if it' s of any help, I have several
copies of the pertinent Bankruptcy Code section which is , as I
stated, 1107 . In addition to the Code section itself, there are
comments by the Senate and House Committees, when passing that
particular statute which all clearly state that the intent is to
give the debtor in possession full authority to act as a trustee
and; furthermore, that a trustee does have the authority to
operate the business of the actual debtor. So there would be
little question but that this lease could occur.
-6-
MR. KAROWSKY : Mr. Chairman, would it be permissible to ask
counsel a question?
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Came on up Charlie. We' ll need your
name.
MR. KAROWSKY: I 'm here on behalf of some protestants . This
is a little out of order, but I would like to inquire, is it not
true that the debtor in possession must act in the normal course
of business in any action that he takes in connection with the
bankruptcy property?
MR. WABEKE: He has to act, he can operate the business of
the debtor.
MR. KAROWSKY : In the normal course of business , would he be
permitted to sell this property without the approval of the
Bankruptcy Judge?
MR. WABEKE: Selling the property, because of the size of
the property involved, because I believe the debtor' s actual name
is Blehm Land and Cattle Company, . . .
MR. KAROWSKY: That' s right.
MR. WABEKE: Would require court approval
MR. KAROWSKY : Exactly.
MR. WEBEKE : for sale
MR. KAROWSKY: You don' t feel, it' s your contention, with
which I categorically deny, that he could also lease the property
over a long period of time without the approval of the Court?
MR. WABEKE: Could you clarify that question?
-7-
MR. KAROWSKY : In other words , if the Court is obligated or,
if he is obligated rather, to obtain permission from the Court to
sell the property. Since he has to act in the normal course of
business , that he' s a debtor in possession under a Chapter 11
Bankruptcy, he must also get permission of the Court in order to
enter into a long-term lease on property which is the subject of
the bankruptcy and which is under the jurisdiction of the
Bankruptcy Court.
MR. WABEKE: I would not agree and specifically for the
following reasons : The debtor in possession has the rights and
authority of a trustee. As a trustee, which I have served as a
trustee in well over 200 cases , I can enter into leases and those
leases can be binding. And if I can, as trustee , which I clearly
can, a debtor in possession which under the statute , would also
have that same authority.
MR. KAROWSKY: Counsel, if he has the same authority as a
trustee, then he has the authority to waive the stay on any
effort to foreclose on deeds of trust that might be in default
and I categorically deny that that' s possible.
MR. WABEKE: No, that wouldn' t be accurate. As a trustee , I
have no authority to waive the automatic stay with regard to a
bankruptcy. There are other things I can do in relation to the
stay. But I cannot simply waive it.
MR. KAROWSKY: Well, but you can hold a hearing to determine
whether or not there is a sufficient equity in the property in
order to permit a foreclosure sale.
-8-
MR. WABEKE : Well , if necessary , I can.
MR. KAROWSKY: Yecih . All I 'm contending is that you' re
saying that the debtor in possession , under bankruptcy , Blehm
Land and Cattle Company , is in a position to do anything with
this property that they see fit.
MR. WABEKE: No. I 'm specifically addressing the question
that was brought up yesterday , whether or not they can enter into
a lease with the applicant. I am not saying they can do anything
they want. I 'm saying they have the authority to enter into this
lease.
MR. KAROWSKY: Did you examine the lease in question?
MR. WABEKE: I have , yes I did.
MR. KAROWSKY : You've seen the details of the lease?
MR. WABEKE: Yes I have.
MR. KAROWSKY: It extends over a period of twenty years ,
isn' t that correct?
MR. WABEKE: I believe so. I had some input into several
rough drafts of it, and again , I . . .
MR. KAROWSKY: As I understand it, the debtor in possession
is obliged to submit a plan within 120 days or an extension of
that time for the determination by the court as to whether he can
proceed. And you' re contending that the debtor in possession is
able to enter into a lease that extends over twenty years of land
that is involved in the bankruptcy proceedings.
MR. WABEKE: It' s my contention that the debtor in
possession can enter into a lease with the applicant.
-9-
MR. KAROWSKY: I think the only person that can make that
determination is the Bankruptcy Court, right?
MR. WABEKE: No. I wouldn' t agree.
MR. KAROWSKY: Okay .
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay.
MR. WABEKE: Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Do you have any other questions? Any
comments? No.
MR. WABEKE: Thank you.
MR.LIND: Mr. Chairman , I would like to very briefly state,
I don' t think that is the issue , of whether the property can be
leased or not be leased at this time is an issue for the
Commissioners to decide. Obviously , it' s a legal question. If
there are individuals who believe that he cannot enter into the
lease , that would be a matter for the courts to decide after your
hopeful approval of the Certificate of Designation as well as the
property application as a Use by Special Review. I do thank you
for your consideration in allowing Mr. Wabeke to make his
presentation out of order . What we' re really looking at here is
this facility now comes under the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act, which was amended in 1983 , to include facilities
such as this which will require your approval for a Certificate
of Designation, as well as the Special Use Review Permit, prior
to construction and operation. I believe in your files you
should have a letter dated October 28 , 1983 , from the Colorado
Department of Health. I would note that they do recommend
-10-
approval of this facility. I also have reviewed the application,
the letter , I 've toured the site , and I can state to you that I 'm
impressed with the facility, proposed facility, I 'm impressed
with the site , as well as the plan of operation. I can state
that the applicant is willing to accept the recommended
provisions from the Colorado Department of Health for operation
and construction and the applicant is totally willing to accept
the prcposed Operation Standards from the County Department of
Planning and Zoning. Those Operation Standards , I believe there
are three pages of them, and probably incorporate all the
recommendations from the Department of Health, are without a
doubt , the most stringent that I ' ve ever seen. I applaud the
Planning Department for those standards because we know you've
had problems with these facilities, especially in the South
County. Now, obviously this is a controversial issue and our
presentation is going to bring up some of the issues and problems
that have been brought up. We obviously, are going to address
those and I think the key thing to remember throughout this
presentation is your recommendation and review of the need of
this facility. Based upon my experience and knowledge of the oil
and gas industry, as well as the proposed development for north
and central Weld County, I think it comes (TAPE CHANGE #83-138)
that the facility is desperately needed. The only existing
facilities for this operation are in Roggen and in the Ft. Lupton
area. Those facilities were fine for the development which has
taken place in Eastern Weld County and Southern Weld County, but
-11-
we ' re totally lacking the facilities in this area. According to
the figures from Mr. Hansen, in 1982 , oil and gas interest in
Weld County related directly to taxation of 4 . 7 million dollars.
Now that' s taxes collected. Their assessed evaluation is over
275 million dollars , so were talking about an industry that is
significant to Weld County, especially in light of the nearly 5
million dollars which this County collects in taxes. So I think
to make this an industry which we can all live with and benefit
the County, we have to provide certain facilities for their use.
If the County doesn' t provide those facilities, it' s obviously
necessary for the County to approve the facilities , that ' s
precisely what we have here. It' s an operation for which none
exist in north and central Weld County. It' s a problem right now
for the disposal of these fluids , it' s a problem that is not
going to go away unless the County makes, makes a facility or
provides a facility for the disposal of these fluids . The fluids
are there, they' re not gonna go away, we need a sensible and
logical place for those. I would ask your approval of the
Special Use Review application, as well as the Certificate of
Designation, which will come up at a later date, I understand,
and in relation to that, I would first call on Mr. Arvin
Martensen, who is the representative and spokesman of the EVAP,
who will give you a very brief explanation and overview of the
project. For your general information, we have a map that' s
related as Exhibit A, which is a vicinity map. We' re showing
highways, main highways, State Highway 257 , Federal Highway 34
-12-
bypass , as well as the business , County Road 54 , which of course
is the road adjoining the property, as well as Inter State 25 ,
Johnstown - Milliken. The circles represent one mile, two miles,
and three miles . Indicated right here, is the Blehm Waterway
Estates, which of course are now within the City Limits of
Milliken, the facility and these red and blue dots which indicate
homes or drilling sites or drill sites , as far as, I shouldn' t
say drill sites , they are water wells , as far as we have been
able to determine. So please keep in mind this map, we will keep
it up during the presentation. A lot of references will be made
to this map, but it ' s mainly here for demonstrative purposes so
that you can see our application. Mr. Martensen.
MR. MARTENSEN: Thank you Ken. My name is Arvin Martensen,
2121 North Lincoln , Loveland. I am the developer and in this
site the Director of EVAP Limited. As you probably know the
original application process was begun more than a year ago on
this site. It was completed in late December , submitted to the
County and the State officials in January of this year. I
entered it to the review of the original application early in
June. I observed a number of inadequacies, as did many others ,
in the original application and I visited the other three sites
within the County, I photographed operations down there and I was
immediately convinced that I could build and operate a much more
efficient and effective site than what I had observed. I met
with the County and State Officials as well as the Director of
the Oil and Gas Commission and I must say that my plans met with
-13-
immediate approval and folks were very impressed with the way we
initially planned to tackle this problem and improve upon the
original plan . I did retain the original engineering firm of
Norton , Underwood and Lamb, due to their extensive experience in
this type of area. As I reviewed the site , I noticed, I was
convinced that this had a low visibility and low impact on the
surrounding community, being centrally located in the middle of
the nearly two full sections of Blehm Land and Cattle Company.
The accessibility is superb and one of the early encouragements
of this site was that of the water haulers indicating that they
needed a site like this that could be well served with good
accessibility. During the nine month review process, the State
required more , and more, and more, information. The more we
tested this site, the better it looked. This was very
encouraging to us throughout. We did additional drilling and had
a great deal of geological and testing work done as well as soil
tests, etcetera. The general operation that we propose here, and
a few of the ways that it differs from the original application,
is that we do intend to receive all of the trucks that will come
to our area, rather than restrict the number, as was in the
original proposal , this will operate on a seven day a week,
twenty-four hour a day basis. We' ll have a full time resident
manager . We will have a manager and his family living on site so
that we will have full time control. The facilities are designed
so that they can be expanded should the need be demonstrated and
we are committed to assist the County in any way that we can to
-14-
resolve the pollution of brine in this immediate area. I ' ll make
those general comments and I return it back to Ken. Thank you .
MR. LIND: Mr. Chairman, the real key to this presentation
and the individual who has developed most of the application, and
I think the man with all the answers is Mr. Tom Norton, who is a
partner -with Norton, Underwood and Lamb here in Greeley, and I
think his presentation will answer most of your questions and
also address most of the problems which may have been brought
before you.
NR. NORTON: My name is Tom Norton with Norton, Underwood
'and Lamb. What I ' d like to do is go through the exhibits and
explain the development of the information and the operation of
the facility. Feel free to ask questions or for clarifications
as I proceed through, I don ' t mind at all some interruptions so
that we 're sure that we ' re clear with the description as I
proceed with it.
As discussed, the site is three miles from Milliken,
approximately three and a half or so from Highland Hills Golf
Course, this area here is Kodak, and Johnstown ' s in this location
again about three and a half miles from the site. The site is on
the top
QUESTION FROM AUDIENCE: (Inaudible)
MR. NORTON: What' s that?
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Just, why don' t you just let him
finish his program first.
-15-
(UNIDENTIFIED PERSON) : We need the correction made right
now that this is one and one half miles from Milliken, not three
miles from Milliken, as been stated several times in this
meeting. Thank you.
TOM NORTON: I do not disagree with that, I was just showing
that the original town site of Milliken here, Milliken has
annexed this area as been mentioned before, which is the Blehm
Waterway Estatesand that is a mile and a half from the site. The
other major location items that I would like to point out, the
blue dots here are existing non-registered water wells that are
in the alluvial material, they are the only wells that we 've been
able to determine that are within the one mile requirement,
they' re very low capacity alluvial wells and there are no deep
wells or good aquifers in the area of the site. The red dots
that are shown on here are residences within the one mile and, we
just point those out to you so that you are familiar with the
amount of residences in the area. The two mile circle, the water
forces that are within the two mile area include the
Greeley-Loveland Ditch, which comes along this side, there is
also a sheep draw which comes this way into the Poudre and there
are some other drainages that drain out, that are intercepted by
the Greeley-Loveland, but would also continue on and drain into
the Thompson, the Big Thompson River. Of course, the three mile
radius was drawn to show the inhabited areas around the site. I
might add, in the Blehm Waterway Estates that there are only two
houses in that location at the present time. The map shown here
-16-
8
is the same map that is in the application form in your packet,
we have added to that for descriptive purposes , the soil from
geologic test holes that were added, that were drilled for
investigative purposes . I ' d like to describe the operation
slightly , this is Road 54 , (inaudible) north is up on this map.
The location map here is identical to this one only a little
smaller version. The dot shown here for evaporative ponds to
evaporate the brine water , the entrance location is on the
northwest corner of the property , the office and building for the
resident manager is at this location, there will be a main access
gate here, which will be electronically controlled with a credit
card, so that as a trucker comes in here with a load to dump, he
would be able to go into the office and use that credit card to
register in, record the load, the time , the location that that
load was picked up from, and then his credit card would unlock
this gate and allow him to drive into the dump pit area which is
in the southern portion of the property. He would then be able
to dump in this location and the fluids would go through a
combination of three 20x20 concrete containers which would allow
the oil to rise to the top and the liquids to go through the
bottom and then the brine liquids could go to any one of the four
evaporative ponds . This is a schematic of how that would work.
The dump tank is higher in elevation , and would feed by gravity
down through the baffle and oil removal tanks and would be taken
off the bottom of that so that we can assure that the operation
will not run any oil (inaudible) in any of these facilities.
-17-
That' s important because if any oil gets on these four ponds , it
decreases the evaporation and reduces the effectiveness of the
facility. To describe the (inaudible) program a little bit,
there is some silty clay, sandy clay material in the over burdens
that ranges from 5 to 15 feet in these test holes . The
underlying material is the Laramie formation, which is a very
highly consolidated siltstone, claystone and sandstone material
and all of those drill holes had a number of tests run on them.
The ones shown on this side are the (inaudible) which gave us the
density and firmness of the material and also point out that
there was no groundwater found in any of the test holes that were
drilled. So we do not have a problem with groundwater. A couple
of more items about the operation itself. The oil will be
skimmed off of these tanks on a daily basis and will be heat
treated so that it can also drive off the minor amount of water
that' s left, and will be stored on the site in tank batteries and
then hauled, as full loads are obtained, to the refinery. To go
on with a little more detail about the site investigation, up to
Exhibit B. Exhibit B shows the size of these facilities , 9 and a
half acres and 3 acres each. The brown line shows the existing
dividing line for drainage at the site. The outline of the ponds
is shown with the contour lines on the interior the ponds are
five foot deep and will be operated at a maximum of 2 and a half
feet deep leaving a 2 and a half feet or 30 inch face board.
Again, the dump tank is here and the skim tanks are here, and
residents in this location. The black arrows are to show that
-18-
the drainage away from the site is the same as is , being
maintained the same , as it was before the proposed facility. The
design has also been completed to allow for containing the
maximum probable storm so that if a , (inaudible) which is the
maximum probable storm, is defined as a storm that theoretically
cannot happen. That' s where the 30 inches came from. It would
be 30 inches in 48 hours would have to, in excess of that, would
have to fall on the site before these facilities would be filled
up. So the drainage after the site is built will be away from
the site as it presently is. The red lines crossed are a
cross-section through the ponds to show what the elevation looks
like of both the existing and the proposed. Those two
cross-sections are shown here. This is number 1 and this is
number 2 . They also show the drill holes and the geology of the
underlying material. The yellow represents the clay liner that
is proposed to be one foot thick throughout all of the ponds. It
has a permeability of . 03 inches per year and one foot thick so
in the proposed 20 year life of the facility there could be
penetration up to six tenths of a foot into this liner. The
permeability in the underlying bedrock is determined at the
maximum and the sandstone type material that 2 . 16 feet per year,
which over the 20 year life, would be approximately 43 feet and
with that in mind, at the higher permeability laterally at 37 . 3
feet per year, we 've designed a complete secondary system so that
if a liner failure occurred , it would be picked up and the
perimeter drain that goes around the exterior of the facility,
-19-
0
the water would flow into this material and over into a clay
layer that was placed in here as backfill in the trench, would
get into a under drain , with still a drop and would be picked up
at that location. So we 've got a 100% safety factor in terms of
the possibility of leakage out of the facility. This Exhibit "D"
represents the perimeter drain. As you see, it' s all the way
around the facility. The access manholes , to check and see if
there is any liquids getting in there and to be able to run
quality tests , are located in the low spots around the facility
in a fashion that would be a six inch perforated drain pipe with
two foot of gravel around it and compacted clay backfill over the
top. So we think that there is two assurances to prevent a
leakage problem from the site; we believe that the drainage
problems from the site have been addressed to not increase, and
as a matter of fact would be slightly less , of a drainage problem
into the natural drainage wastes and sheep draw and the other
drainage way that goes down into the Greeley-Loveland. Are there
any questions about the exhibits or the operation of the
facility?
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: How far is groundwater, Tom?
MR. NORTON: There is no groundwater in the site. The
formation, the closest formation , under the site is in the
neighborhood of four to six hundred feet which is the Fox Hills
formation, but it has not been found to have water in that
particular location. The well drillers that we discussed it
with, Lesh and one other have tried to drill in that area and
-20-
a
have not been able to get any deep water. The water wells that
are there are shallow alluvia]. wells and they ' re usually in an
area where there is a seep from the Greeley-Loveland Canal or one
of the other small draws in the area.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: And then how high in production?
MR. NORTON: They are no high production wells. There are
two to five gallons per minute as best we could tell .
CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Any other questions? Okay.
(Inaudible)
MR. LIND: Mr. Chairman, over the course of the hearing
yesterday in front of the Planning Commission as well as letters
which have been presented to the Planning Department Commission
and I 'm sure in your packets, a number of perceived problems have
been brought up. We would like to try and address some of those
problems. One of those was called devaluation of property.
First, I really don ' t know how a person can address that issue.
My experience, through a lot of real estate legal work, is that
devaluation of property is a nice comment always made, my
property is going to devalue if you allow this or if you allow
this. But my experience is to the effect that devaluation occurs
only if you really have something adjoining you that' s creating a
nuisance or a bad problem. Here, it' s a proposed clean,
efficient operation. Mr. Blehm, the owner of all the surrounding
property. It' s a very logical site. The major creditors who
have this property in deed, to the tune of approximately four
million dollars , have no objection to the proposal. You can't
-21-
see the property , the location . I would point out to you that it
is my belief that this is the first drilling fluids proposal or
site location which has been reviewed by the Colorado Department
of Health under the new law and I can assure you that their
review of this has been extremely thorough. They did not want to
give their backing to a program or a site unless they were
absolutely convinced that it would meet the criteria that had
been designated by the State legislature and not cause a problem.
The letter from the State Department of Health I think clearly
states that it will be compatible with the law and will be
operated in compatibility with that law. Now, another problem
that was brought up here was your traffic and road problem.
Obviously, I 'm well acquainted with that, having served on road
and bridge committees for probably about five years now. I would
point out that any drilling operations or fluids which are
created in the north and central part of the 'county must now
drive clear down to the south county. My experience, first hand
experience, and comments we've received on any advisory boards
have been from north and central production sites , that' s not
happening. They' re dumping them along county roads. So we ' re
probably creating a bigger problem by not having a facility such
as this , or approving such a facility, is we ' re going to have
more production in this end of the county and we 've got to
provide sbme means for it. Obviously, an individual hauling
fluids to this site is going to prefer using State highways.
Those are present. We've got your main Highway 257 of course
-22-
with production coming from the north end and east end of the
county or west end, they' re going to be using 34 or 257 . The
comment was made, yes some of them will be using Highway 60
through Milliken and Johnstown. There ' s no question in my mind
that they will be using that. Those highways though are State
highways . They are the responsibility of the State for
maintenance and repair. I don' t believe that the State Health
Department would have given their recommendation for approval of
this site without recognizing the responsibility of the State.
Production from north and central county, going down to Ft.
Lupton, is going to use these same highways . If it' s over here
they ' re going to come down 257 and 60 if they decide to use the
Ft. Lupton facility . So I really don ' t see that as a significant
problem. County Road 54 is in better condition of some of our
roads. Yes, the County will probably have to take more care of
that road. There can be some maintenance problems. Again
though, I want to stress that the taxation from this site , the
taxation which oil and gas is producing for the County, should
meet those demands . The Commissioners may want to give some
thought about a surcharge on this facility, much as was done with
the Colorado Landfill Operation at Erie. I realize that' s not
the most popular subject, especially for Mr. Martin, but when
that was proposed approximately six years ago, there were only
two of you on the Board at that time. I was associated with that
application. We had many of the same arguments at that time as
are going to be presented to you today and I can' t see that any
-23-
9
of them have been met. The road facilities down there are in
good shape. They 've worked on them. They' re much better than
they were seven years ago. It' s something though that the County
will have to look at, I admit it is a problem, but this facility
is not going to create any more problems than we already have.
Next we get into an issue of odor and I would ask Mr. Norton to
make his comments on odor and I hate to put Mr. Wes Potter on the
hotseat, but I understand he has done some research concerning
the odor and I would ask Mr. Potter for his comments on odor
also.
MR. NORTON: We have looked at the other sites and recognize
that there can be odor associated with them. We feel that the
areas which can cause odor are the tank areas in here which would
cause an oil smell, these are relatively small as compared to the
larger evaporative ponds and they will be inside a covered shed
so that we can control that somewhat better. It' s a matter of
good housekeeping to get that oil off of there periodically and
taking care of it, getting it inside a closed storage tank is
probably one of the most effective ways. In some of the
facilities , odors from iron sulfite bacteria have occurred in the
evaporation ponds and that again is a matter of good
housekeeping. Those have to be cleaned up and cleaned off of
there to control that. If a problem exists , the applicant is
willing to put in an aeration type system which would oxygen
strip out the odors, the sulfite odors in particular, that' s a
very effective and tried method and probably one that would be
-24-
B
the most economical . The other method that was suggested in the
application was the possible use of chlorine to oxidize these
bacteria so that they can be, so that the odor can be controlled.
Those are the two most effective methods and as I stated, the
applicant would be willing to put that into the operation
conditions if that' s still a concern.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Do you want to come up Wes?
MR. POTTER: Well , the issue of odors did come up yesterday
and, as you know, I 've worked in front of you numerous times in
the past about the brine water disposal sites that we 've had and
the problems we 've had with them. We have, first of all , never
found an odor violation off site from these disposal sites, but
as you know, the State limits are high enough that they can still
smell and still not be a legal violation. The two major problems
that cause the odor, as Mr. Norton explained, are good
housekeeping problems, management problems. The major problem
with the Weld Disposal, Incorporated site has been oil problems
in the past and their allowing oil to get on top of the
evaporation ponds and to accumulate spills and that sort of thing
around the outside of the facility, which when we reviewed this
application, we reviewed it with the fact in mind that we were
not going to allow another one of these problems to occur, that
we don' t want these kind of housekeeping and management problems .
We've tried to incorporate those kinds of controls into the
development standards on this as well as reviewing what they have
proposed and their proposals , in our opinion, will control the
-25-
odors . As far as the housekeeping ' s concerned, the second one is
the iron sulfite bacteria and they do seem to do rather nicely in
these ponds and there is the potential for a sulfite odor to come
off of the ponds after the iron sulfite bacteria colony builds up
to a specific level and if it gets to be a problem we have
incorporated in the Use by Special Review development standards
that they will establish abatement procedures and they have to
control the odor if oxygenation or if some kind of aeration
system, oxygen stripping system, will work then that will be
acceptable and if not then chlorination will be, but they will be
required to maintain an odor abatement program.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Wes , wouldn' t an aerator
facilitate the evaporation of this and eliminate the possibility
of odors?
MR. POTTER: Aerators are being used right now at Road 31
disposal and we' re gathering information at this point on both
odor control and more than that, more specific on evaporation,
and aeration systems do, especially if they use those small fine
mist fitzerplumes, as they call them, do seem to really increase
the evaporation and they do increase the oxygen level because the
iron sulfite is not anywhere near a problem as near a high a
colony count in that facility as the other two that are not using
them. So oxygenation and oxygen stripping is the key, I think, I
think that will do, they would gain two things by putting in
aerators. One thing would be to facilitate and increase
evaporation and also to control odors.
-26-
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That ' s what that one there north of
Aristocrat Ranchettes , they had aeration.
MR. POTTER: Yes sir.
COMMISSIONER C. CARLSON: It seemed to be a whole lot more
overfreed than the other one.
MR. POTTER: Yes sir, they have that incorporated now in
both ponds by the way, and it seems to be working quite well.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay, Ken.
MR. L=ID : Mr. Chairman while Mr. Potter' s sitting here,
another problem that was addressed yesterday, in numerous letters
to you, are obviously those of water pollution. Some comment has
been made to water pollution both surface and underground,
perhaps Mr. Norton can expand on that.
MR. NORTON: I think the water pollution item that I had
explained earlier was the primary concerns of the State Health
Department and of the Department of Natural Resources, State
Engineers Office. They both looked at this problem very
critically and we had numerous meetings in developing a plan
that would satisfy their concerns. The ultimate, I think, is the
duel safety factor of a complete clay lining and a perimeter
drain to pick up any materials that are there and we have also
had meetings with the State Geologist in discussion so that all
of these agencies have agreed with the program for preserving the
waters of the State and feel very comfortable that we don' t have
any problems for potential underground water pollution. Of
course, within the package you have there, the applicant
-27-
•
recognizes his need to have these inspected periodically and has
allowed that the State and County Health Departments can come in
and inspect the observation holes and he will also be doing that
on his own and sending in monthly reports which not only include
the verification that there is no leakage or anything found in
the peripheral drain, but will also include the mass balance of
the number of loads that have been put in, the average amount of
evaporation so that we know what' s going in, we know what the
evaporation rate is, we know what that end result should be. We
have also in the packet, a consideration for providing pan
evaporation and weather station information so that we' ll know
what the precipitation and the average pan evaporation is
continuously at the site, so that we will have a data base from
which to compare this mass balance . So we have taken the
physical precautionary steps and we've also taken the operational
steps which will allow the inspection and observation should any
problem arise , then we have agreed that a clean up method will be
instigated, that the pond will quit being used at the time there
is a problem and the particular problem will be investigated,
we ' ll discover where the problem lies and it' ll be repaired
before the facility is put back in operation.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: You said you was gonna have some
perimeter lines around it. What are you talking about Ken?
MR. NORTON: Okay, the peripheral drain around the facility,
it' s on Exhibit D, is a six inch perforated pipe, plastic pipe
that is covered by two foot of gravel and has a foot of gravel on
-28-
9
either side of the center line of the pipe. This is excavated
into the bedrock material so that any water that comes along the
bedrock will get into that and we can investigate and make sure
that - if there' s any water in there that we can go to the
closest pond and quit using that one , verify that that one is
leaking and then either pump the brine water that' s in this pond
to one of the other ponds or pump it out of there and haul it to
another site so that we can get in and investigate the liner and
determine whether there' s a leak in the liner and then repair
that and then go back to the State and County Health officials
for approval to reopen the site. We would put some clear water
back in it and test it to make sure that it was properly sealed
and then go back into operation.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay, now, you' re gonna put this
peripheral drain pipe and that' s going to be around each
individual pond or is that going to be around the entire area?
MR. NORTON: It goes around the entire area.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: All right. Now, you' re gonna have
check holes.
MR. NORTON: Yes . We've got established one, two, three ,
four, five , six, seven vertical observation wells. They would be
24 inch concrete pipe taken down into the bedrock with the
peripheral drain pipe going into them. They would have a
concrete tap around the top to guarantee that we don' t get any
groundwater in them so that we don' t get any false readings and
-29-
those would be the ones that would be checked monthly and the
reports given to both the State and the County.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I just wanted to make sure that we all
understood what that was gonna be.
MR. NORTON: As I stated, the depth of the bedrock on these
does vary from five to about seventeen feet, so we do have some
variation in the readings . These then of course have to go to
the low spot because the surface of the bedrock is not
necessarily level or even. It does vary so that there can be
some flowing this way into this one , and so forth, even though
the formation in itself is to the northeast, slightly between oh,
about eight degrees according to the geological report, that dip
of the formation does not exactly follow the top of the formation
the way it' s weathered.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: All right, now, say that you do have a
rupture in the clay liner and it does drain away according to
your geology specifications there, the drainage is gonna go to
the northeast.
MR. NORTON: Yes. Geologically if it gets into the bedrock
type formation and is not just entirely going on the surface , it
would be basically to the east-northeast I guess would be a
closer description.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I 'd like to ask Wes a question with
regard to the existing ponds or existing dump site. Do they have
any such drainage testing or any such draining and/or testing?
-30-
MR. POTTER: We have monitoring wells around all of the
existing sites. The problem with the other sites as far as
comparing them to this site is like the difference between night
and day. The other sites are set on such poor geologic settings
that it' s extremely difficult to us to monitor for a failure of a
pond because the groundwater table is in some cases eighteen feet
below the bottom of the pond. We have to pull samples out of the
groundwater table and analyze that through the laboratory to see
if there is , in fact, a failure or a plume of waste material
going into the groundwater table. The desirable aspect of the
geology of this site , and one of the things that we have been
specifying in the last year, is geologic siting is our primary
prerequisite as far as one of these facilities is concerned
because if we have a failure of the liner in this location, it is
not going to get into the primary potable drinking water
groundwater table before it' s able to be detected. Because of
the dip and strike of the unit if it fails through the liner it
will move into, first of all spread out and should be picked up
in the monitoring system around the outside of it, the French
drain system. The second thing is, if it does slowly seep away
and move for a period of time, until it is detected, there will
be a certain amount of contamination that will get to that unit,
to the geologic units and then be able to be transported. But
when it does, it has several hundred feet before it would even be
approaching the only aquifer that is a water bearing aquifer and
that aquifer doesn' t have any water. Second, any potable water
-31-
A
at that point. So it would travel along the geologic units
toward the northeast. It has hundreds of years before it would
be any potential for it to be a serious problem. So the geologic
siting on it is the key to the whole thing. But the French drain
also allows us a tremendous amount more latitude. As far as
we' re concerned in our monitoring program that we are planning
for this site if it is approved, any time we find water in the
French drain system, the red flag goes up and we begin to
evaluate the site. We' ll take samples of the water, get it run
right back to the lab and evaluate if it is in fact brine water,
it will shut the site down , we will begin our mass balance and
find out precisely where our problem is. That pond will be
evacuated and they will then have to repair the liner of the pond
and they will not be able to use that pond until we can evaluate
and ascertain in our own mind that it is safe to use , the same
way we are doing now with the Weld Disposal Pond that is got a
failure of the liner there. They are not going to use that pond
until they can prove to us that they can use it in a margin of
safety .
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay.
MR. LIND : Mr. Chairman, another issue which I think Mr.
Norton has addressed adequately is related to the flood hazard
dike break. I think the comment most interesting to me is this
is designed for the maximum probable storm which is thirty inches
of rain in 48 hours. If it' s more that that, I guess a personal
observation would be, I don' t think anybody' s gonna care because
-32-
we probably won ' t be here to know if it makes it. It' s related
to the State Engineer' s approval of this site. I do a lot cf
water work and I didn' t know the State Engineer gave his approval
to anything. So I think that' s one heck of a comment to this
proposed facility. Another problem that was addressed, and I
would like Mr. Martensen to address this , is the increased
illegal dumping that may occur around this facility which to me
does not make a whole lot of sense because that is precisely what
this facility is designed to do, is to stop the illegal dumping
of these liquids around the County. Then aside to that, I might
ask the Commissioners to review with their attorney if there is a
possibility of establishing stricter ordinances or resolutions as
far as fines if we catch anybody dumping. I think a better
enforcement program would help cure this problem, but the main
key to that is having a facility in this end of the County so
that they can deliver the liquids. As far as the dumping of
other liquids into this site and if Mr. Martensen has any other
comments related to the illegal dumping of it, I ' d like him to
address that.
MR. MARTENSEN. Thank you. Well, that' s precisely our
reason for being here is to take care of the illegal dumping and
we feel that we can make this facility a place where the drivers
and haulers will want to go and that' s exactly the way we are
setting it up so that it is easy access to them, that they can go
to seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, get in and out
very rapidly. Our facility will be so that we can actually
-33-
unload two trucks at the same time. One of the concerns that was
brought up we , of course , had to make projections of how much we
would be receiving to be able to calculate the size of the ponds
and so forth required. We did have to increase this , the size
because of the lateness of the year, recognizing that we ' re going
to have ground frost and so that' s the reason it was increased.
We can actually take in twenty-five loads a day from the
fifteenth of December till the end of May without any evaporation
at all. That' s the way the site was designed. One of the
comments made was, well what happens to truck 26 . Well, I think
we all understand that there may be ten one day and thirty-five
the next. So I really don' t think that' s an issue. We' ll be
able to take on as many as come to our gate and we will make the
commitment, we have made the commitment, that we will address the
need as it' s there and that' s our total reason for being. As far
as other material being dumped in this site , with our resident
manager, actually this will be at least a two-man operation,
expertise has been contracted for to be on site and monitor this
at all times , that' s highly unlikely that any other material
would be dumped in there. Brine water is not difficult to
recognize and of course that' s the only thing that we ' re set up
to take and that' s the only thing we want in that facility. So I
think that that is something that is only logical that we' ll be
watching very closely , that only brine water will be received at
this site.
-34-
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Wes , what are , you brought up I
guess a question I would have . What else is out there that they
could bring in there and dump. Conceivably that they could bring
in the tank trucks that they' re using to ship this brine water.
What conceivably could be brought in?
MR. POTTER: Well, the major apprehension that' s been
brought up is the fact that maybe they' ll end up with some
fraccinq fluids in there . Those are the only other materials.
Now the three major types of materials that need to be disposed
of in relation to the industry, at this point in time, is the
drilling mud which would not be accepted and come in. Even a
fool with one eye can recognize drilling mud. It ' s betonite and
water mixed together. And it' s no problem. They also would not
be paying to bring that in when it' s acceptable as a State basis
and on the County for them to apply it to farm ground. So we can
dispense with drilling mud. So then we are reduced then to brine
water and fraccing fluids . Fraccing fluids fall into two basic
categories. One of them is the gelatinous material that is used
in fraccing, it' s called fraccing gel and it' s not a hazardous
material, it' s just very thick, slimy stuff and it' s a
pro-tenacious base they set it into the well to generate enough
pressure to open the country rock during the fraccing process.
They recover that. It is not a hazardous material, but it' s very
easy to recognize and if it ended up in a disposal site, it
causes problems because it plugs up, it lays in the bottom of the
pond for the first day and then on the second day it begins to
-35-
raise to the top of the pond and creates a skim across the top of
the pond which inhibits evaporation. It ' s to a disadvantage for
them to have it. It' s a disadvantage for us to have them put it
there , and we 've approved , both the County and State approved,
for it to be applied on the farm ground. Any other material
that' s recovered during the fraccing process is either brine
water or the material that is used like the chemicals that they
use to spear the well with, and these types of things fit into
the category of hazardous waste. They' re taken back, they' re
re-used, it' s not equitable to carry them to a disposal site and
it' s also the responsibility of the fraccing companies to dispose
of them and they don' t dispose of them they come back and then
re-use them. So , essentially what we would be returned to then
is brine water, fraccing gel and drilling mud. Drilling mud and
fraccing gel both are not acceptable on the sites , they' re not
received on the sites , we require under the Use by Special Review
development standards for a knowledgeable individual to be there
to be able to recognize what he is getting, but they are still
not hazardous materials.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now at Fracmaster in Evans , we had
that explosion. Now, is Fracmaster' s , is this what they do, is
go down and fracture these wells?
MR. POTTER: Yes sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now, this one particular truck had
Hydrocholoric acid. Now is that what they force down in there to
cause fractions or fracture the
-36-
9
MR. POTTER: Well , that' s one of the things they would spear
with, and one of the things they would use in their fraccing
process , yes. But they would recover that and it would not go to
a disposal site because it wouldn' t fit. It has to be
manifested, it fits under the type of a hazardous waste and they
would be required to control that under their own manifestation.
If they did sneak it in the paperwork would show that they had a
problem. In other words , it would be exposed on their side and
they don' t take a chance on that. We've never had a problem with
anyone trying to sneak any hazardous materials into these sites ,
that we know of , now we can' t be everywhere and see everything
all the time but , that we know of, we 've never had any indication
that anyone' s tried to develop to put any hazard materials in
these sites.
These are not hazardous 'material disposal sites. That' s one
of the things that the implication is always there, that these
are hazardous waste disposal sites , and they are not. They are
brine water disposal sites .
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So then they ' re disposing is , if
they are disposing of it, at some other location.
MR. POTTER: Yes sir.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay Tom, why don' t you kind of wrap
it up so we can get on to (inaudible) .
MR. NORTON: Okay , I ' ll make one more quick comment. Our
operations plan also includes the testing of the ponds on a
periodic basis so that we know what' s in them. We also know
-37-
which wells , which production wells , they' re coming from as part
of our recording procedure and as new wells come on line , we will
be testing those to determine what the quality and consistency of
that brine water is . So our control procedures outlined in the
operations requirements also give us some coverage on that item.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Tom do you take a test tube test out
of every truck that comes in or not?
MR. NORTON: No , we would not take one out of every truck
because once we 've established what one well , or group of wells,
is producing in terms of brine water then that' s fairly
consistent we would do just do it periodic for that particular
hauler and which wells he' s coming from.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Can you give me an average , I 'm sure
that they vary quite extensively, of the brine water generated
from an oil well , an average oil well?
MR. NORTON: Well they do vary a lot and they vary from one
part of the County to the other. I 've heard people talk about,
from a well maybe a load a week down to a load every two months ,
which is eight barrels . It varies considerably from well to well
and it varies considerably from various locations in the County,
some of these are not, in this area, are not as wet a wells and
maybe there' s some haulers here that could give you better
numbers on exactly how much of a well there would be.
MR. POTTER: We did in our investigation that research
project that we did last, you know, within the last year we found
that some of the wells generate as small amount as a gallon a day
-38-
and even less and some can go as high as fifty barrels , but most
of the time it ' s running anywhere between five and ten barrels
and in that range oscillating back and forth, but it' s not
consistent. It varies from geographic area from unit to unit so,
it' s very inconsistent.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay.
MR. LIND: We have just a very few items yet, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brantncr I woulc like to comment on the hydrocholoric acid.
To my knowledge hydrocholoric acid is not used in this area,
there may have been one or two isolated instances where they did
try to use it in a Kodel Sussex Niobrara formation, but it is not
used.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: They sure had a load of it down
there.
MR. LIND: Well , like I said an isolated incident. I don' t
know of, by any means , on a regular basis. Another issue which
was brought up was alternate location. I think the best thing to
state there is the geologic parameters of this area make an ideal
location. When you ' re talking about an alternate site, if
anything an alternate site may be required as an additional site,
not an alternate site, depending on how the oil and gas industry
goes in Weld County. A major issue which was brought up was the
visibility of this site specifically to Milliken and to the Blehm
Subdivision. We took several pictures today and I would like to
present those. (Presented pictures to Board) Approximately at
the center of this location, we parked a jeep today with some
-39-
orange pylons on the top of it. The center of this location is
approximately the highest level and picture number five is a
picture of the vehicle which was parked there so that we could
travel around the area and take a look. From that location by
the jeep, picture number 1 is looking to the south, picture
number 2 is looking to the west, picture number 3 is looking to
the north, and picture number 4 is looking to the east. These
are given to you mainly to see the general area. As you can see
we don' t have much development in the area. Now picture number
6 , and these are probably the important pictures , we' ve made a
circle on each one of these pictures where the jeep with pylons
should be located. You won' t see it because it was not visible
from any location. Picture number 6 was taken at the
intersection of Highway 257 and County Road 54 looking right at
the jeep where the circle is and there is no jeep because it is
not visible. Picture number 7 is taken right here, which I
believe is the Littrell residence, and it again is looking up to
the jeep, we 've circled where the jeep should be, again you will
not see the jeep. Picture number 8 was taken from the high point
on the Blehm Waterways Estates Subdivision. Again the circle is
the location where the jeep should be, you will not see it.
Picture number 9 was taken to the south and I believe this is a
Vetter residence and it' s looking straight to the north, again we
have circled where the jeep should be, again there is no jeep.
Picture number 10 was taken from the intersection of County Roads
54 and 25 looking to the site and again you cannot see the
-40-
location. What it comes down to, this location being a high
point in the vicinity , it' s not visible from the proposed
residential area, it' s not proposed from residences , you just
cannot see it due to its location. The final problem, which I
would like Mr. Norton to comment on, was the alleged fire hazard.
MR. NORTON: As is the case with any oil type facility,
there is a potential fire hazard. The fire hazard in this
facility would be contained at the oil removal area and as I
explained before this oil will be removed and heat treated on a
daily basis so that that leaves the other two potential fire
problems at the heat treater and at the storage tanks and again
the storage tanks will be kept at a low level, will be emptied
and hauled off the site as much as possible. We would provide a
key for the fire department and for emergency personnel to enter
the site with one of the credit cards , so that they can assist
(inaudible) water force, if the brine water would be available in
terms of fire fighting, however an oil fire, as you' re probably
well aware, does not lend itself to a water type situation and
for just putting out the fire . So we would have to have fire
extinguishers and phone type devices at the site for the
personnel to use in case there was a fire as a result of one of
the oil type facilities , but I would like to point out to you
that that' s a very minimal type of risk at the site and we do
have, the area is planned to be well kept grass and that sort of
thing, so that the ability for a fire to spread because of weeds
or dried materials would be minimized.
-41-
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Thank you.
MR. LIND: Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to thank
you for your time on this presentation, I would say this is
probably the most complete and thorough analysis review plans
specification that I have seen for such a site, including any
land fill operation. I believe, in the State Health Department
letter, more or less indicates that this will probably be used as
a guide, or a sample, for future operations . I think the key is ,
it ' s needed, it' s necessary, and we would ask for your approval
of this facility.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I have one question very fast. What
experience, if, any has Mr. Martensen had in this field?
MR. MARTENSEN: Sir, I 've been a Real Estate Broker and
developer, I have developed two subdivisions within Weld County.
I think that we need to keep in mind that this is not a highly
sophisticated and scientific type of operation as far as letting
oil rise to the top of the water. It' s basically a good common
sense and housekeeping type of operation. As far as the people
that will actually be in charge, we have contracted with people
that are highly respected in the oil field industry and have a
great deal of expertise , the resume is included in your package.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Okay. Do we have anybody that has
comments? This man here and then Charlie.
MR. SAUTER: My name is Joe Sauter and I live in Milliken.
I have a couple of articles here I 'm going to have to employ Mr.
-42-
A
Potter to explain them for me because I 'm not qualified to do it.
Is that permissible?
MR. POTTER: This is in regard to an article that was
written in the Greeley Tribune June , 1983 , where , I won' t read
the entire article, but one comment that' s marked out here says,
"a brine sample taken by the State Health Department from a
Northern Colorado Gas Well reveals sixteen chemical compounds
that are listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as top
pollutants . Some of these were found to be far in excess of safe
levels. " I don' t know the totals sixteen compounds that they are
talking about, I do know that the State did some evaluation of
brine waters and there were some exotic hydrocarbors that were
found at the well head and as I recall some were actually found
emanating from water as it came from the trucks at the disposal
site. The two that I can remember that were problems were not at
a disposal site, but were at a well head and one was toluline and
was etholbenzine , both of which are carsinigens. We do not have
extensive information that. . . There' s no question that these
types of chemicals can exist in any of the gases that come off of
some of the wells, and I don' t have the expertise to tell you
what percentages they do exist, but with our conversation with
the State Health Department we have not found any amount, of any
significant amount, of these chemicals to be and we 've never
found them in the brine water disposal sites themselves. A lot
of these are aeramatic, or really light hydrocarbons which
actually would go off, etholbenzine for example, evaporates very
-43-
rapidly, so does toluline and they would evaporate away
immediately. I 'm not saying that the potential does not exist
for these to be here but they could get into any disposal site in
the state.
MR. SAUTER: In other words then, we are talking about
hazardous material.
MR. POTTER: Well the potential does, there are a lot of
things that can be considered hazardous materials , but it depends
upon the position that they are established in and the
concentration that they have. Sodium is a hazardous material ,
mix it with chloride and you've got table salt, that' s the point.
That' s why I say you cannot broadly generalize the fact that
hazardous material is , depends upon the amount that you have in
the concentration and the way it' s being utilized or the way it
occurs.
MR. SAUTER: Well now can you explain about benzine?
MR. POTTER: Well benzine and etholbenzine are very similar
to each other, they' re the same type of thing and this is another
article
MR. SAUTER: Tell them what it causes .
MR. POTTER: Well it' s a carsidigen, carsidigens are cancer
causing materials.
MR. SAUTER: It causes leukemia.
MR. POTTER: Well leukemia is a cancer.
MR. SAUTER: I worked for Gates Rubber Company thirty-one
years and when the government found out benzine was bad, they
-44-
immediately put locks on it, they went back through the medical
records for a year to establish what was causing the people to
die. That health hazard is there . We've gotta look to the
future , we 've gotta leave this like our forefathers left this
Country to us. It says right here that you can get leukemia from
it. Whether you know it or not it' s here and we've got to live
with it and we've got to get it out in a far away place.
CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON : You know also , if you took four or six
tablespoons of salt it' d kill ya. You take six tablespoons of
DTT and it would just make you sick, but DDT was banned by the
EPA. I ' d rather , I ' d a whole lot rather eat my meal without
flies than have them sharing it with me , but we don' t have any
choice in that. All these things sure, you' d better not breath
your next breath because you might breathe in some cancer too.
You know we've all gotta live with a little common sense around
here , thats
MR. SAUTER: That' s true , we might have an atomic blast too
and
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s true.
MR. SAUTER: We might need these surface wells, we've got to
drink some water.
MR. SAUTER: It also says here too that these wells are
close to salt water level in salt content. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Wes , what was this benzine or
whatever? Could you expand a little bit on that?
-45-
MR. POTTER: Benzine and etholbenzine and toluline are all
the three that I have talked about before. It' s a very
surnidrick, aeramatic hydrocarban. It' s a light molecule flake,
it has a configuration similar to ether , only it has one more
ring on it. It' s , they can cause cancer if you are exposed to
the right concentrations at the right period of time. I 'm not
saying that you won' t find them, but if you ever saw an analysis
of some of the things that come off just the vapors or just some
of the crude oil vapors that come out, they' re even more
staggering than that, and I think that we have to talk about the
amount that we ' re talking about, these are minute concentrations
that were found in, just the presence of them. And it has to be
very sophisticated testing methods to find it.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Charlie.
MR. KAROWSKY: Mr. Chairman, members of the Weld County
Commission, I attended the hearing yesterday
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Would you give us your name
Charles?
MR. KAROWSKY: Charles Karowsky , and I 'm here on behalf of
Mr. and Mrs. Gus Vetter who live about a quarter or a half a mile
from the proposed site. I attended the hearing yesterday before
the Planning Commission and I would like to comment that there
were maybe triple the number of people present who were
protestants than are here today because I don' t think some of
them were aware of the fact that the hearing before the
Commissioners was ordinarily held the very next day after the
-46-
0
Planning Commission held its hearing. I should like to comment
that the presentation that was made yesterday , other than the
presentation of pictures , was almost identical. The only
difference as it was today , the only difference was that it was
orchestrated a little differently with the presence of Counsel ,
Mr. Lind, and the manner in which the presentation was made.
Health Department made a very articulate and eloquent
presentation of its position in much more detail than was done
today . And I might observe that it probably is a mistake to
shoot all the arrows in your quiver at a hearing like the
Planning Commission because then it provides an opportunity for
some slick answers to be presented at the hearing before the
Commissioners. An attempt has .been made to address all of the
issues that were brought up yesterday. The Planning Commission,
with the same presentation except for the pictures, saw fit to
reject the application, or make a negative recommendation to the
Commissioners by a vote of 4 to 2 . Before the day is over I am
sure if you give the protestants as much time as the applicants
have, I am sure you will hear a very articulate and eloquent
presentation by the Town of Milliken. No question about the fact
that I 'm not qualified to quarrel with the technical aspects of
this facility. Nor am I presumptious enough to say to you that
such facilities are not needed in the County. But I think one
issue that has not been addressed, that you' re going to have to
live with, and that is this area happens to be one of the most
beautiful parts of Weld County and it is in the natural growth
-47-
pattern of this area. Most of you, if not all of you, are young
enough that you ' re going to have to face and live with the
problem ten years from now with this white elephant because of
its location. There are approximately 50 acres that are going to
be dedicated to this particular use, but the applicant has got 80
acres and they spoke yesterday in terms of the necessity of some
reasonable extension and expansion of this facility in the
reasonably near future. And I would suggest to you that once you
devote a parcel of ground for the purpose of waste disposal that
you have committed that ground for the next twenty or thirty or
forty years and what you' re doing is putting a needed facility in
exactly the wrong place. The Health Department acknowledged
yesterday that there were a number of facilities , locations that
would be available and would be satisfactory from a geological
point of view, and I think this was addressed in response to a
whole series of questions asked by one of the Commission members
yesterday. You know, I don ' t have to tell you that this is in
the natural growth area. You know the County just as well, if
not better, than I . There is a confluence of substantial and
important highways in this particular area and it is not too far
West of the natural growth area of the City of Greeley and we
know what' s happening in the Front Range area. I think you' re
making a mistake by putting a facility like .this in this
particular location. I know all the answers that I would be
thinking about if I were sitting in your position, better that we
have a facility like this than people dumping illegally on the
-48-
highways, and agreed. The point is that you' ve got to go
someplace else with it because you get over this first ridge and
you go West, and I think it' s when you get over near Blehm' s
Waterway Estate you' re getting into one of the most lovely areas
in the whole County. And I think it would be a grave mistake for
you to have to live with that problem in the years to come. Now,
I brought up an issue yesterday, which an attempt was made to be
responded to today by Mr. Wabea_e , or whatever his name was , who
has acted as a trustee in bankruptcy and I don' t expect you to
have to resolve particular issues like this , but let me explain
some of the facts . Part of the land that is being devoted for
this proposed facility was sold to Blehm, to Ted Blehm, Blehm
Land and Cattle Company, by my clients , Mr. and Mrs . Vetter and
they hold a first deed of trust on this property which is in
default and which they can' t foreclose because Blehm Land and
Cattle Company is in bankruptcy and there' s a stay of any
foreclosure. American Ag Credit Corporation' s holding a deed of
trust secondary to the Vetters in excess of $2 ,000 , 000 at this
present time and they had started foreclosure and then were
stopped. Now, the contention and the representation has been
made that first of all, Blehm Land and Cattle Company is in a
position to make a lease like this. I think you should know, and
it' s no secret the applicants have not attempted to hide it, at
least they didn' t at the hearing yesterday, but apparently Blehm
or Blehm Land and Cattle Company is a stockholder in the company
that proposes to develop this facility. And I am suggesting to
-49-
you that it' s improper for Counsel to say to you , now this
business about bankruptcy and the Court having jurisdiction is a
matter for them to take by a separate action if they want to go
into Court. It doesn' t make a whole lot of sense to me that you
grant a permit for something that can then be restricted by the
Courts . No one can contend that leasing land, 80 acres of land,
for a long-term lease to be used for a waste disposal site in an
agricultural area, in a natural growth area , is something that is
done in the ordinary course of business. If that' s the case
apparently the bankrupt is in a position to do anything he wants
with the rest of the land, and I categorically reject that
particular argument. I don' t think that there will be any
comment, at least I operate under the assumption that the Weld
County Health Department is neutral in this area. I get the
impression by some of the comments that are made that they are
pro application, principally because they feel the need for a
facility and you perceive a need for such a facility. It' s gotta
be moved someplace else because you' re going to screw up an area
that really should remain untouched. Yesterday I touched on the
quality of life impairment by the Vetter' s and I know that those
considerations are swept aside when you have to view the larger
picture and determine whether or not such a facility is needed
and needed badly and needed in this particular area.
Nonetheless , I think the Health Department representative
indicated that certainly there were other areas that were
geologically accepted. My argument yesterday was, the Health
-50-
N
Department pointed out about the development of nitrates and that
you get a sulphur-like smell , which is the equivalent of rotten
eggs . And I don ' t care what anybody says , they come up here with
slick answers and everything is gonna be fine and we' re gonna
monitor this thing and we' re gonna put chemicals in there , but
the plain truth of the matter is , that you' re disposing of waste
materials that have a propensity to smell. And they' re gonna
stink. My clients live south of this facility. The prevailing
winds are from the northwest and their lifestyle, the quality of
their life , is going to be impaired. Maybe that is , and I don' t
mean this sarcastically, maybe that isn' t significant enough to
turn down this application, because there are people that live in
this particular vicinity whose lifestyle is going to be impaired.
And the problem is that no matter where you move it, somebody' s
lifestyle is going to be impaired. And I guess you have to make,
somebody has to make, sacrifices for the benefit of the greater
number. All I 'm trying to tell you is that it is my intention to
bring to the attention of the bankruptcy court the action that
has been taken by Blehm Land and Cattle Company in this regard
and ascertain whether or not it lies within the jurisdiction of
Mr. Blehm to perform the kind of act that he has in leasing this
property on a long-term lease. And if the bankruptcy court that
the judge sees fit to say that this is inconsistent, then you've
issued a permit that has no particular significance. I 'm not
going to belabor you with any more comments because I think
you've heard all of the aspects. I hope you've got all the
-51--
documents. I hope you' ve got the letter from the Town of
Milliken. The lady is here to make that presentation and it
presents a number of arguments that I think are highly
significant and I think that you should give consideration to. I
would like to ask Wes if it is not correct that in response to
some inquiries yesterday, it was acknowledged that there a number
of locations north of this one that you would consider adequate
geologically to accommodate this particular facility and that
might not interfere with a natural growth pattern which is an
issue that I don' t think anybody here can respond to effectively.
MR. POTTER: Well , it' s not my responsibility nor my
expertise to be able to evaluate growth patterns. I am, my
expertise is in
MR. KAROWSKY: I understand.
MR. POTTER: the technical aspects , but as far as the
geologic settings , yes, obviously there are other settings north
of this area that would be equally as acceptable and in some
cases , potentially even more acceptable. The only , east of this
site , the sites become very more , much more restricted till you
get past the Town of Kersey out into the eastern side of the
County. So the center part of the County, unless you get far
north, is much more restricted because of the geologic setting.
And all this is based, as far as I 'm concerned, on the geologic
setting. That' s what I look at. But there are, no there' s no
question that there are other sites, geologically acceptable
sites , in this area and north of this area.
-52-
MR. KAROWSKY : There is no argument about the significance
and the impact of the oil and gas industry in Weld County. And I
think it' s one that has to be encouraged and I think it' s one
that' s going to continue to develop. And I think it creates
needs that these commissioners are going to have to answer. And •
no question about the fact that waste disposal facilities are
needed. The thing you've got to answer is whether or not you are
permitting a facility of this nature to be placed in a location
that is inappropriate , and I would suggest that you give serious
consideration to following the lead of your planning commission
who rejected this application. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Thank you Charlie. Other comments.
Yes.
MR. MARTIN: I 'm Charles Martin, Embark MC Town of Milliken
for the trustees there. We've been selected to present our views
on why we feel it' s something we don' t want in our area as
opposed to views they feel it is the best thing in the wc,rld for
the area. Yesterday, their presentation brought out the fact
that many of the wells that have been drilled now are in the
southern part of the County. And this (inaudible) foundation, or
formation that they' re drilling from extends basically from the
southern part of the County to the northern part of the County.
And right now, most of the concentration has been if the southern
part of the County up to the middle part of the County, which is
now west of town. But they've projected another 2 to 3 ,000 wells
to continue on north in this formation. And we feel that if you
-53-
go west , you' re in even more problem of trying to put any kind of
a dump, if you go west from this area because of the growth out
there and the people that live in that area. If you go north, if
you get up past Highway 14 , and of course the truckers are gonna
start screaming about they have to drive so far. Right now they
drive from this area to Ft. Lupton. If you go up past 14 and
some areas up there , there ' s not a house for four or five square
miles and there ' s absolutely no towns for as many miles. They
could easily go up there. I think that the trucker that talked
yesterday screamed about the distance and the fact they have to
haul so far and this type of thing. But I think that' s a
policing problem. I think the Weld County Commissioners have an
attorney that could draw up some real good paperwork that says if
a driver is caught dumping this illegally, he will be fined $500 .
It' ll help out the city coffers as well as it would, I 'm sure,
get this on north. I think as these wells go north, this place
would be in the wrong spot like we 've already talked, Mr.
Karowsky did. The policing problem we wanted to bring up, I
really think that that' s something that you could handle with the
County police protection that we have. We also feel that if the
miles is not that far, if you drive on north as I just said,
you' re looking at maybe ten, fifteen, twenty miles to find some
very desolate property that could be used for this. This
formation is a (inaudible) formation that the engineer' s talking
about that is so suited to this. This disappears and it comes
back up again past 14 . And yesterday, which as Mr. Karowsky just
-54-
,
talked about, it was brought up many times . If there ' s many good
locations in that area for this type of a deal . And it was also
brought up that these folks have already spent $50 , 000 and now
they ' re going to perhaps be turned down, or yesterday they were
turned down. But I believe that, I went out and took a look at
that and all I see is a few stakes. So as far as site
preparation and so forth goes, that money has not been spent
there. It' s been spent in having these people come today and
yesterday and a lot of paperwork and a lot of on paper type of
things. This could be very easily moved to that area and I 'm
sure that if Mr. Blehm, or Blehm Land and Cattle Company, own
land up there it would be very easy to go up there. But I
realize that these people will have to go up there and probably
purchase that land . We also ran into quite a problem when we
hear how they' re going to monitor this totally and every two or
three days they ' re going to, all this type of stuff and in the
next breath they' re gonna hear how the State and County has cut
back on funds for the health department. So we ' re wondering
what' s gonna happen to the monitoring system on this. And
thirdly and lastly that I have, I remember a few years ago when
the people in this chair here, and not perhaps you people, but,
started charging these oil well rigs $500 to move around. They
had a terrible fit, there wasn't gonna be any more drilling and
all this kind of stuff and you see how they' re drilling now. So
I think that we could put a real big fine on illegal dumping and
things like this and it' s not going to stop the oil industry;
-55-
they ' re gonna work around that and there ' s other locations for
this . And lastly, Milliken and Johnstown area , as well as many
people in this room, went through the stench of Great Western for
forty years , that I remember, let' s say at least twenty years
that I remember and probably many of them much longer then that,
we finally have got that stench taken care of, we have a new
plant coming in that say that it' s gonna be very clean and now
we' re going right back to another stench, only it' s gonna come in
from a different direction and even though the State Standards
say that it won ' t smell too bad. I notice that none of these
gentlemen live within a three mile area of Milliken.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Our Town Board met last week with the
gentlemen that are here today and we composed a response to it
and they've asked me if I could read it to you.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Would you give your name for this.
MS. DEMPSEY: Barbara Dempsey, Milliken Town Board. The
Town of Milliken has reviewed this request for an Oil and Gas
Well Production Water Disposal Site. It is the Town Council ' s
recommendation that this request be denied. The foremost concern
that the Town of Milliken has with this request is its location
with respect to the town. This site is located less then one and
a half miles from the town boundaries and a topography is such
that it will be clearly visible to a large subdivision of upper
income housing. The Town of Milliken is in the process of
improving its environment and molding itself into a town that is
esthetically pleasing, contains a population with persons of all
-56-
income levels and is capable of attracting and developing a
strong economic phase . To accomplish this, the town has
marshaled its efforts in two major areas; it is redeveloping
older section of the town and upgrading its physical
characteristics by improvements to the storm drainage and
transportation system. It is also encouraging a varied
(inaudible) and ultimately an economic phase through its
development of a well planned subdivision abutting a golf course.
The successful development of this subdivision and adjacent land,
its commercial and light industrial uses , is instrumental to
Milliken ' s future. The elements necessary to make this success
possible are present, the area is scenic with a rolling terrain
and an unobstructed view of the mountains , transportational
access is good and traffic is light. It has a rural environment,
yet it is within twenty minutes of two cities . The town welcomes
well planned growth and makes it feasible for this growth to
occur. Water and sewage facilities are adequate to accommodate
growth. That is the town has created the conditions that will
permit it to successfully grow. The installation of this Oil and
Gas Well Production Disposal Site will jeopardize this plan.
This site minimally will be a visual blight on the area. It, and
the trucks hauling to the site, will be visible for miles and the
potential as well as the stated plans for site expansion will
only aggravate this problem. The town does not consider as a
developer that a six foot chain link fence surrounding the site
and the planting of native grasses as landscaping. Without a
-57-
doubt this site will be an eyesore and discourage the growth of
clean light industry to the immediate vicinity. It will also
depress land values in the new subdivision, and makes the
successful development more difficult. In addition to this , the
town foresees traffic congestion within its town and subsequent
damage to its streets . The town rejects the premise that the
haul trucks will use only County roads. Knowing that a
substantial number of wells are located to the south, common
sense indicates that the town will have to subsidize the cost of
this plant to increase the cost of street repair and maintenance.
The town, of course , will receive no benefit by way of taxes or
other means. The plant will serve only as a financial drain to
the town. Another critical area not addressed is odor. The town
believes that this site has the potential for creating
significant odor problems. In the past the town has had to
contend with Great Western and other pollutors with little
success. The problem generated by GW has just been eliminated.
The town does not need another pollutor installed just outside
its corporate jurisdiction. Fire protection is another concern.
There will be no hydrants on site, instead the developer will
rely on the fire department pumpers controlling chemical or grass
fires which may occur. This is inadequate. Brush fires on a
windy day travel rapidly. The right wind direction could swiftly
bring it to one of the town' s subdivisions. The Town of Milliken
believes , however; that negative environmental impacts will not
be limited to the ones mentioned above. The town believes that
-58-
the potential for both on and off site problems exist. It is our
understanding that this site has a life expectancy of
approximately 20 years. This is a long time, even if the project
calls for monitoring well . Clay lined ponds are, in the town' s
judgment, insufficient. The town believes that a combination of
man made lining, in conjunction with the clay lining, is the
minimal amount that should be considered. Pollution is a serious
problem and should be addressed before it occurs not after it
happens. Second, the town is concerned about what is really
being dumped into those ponds . The idea that the Health
Department or the Gas and Oil Commission will adequately monitor
this aspect is absurd. They simply lack the required manpower.
Thus , this site potentially becomes an area for dumping of all
sorts of wastes. Even granting that probability of this
occurring as well, Milliken believes that to encourage a use with
this potential problem, so close to a population center, to be
unconscionable. Third, the town has no doubt that this use will
create environmental problems offsite and within the town. This
plan calls for the site to accept approximately 25 loads per day.
Past experience in the Ft. Lupton/Platteville area shows that
substantial larger quantities of waste are being generated. What
happens when the site has received its so called quota? Does
anyone seriously believe that truck number 26 will turn around
and drive to Ft. Lupton? No, it will pull over to the nearest
ditch and dump its waste. There is going to be a lot of those
trucks , and it will be the town of Milliken that they will be
-59-
polluting. It will also be the groundwater and the environment
itself . The town does not concur with the argument that this
site will meet demand. The town has seen no data to support this
contention. What we have seen in this application , as opposed to
the first one submitted, is the hiring of consultants to
professionally show that initial concerns over site pollution are
unfounded. Milliken recognizes that internal controls have been
improved and that internally this , with the reservations cited
earlier, may be a prototype for future disposal sites . However ,
our primary objection remains , and in fact, was not even
addressed by this proposal. How is the problem being handled on
a regional basis? The disposal of oil and gas -wastes is a
regional and State problem. As such, it should be addressed from
a regional perspective. Not on a haphazard basis. This is
precisely what is occurring in Milliken. Milliken is convenient.
Milliken is a stopgap measure. Milliken is small and does not
have the financial resources to fight this proposal as does a
city such as Greeley. Milliken would be a politically expedient
dumping ground for gas and oil wastes. Milliken is the easy way
out. As a regional problem the disposal of gas and oil wastes
should be approached regionally. That is , the region should
determine the magnitude of the present problem and its potential
growth. Obviously, the region should be able to present the
(inaudible) and other materials, the location where the greatest
need for these sites is located. Then it is logical to assume
that a series of policies , policies which consider adjacent land
-60-
uses , economic and geological considerations , policies , (TAPE
CHANGE #83-139) as well as their sites and general locations be
promulgated. This has not been done. Instead, the assumption
has been made that any site anywhere is better than no site at
all. Worse , the town literally does not know, based on the site
developer' s remarks , whether this is a 49 acre site or whether it
will be triple that size in the near future . Milliken believes
the whole procedure in this matter is inappropriate . In lieu of
any policy in this area, Milliken strongly feels that a
conservative approach should be implemented. If the town were to
be consulted on the placement of these sites, it would encourage
the following policies to be instituted:
1 . No site would be situated within 3 miles of an
incorporated jurisdiction without the explicit permission of that
jurisdiction.
2 . Sites would be dispersed to insure that areas would not
receive more than their fair share and reduce the economic cost
involved in this (inaudible) .
3 . Transportation roots would not involve the use to any
great extent of a municipality' s -streets and would not create
traffic congestion and safety hazards.
The town has not been consulted, and these three policies
will be violated in the placement of the site at the proposed
location. Milliken acknowledges that what it would like to see
as policy may not coincide with that of other entities. However,
the town would like the opportunity to determine what those
-61-
n
policies collectively should be . Instead the town is being asked
to sacrifice its potential future because it was too much trouble
to do things right. Therefore , on behalf of the Town of Milliken
and for the above stated reasons , you are strongly urged to
reject this proposal . I must add that more things were brought
up since we did have our Board meeting with them, but I had a few
notes here on different things.
Mr. Blehm' s land where he has this new subdivision going in
has been up for sale and there is a real good possibility that
the new owners will continue on the sale of that and it' s quite
extensive up there and that ' s where we hope to get all our growth
in Milliken , is right up that area going towards there. I don' t
know, if you' d like we could bring in all the plans for that,
they've been in the works for a few years . It shows how it' s all
subdivided into upper income housing and also as far as whether
or not we can actually see the site from the pictures that they
gave you. My feelings are, the people know it' s there, they' re
gonna be in fear of coming into our area. Because people are
people and that' s gonna put a damper on any development we might
have up there. And also, it was brought out that the trucks
would be going on County highways. Well, I don' t know if you are
all aware of it, but County highway 60 is our Main Street, that' s
our downtown area.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: That' s State Highway 60 .
MS. DEMPSEY: Oh, State, OK. But that is our downtown area,
if the trucks are coming through downtown there, I mean the kids
-62-
e
are just all over and it ' s not like a main road. And that ' s all
the points I have to bring out. Do you have anything else?
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Thank you. Anybody else have anything
to say?
MR. SAUTER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some
corrections . First off, let' s get this publically known that it
is the Ted Land and Cattle Company , Wyoming Corporation. You ' re
dealing with people in Wyoming, too. That ' s the official title
to it. The other one is , that land they say that was idle and
never farmed out there, that isn' t true. That isn' t idle land,
the man spent probably $250 ,000-$300 ,000 to put sprinklers on it.
Every year he farmed that and where the sprinkler didn' t cover
why they put plastic pipe in and irrigated it. The reason it was
idle this year he got in under the PIC Program. Now he ' s
probably getting money from two sources. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Yeah. I 've got this lady coming up.
I didn' t see you.
MS. STROH: I 'm Shirley Stroh and I 'm here from the State of
Washington and I have an interest in some of the property within
one mile of this proposed site. I ' d like to address several of
the many pertinent unknowns in the development of this site.
Number one, the developer stated that he has a bond for $100 , 000 .
This is a very minute amount of money to cover the potential
dangers and subsequent claims that may occur. The fact that
bankruptcy is a common occurrence today, if these people walk
-63-
away from their commitment, whether or not a problem occurs , who
is going to be there to carry out their commitment? The fact
that Mr. Martensen is a developer it' s understandable he is
interested in making a profit in this investment enterprise and
very little consideration in the welfare of the persons that are
affected by this site. Their interest is merely monetary.
Finally, I certainly hope that the Commission makes very serious
consideration in that if they approve this site, that they would
be creating more problems than they would be solving.
MR. STOW: I 'm Ron Stow, Director of Environmental Health
Services, Weld County Health Department. We performed a
technical evaluation of this site. We are not neutral in respect
to the impact that this site could perform on the environment, as
Mr. Karowsky was mentioning. However, we are not here to make a
decision. From our standpoint we do not make a decision on the
legal, the planning issues , the social/economic issues, or any
other type issues involved at this site. And the comments made
by Mr. Karowsky , I believe, were totally out of line here with
respect to our department. Mr. Potter is a geomorthologist by
training. We performed a technical evaluation of the site and
that' s what the Weld County Health Department did. We presented
you with our comments concerning the State Health Department' s
letter, we felt that it should be strengthened a little bit,
that' s what our comments said. Any other thing beyond that is up
to the Planning Commission and your decision. And that' s what
the Weld County Health Department did here. Thank you.
-64-
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Thank you, Ron. Any other comment?
MR. DRAGICH: I have one more.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Go ahead.
MR. DRAGICH: Members of the Commission, I 'm Bob Dragich. I
live in Greeley , Colorado, and I live within 5 miles of this
site , and I 'm employed with Flint Engineering and Construction
Company which right now, probably is the largest waste water
hauler in the State of Colorado , related to the production in a
brine water field. There are several other trucking companies in
the area that are as large , if not larger , but they predominantly
haul drilling muds and fresh water drilling rigs. So this
particular statement I have to make I ' ll hit on two or three
areas here real quickly. One is location, and I don' t doubt that
there are geologic locations as desirable, and I won' t argue that
point, I 'm not qualified. But I feel that I am qualified to give
a statement as far as location involving trucking of brine water
at this time. This particular location, as far as we , and we
have to project growth of the oil industry and where these fluids
would be coming from in our growth patterns , to give the services
to the independent oil contractors and companies in this area,
that the Ft. Lupton area currently has provided with several
local contractors. So, this area here is really, really, lacking
in the service of brine water disposal from a trucking industry
and from a disposal site. What we've got is, there' s no doubt
about it, there is illegal dumping going on and I 'm going to
clarify that statement regarding Flint Engineering since it is on
-65-
tape . Flint Engineering has the only fleet of tractor trailers
semi-transports in the area of any size . So we are very
competitive hauling water from the Northern part of the State to
the Southern part of Weld County or any other part of the State .
We' re able to haul twice the amount of water for approximately 3
or 4 dollars an hour difference in the cost of trucking. The big
problem arises in one fact. The rest of the water haulers in the
area normally have smaller and less expensive equipment. They
haul at least 50% of the water, not Flint, Flint is not
dominating this field totally, but they do haul and they do dump.
And I 'm speaking for Flint and not for the other 57 trucks that
ply their trade in this area, OK? We make every attempt to make
our trucks do bill of ladings through State regulations , to move
that fluid from point A to point B legally. The problem arises
that we have several fly-by-nights, they' re legally permitted in
this State, some move in, some move out. As a bargain factor
they' ll go out and they' ll ply their trades at X number of
dollars cheaper per hour or per load to the disposal. What
happens is we wind up with the X number of dollars cheaper
running into the Thompson River or whatever it may be. It' s
totally unregulated from that viewpoint. Now, I propose this
location, number one, for convenience. A truck hauling 80
barrels is not gonna travel 30 or 40 miles or even 25 miles and
be competitive in other areas. And I keep falling on this
competitive situation and maybe it' s a selfish point from the
trucking industry, but it has an overall factor in illegal
-66-
dumping and it' s very, very important to be competitive and you
don' t pay dump charges at the dump you cut anywhere from $8 to
$20 off your invoice. This happens , this is currently happening,
and it' s creating a problem. And one of the areas that I think
will solidify this problem is having a legal disposal site within
an ideal area for the development of the Kodel formation and the
investor oil field. Which we've got it here to stay whether the
rest of Colorado shuts down or not, we are in an investor ' s
situation and they ' re going to drill and produce these wells.
That' s what I 've got to say about location.
OK, as far as the trucking. We attempt to stay on the
shortest routes from point A to point B. Now a large percentage
of our fluids are hauled from north of Greeley, from Lucerne,
which is a very large area, all the way out to Barnesville. That
area is currently being hauled into Weld County. The area west
of Greeley and north-northwest is currently under rapid expansion
in the field and I 'm quite sure there are several people from the
oil industry here that will testify to that. So the need is
funnelling into this particular area. And there' s no doubt the
people in Milliken have a legitimate point. They don' t like
those trucks roaring up and down their streets, but they' re not
roaring up and down their streets, they' re abiding by a 30 mile
an hour speed limit, along with the insulage haulers , along with
Loomix and a few of the other fertilizer people related to the
agricultural business that ply that road much more than the water
haulers ever thought about. The Town of Milliken currently sells
-67-
water to the oil industry from a legitimate location and a
hydrant and we do utilize that water , Flint along with several
other companies, back into this particular location, closely
supervised. We do haul from the Town of Milliken , they' re not
adverse to having trucks , oil field trucks in town, so this is
not really a consideration as long as the speed limits and the
weight factors are monitored. But, if it is , you've got to
understand that if this disposal site were put where we feel it' s
very critical , it would eliminate probably 50% of the water
hauling traffic through town as it is. Just in that particular
point alone from our company, and I keep speaking from our
company, OK?
We get in a couple of areas here I ' d like to clear about
hauling of hazardous wastes . All drivers are committed by State
regulations and Federal regulations and the Department of
Transportation, classifying their load. That means they can' t
haul what they ' re not permitted to haul , legally. I keep saying
this due to Flint because I 'm very familiar with their licensing
and permitting procedures. A lot of the other water haulers are
not in this same boat. But, we haul primarily, brine waters ,
frac materials as everybody calls it, which Mr. Potter clarified,
to dumping areas. We haul non-caustics and non-corrosives and
the thought of acid was brought up here, and it has been used and
probably was used in certain restricted areas, like Mr. Potter
stated, in the past. And from my feelings of this it is always
neutralized by the frac people at the well site, OK, after it' s
-68-
utilized. So you know, the idea of waste water disposal , we must
really think about 100% or, I 'm not going to give a figure, the
largest percentage of this will be brine water hauled in this
area. Now, currently we ' re hauling the other percentage, which
is gel water, drilling mud, etc. Gel water predominantly goes to
Weld County. They have a facility there or a farm where it' s
spread and plowed under and the County Health Commission, as they
stated before , are intimately familiar with this situation . It' s
a non-toxic , biodegradable , organic compound used in the gel.
So, I think we' re getting blown out of proportion here when we
talk about hazardous waste and I wanted to give my opinion of
that, I wouldn ' t drink it out of the truck, believe me, neither
would anyone here and I don' t blame you. But neither would I
drink anything out of a sewage lagoon or would I drink anything
out of a feedlot lagoon that catches the waste where they wash
the trucks . And the stench, I'm quite sure, is much more
prohibitive north of Greeley where the trucks are washed out than
they ever will be around any of the disposals . Again, as Mr.
Potter and Mr. Martensen here explained about the stench. You' re
welcome to open a valve on any of the trucks , poke your head in
there and smell. You' ll smell commensator or crude oil. Simply
because that' s what comes out of that well, that' s what comes out
of the ground. And we've got 2 ,350 some locations in this County
already and probably that many more in the next few years , and
they all have vent pipes and they all vent these odors into the
air and I don' t think we have an objection there. At least I 've
-69-
never heard of it. Inclement weather and direct routes , the
reason we take the main routes , as I pointed out on the maps
before, right here, is simply they' re the best maintained, snow
removal is quite adequate, so we do ply the main hard surface
routes. And that is where we do pay our taxation. OK? And,
that' s just about all I 've got to say regarding the trucking
industry related to this particular area. Now are there any
questions , any doubts about how, I feel personally regarding
this?
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I have one question, I 'm not sure
that it' s directed at you or whoever can answer it. You alluded
to some rates that you were being charged now with, say Ft.
Lupton or the other existing dump sites. Have you proposed any
rates at your location? Do you have any idea what your charges
might be?
MR. MARTENSEN: Our charges would be competitive with the
other areas which is basically 25 cents a barrel.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: OK, I guess my question was , are we
getting a highly designed, expensive facility that' s going to
price itself out of the market and you answered my question,
thank you.
MR. MARTENSEN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Let me ask you one question. I know
the plant runs a good operation and I know that they are about as
law abiding as any company we have. But on the other hand, I
don' t expect you to call names or anything like that, but do you
-70-
h
think that some of these people would pay the 25 cents a barrel
if they didn' t have to haul it very far , if they thought they
could dump it behind the hill and not be seen?
MR. DRAGICH: OK , let' s clarify the illegal dumping. I 'm
intimately familiar with it, OK? And I ' ll rest my case there.
Not necessarily and specifically not from Flint Engineering' s
vacuum trucks , but being in the field, being on locations every
day , being out at night, and my hours are from 4 : 30 in the
morning til whenever and it' s usually 9 or 10 at night. I 'm on
several different locations daily, involved with several
different companies , plying the salesmanship of my trade. I see
it day in and day out. OK? And it happens. What I feel is the
big discrepancy, as far as illegal dumping in this area, is
number one , time factor. That is , trucking it from point A to
point B where this driver can turn around and dump it and get
• back on the payroll somewhere else , OK. And time is money, all
right? We wind up with a situation where we've got all these
different trucking companies and no place to take it but 40
miles. They' re out there to make a considerable effort to do the
job. But, at the same time, they want to be competitive. The
truck driver wants to be competitive, the company wants to be
competitive. The more hours he has behind the wheel within
limits , the more money he makes . So they tend to shortcut that a
lot of times and move this fluid behind the hill , off the bridge
on Highway 60 into the river, which I 've seen, and attempted to
catch and didn' t, with another company that is very reputable in
-71-
the area. These things happen, regardless of the reputation of
the company. Because the drivers and right now we' re leaving
this whole thing up to the drivers whether he wants to take it
down here or not. OK? And the regulation at the disposals right
now, at the disposal we use are very loose, very loose. Dump
tickets are filled out, turn in your paperwork in the box. These
•dump tickets are available in gross boxes of 144 on location at
the dump sites. If he wants dump tickets , he picks them up, puts
them in his pocket, turns them in with his paperwork and dumps
wherever he wants. That ' s one of the problems . What I 'm saying,
it would be a much more considerable advantage to the area if we
had this dump site where we could be competitive, we could get
that fluid where it belongs without spending half the day or
night doing it. And I 'm probably raising a lot of ruckus here
with this point, but people will utilize what is given to them
when the opportunity arises. People are not out here to break
the law, they' re out here to utilize what is given to them.
Right now they don' t have it. This whole area is sadly lacking
in a disposal site , they don' t have it. And they' re forced to
truck this and if it' s moved to the north, if it is moved at all ,
the economics of the situation is not going to eliminate the
illegal dumping if they have to truck it 30 miles. And we talked
about a policing factor. Well friends, I 've got 5 years in the
criminal administration degree, Bachelor' s Degree in Law
Enforcement, OK? And if you have any idea what it' s like to
catch a pusher out there with drugs, you ought to try to catch a
-72-
truck driver trying to dump a load of water. It ' s a joke . And
law enforcement is not the answer. It' s a facility to take care
of the slack. That' s the answer. And I appreciate your time.
MR. UNDERWOOD: My name is Jay Underwood, I 'm with the
Elwood Oil Company in Greeley, Colorado, and I reside in Greeley,
Colorado. I don ' t want to belabor a point, I think pretty much
everything that' s been said is accurate and I would tend to agree
that there is a desperate need for this site, being an
independent operator myself. I spoke on the phone this morning
with the largest operator in the County and I asked him, he
operates 150 wells at this time, I asked him if the need existed,
he said there ' s a desperate need for it. He said the need' s been
there for several months now. I think the major point I want to
make is , it' s taken these people a year and considerable finances
to bring this thing this far. If it' s thrown on the scrap pile
now, it' s going to take somebody else another year and an equal ,
or more, amount of money to get it done. So, now we ' re talking
about 2 years down the road before anyone has an adequate dump
site for this type of waste. Now, and I think that strongly
needs to be considered. These people need to get in now before
the frost hits or they can' t build it this year, we' re talking
about next year again. So I think if the problem is going to be
solved it needs to be solved now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: OK. Anybody else? Yes.
MS. VETTER: My name is Clara Vetter and I spoke yesterday
on the same thing, but I figured that everyone else has literally
-73-
repeated what they said, I might as well do so, too. I don' t
think there has been hardly any mention of the people who live on
Road 52 which is just a mile south of Road 54 . I tried to figure
it up on my fingers and there are between 14 and 20 homeowners in
the area. I would like to ask any of you here, put up your
hands , would you like to have this thing within a mile, half a
mile of your property and you' d have to live with it, not knowing
for sure whether it ' s going to stink or whether it' s going to
leak, or whether it seep, or whatever. Put up your hands if you
think you'd like to have that. We have a reason for fighting
this . Would you people like to have that within your back yard?
Would you like to have it dumped in your back yard? I think some
of this illegal dumping, if they'd bring it in and dump it in
your back yard, you' d know what we 're facing. It' s the same
difference. It' s our backyard, literally, to speak. It is our
backyard. And we ' re fed up on fighting it. We ' re going to have
to accept what the Commissioners decide on, but so help me God, I
hope they do the right thing. Thank you.
MR. VETTER: My name is Jack Vetter. And I just have two
points. We' re talking about the beautification or the fire
retardant means of this area around the chemical disposal and
you' re saying that you' re gonna beautify it with natural grasses
which would also be a fire deterrant. And I think any of you
people in here would know if you've ever seen a rangeland fire or
a grassland fire that that' s the last thing you' d want to have
around that thing was grass. That' s going to spread a fire
-74-
rather than hold it back. And the second thing is addressed to
the Commissioners , if you' re talking about millions of dollars of
tax revenue in this area, from oil and from oil to come, then you
certainly ought to be looking at something other than a proposal
that' s coming from private parties , but something that the
Commissioners should be concerned about. And not something that
just, as a drop of the hat, and say we need this today. Sure you
need it today . But has the Commission ever thought about this in
the past or what it' s gonna do in the future? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Yes , we have thought about what in the
past and in the future , and I told the Health Department what I
thought, they told me to go fly a kite. So, they told me we
needed a disposal. I told them we needed to take that stuff out
and put it on the County roads to stop dust and that didn' t meet
with approval. I think that there is a lot of alternatives that
could come about with this thing, but the EPA and I don' t ever
see eye to eye. Neither does the Health Department and I. I
have a few arguments with Wes once in a while, but when we get
all done , there ' s usually a meeting of the minds on one side and
on both sides of the fence. We are having some problems in this
area and we' re not trying to hide from it, we've discussed this
thing time and time again and the problems that we've had down
south, you wouldn' t believe what this County' s gone through in
order to try to straighten that up. But now we have it straight.
And the liner was broke in one of the pits and the next day Wes
was there and had it shut down. And that' s how much on top of
-75-
a
this thing we are , as a county. And it was not only shut down,
but we shut that thing, we padlocked it down until that liner was
fixed and then it was permitted to go back into production. We
shut one whole thing down and they had to redo all their ponds .
Because we proved to them that their ponds were leaching. We ' re
on top of this a whole lot more than any of you people ever
believe and never thought. Now I don ' t know who in the world
ever give anybody the idea that we 'd cut Health Department.
That' s a bunch of malarkey. Now the State ' s cut back on the
Health Department, but this County hasn ' t.
(UNKNOWN) : (inaudible) .
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Yes , you did. That' s what you said.
And that' s not right, because we haven' t done that in this
County. The State has , but we haven' t. We have a full Health
Department in this County and it ' s second to none in this State.
In fact the State comes to us and said, what do you do in this,
what have you done in this respect? And they've literally copied
what we've done in this County in many of our health decisions.
And you can go outside of this County in any restaurant, I don' t
care where you go, you can go outside of this County in any
restaurant and that restaurant isn' t near as healthy a situation
as the restaurants are in this County because of our Health
Department. And as much on top of it as they are. You can be
rest assured that most the restaurants, I ' d say 99% of the
restaurants, in this County are healthy and clean. Because they
are thoroughly checked. And we make real positive measures in
-76-
that respect. So , I think that there ' s are a few things here
that need to be straightened out, too. Any other comments? Any
comments by the Commissioners? Russ , do you have some comments?
MR. ANSON: No, the only thing that I might remind you of is
the basis for the Board of County Commissioners decision on the
Weld County Zoning Ordinance to provide a guideline for you to
make your decision, since you've heard all the evidence before
you now. And the guidelines under the Zoning Ordinance are as
follows and these are the same guidelines I had mentioned
earlier. You must be convinced that the proposal is consistent
with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan; that the proposal was
consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is
located; and that the uses which would be permitted will be
compatible with existing surrounding land uses; that the uses
which would be permitted would be compatible with the future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by existing
zones and with future development as projected by the
Comprehensive Plan of the County of the adopted Master Plans of
affected municipalities; and that if the use is proposed to be
located in the "A" District that the applicant has demonstrated a
diligent effort has been made to conserve productive agricultural
land in the locational decision for the proposed use; and
finally, that there is adequate provision for the protection of
the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the
neighborhood and the County. And I have passed out some of these
-77-
to you earlier and you can take a look at those and use that as a
guideline .
CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: OK.
MR. ALLISON: If the Board does make a recommendation for
approval of the Use by Special Review Permit, the staff would
recommend that the Board include in its motion the operation
standards that were presented to the Planning Commission in that
staff comments. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER N . CARLSON: Mr. Chairman, I ' d like to make a
statement. There' s definitely a need for such a facility. This
is probably an ideal location, geologically. It' s probably ideal
location for the oil industry, but that, and it' s probably one of
the best engineered proposals that' s come before us. But I can
remember when 23rd Avenue was the west edge of Greeley. Today
it' s 77th Avenue. Just west of that location is one of the most
beautiful views in this County. Twenty years ago, as I said,
Greeley has grown 5-6 miles to the west in just 20 years. If
this facility is to stay there another 20 years it' ll be
surrounded by residents and I don' t think I can vote for this at
this point in time because of that reason.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Mr. Chairman, I ' ll make a motion. I
would move that we deny Use by Special Review for, is it EVAP,
applicant Martensen, based upon the following reasons: that the
proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district for
which the use is located; that the uses which would be permitted
will not be compatible with future development of the surrounding
-78-
area. I think it ' s been demonstrated that our growth is to the
west, I will concur with Norm that is probably some of the most
beautiful area that we can use for residential or high tech
industry , and I 'm not sure that a Hewlitt-Packard or a Kodak
would want to locate in the same area as this type of thing.
Also, I 'm not sure that anyone can prove that there is adequate
provisions for the protection of the health, safety and welfare
cf the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. I would
like to commend the people that come before us today. They have
done intensive research with the State and County, the planning
has been outstanding, the engineering I think is above reproach,
but I think there is still some unknowns and I think that we
cannot take that chance in this location , this close to the
populace that is there now, or could potentially be, with some
unknowns. I think that it needs to be located further out in a
less dense area in case things happen later on down the line that
we can handle those. It gives us a margin of safety factor. I
will concur there is a definite need, but I think that the need
has to be taken care of at a different location.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: I guess because of my statement I
would second that motion. There is a rumor that Litten
Industries has an option on some land that' s not too far from
this location, as I said, that' s only a rumor. I don' t know what
effect that would have on this if Litten did decide to move into
the area.
-79-
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON : It' s been moved by Gene , seconded by
Norm, that we deny this application. Is there any discussion,
any comments?
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yes , Mr. Chairman, I would have some
remarks to make. I 'm well aware that I represent the district in
which Milliken is located, in which many of you are residents.
And I take very seriously my role as your representative and feel
that it' s my obligation to represent your wishes. I have
attended to your arguments very carefully, I have read the
materials very carefully, I have reviewed them each evening this
week in an effort to consider all of the evidence. And I find
myself feeling pretty uncomfortable up here at this moment,
because while I feel that it is my role and my duty to represent
your wishes , I also feel that I must weigh those wishes against
the criteria upon which we are required to base our decision.
When I do that, I find that I am going to have to vote . in
opposition to what you are here asking me to do today , and I want
to explain to you what my reasoning is so that you will
understand that I did not ignore your point of view, but feel
that given the information that I have before me , I have no
choice. I believe that the need for this kind of facility
exists. I think since the moment I became a Commissioner, and
even before that, I was well aware of the problem we have with
illegal dumping and well aware of the difficulty of enforcing so
that that will not take place, it simply can' t be done
effectively, we simply don' t have the manpower to enforce against
-80-
illegal dumping. I believe that the dangers of the illegal
dumping are great. With regard to this particular location and
the question that we have to ask, is it consistent with the
existing uses and with the potential future uses , I believe it
has been demonstrated that this is a good site geologically ,
probably there are others and probably there will have to be
others in the County if the development of oil and gas production
takes place as we anticipate it will . I recognize that there is
a possibility for growth in this direction but I believe that it
has been demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that this is beyond
the growth areas in the period of time that we' re talking about
in the future. And probably the area that weighs most heavily
upon my decision is the question of whether or not there is
adequate provision for the health, safety and welfare , both of
the surrounding area and of the County. I believe that the
operation standards which are written out here, and there are 16
of them, and they are certainly adequate to protect the health,
safety and welfare. I believe that we have drawn on our past
experience with disposal sites such as this one and have made
this an extremely sound and safe proposal; that we have set up in
those operation standards , the rules and regulations to guarantee
safety. And I am further convinced, because of our past
experience , that we do, as a County, have the ability to enforce
those standards. And I was going to say what Chuck already said
about the experience we have had where we 've closed two
facilities down, the monitoring that we have done, I believe we
-81-
ass a
can guarantee that this will be operated in a safe fashion for
all of us , and I think those of you who might know me know that I
am very concerned about our environment and about the damage we
do and the heritage we leave for our children , as one of you
indicated. So I believe, overall, that while your arguments , I
listened to them, I understand them, but I believe that the facts
and the criteria, upon which I must base my decision, are strong
enough and sound enough that I 'm going to vote in opposition to
this motion.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: OK, any other comments?
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I guess I ' ll have to make a few
comments . I think that, as I review these standards we ' re
supposed to go by, the first one says that the proposal is
consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and I believe
that' s true. The second, that the proposal is consistent with
the intent of the district in which the use is located, I think
that' s no, I don' t think it is; that the uses which would be
permitted would be compatible with existing surrounding land
uses , I have to answer that in the negative; that the uses which
would be permitted would be compatible with the future
development of surrounding area and so forth, I think that' s
negative; that if the use is proposed to be located in an "A"
District that the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort
and so forth, I think that that has happened, I think that' s yes;
that there is an adequate provision for the protection of the
health, safety and welfare of inhabitants of the neighborhood, I
-82-
think that one ' s yes, so that leaves me with three and three.
Three no' s and three yes ' s. I think that some of the remarks
that have been made here are based more on heresay than fact. I
happen to know quite a bit about the Weld County Landfill at Ft.
Lupton, and I happen to know quite a bit about the one up by Road
18 . The one by Road 18 is probably within a quarter of a mile of
some of the houses in Aristocrat Ranchettes, where probably
probably have 300 families or so living in that area and the most
distant person would probably be closer than the nearer people in
Milliken would be, and I yet to have the first complaint from
there. I haven' t heard anybody, and that ' s north of Aristocrat
Ranchettes and any prevailing wind would blow any odor that they
might have across Aristocrat Ranchettes . I haven' t heard one
complaint yet for that reason. The only complaints I 've had is
that Road 18 is too rough because the heavy trucks keep going
over it and it ' s a gravel road and we can ' t keep it smooth. So,
I think some of the fears that people have are not factual. I
think that we've had considerable problems with the Weld County
Landfill , but I think those have been corrected, and alluded to
here. I really have my doubts that this facility would be
objectionable to the people of Milliken if it were really in
operation. I think, I 'm surprised that we don' t have somebody
here from Greeley, because it' s almost in the Greeley Planning
area. The City of Milliken has expressed that they don' t want
it, and it was in the three mile radius , we usually ask their
opinion. I agree with Norm and Gene that this probably will be a
-83-
growth area and I guess what I 'm gonna do is vote for the motion,
but it' s one of those things that ' s right on the fence , I could
go either way awful easy, and I 'm not quite sure what judgment I
should be using. But, we do represent these people and I know
what' s gonna happen, the same thing' s gonna happen up here that' s
happened in southern Weld County ever since the oil industry
came. You' re gonna have salt water dumped all over your streets
and you' re gonna begin to see some of what we've seen down there
for quite a while, and I 'm sorry about that. I think that these
landfills are necessary, but I think the very fact that you have
a landfill does not guarantee that the water is gonna be dumped
in them. And I think that the gentleman from Flint verified
that. If every company was as good as Flint Engineering, then we
wouldn ' t have those problems. Because they do try desperately to
take care of those things. But I do know that we 've had people
dump that water within a quarter of a mile of the land, of the
dump site. So, I don' t think that, unless we had some method of
enforcement a little bit better, I don' t think you ' ll get it all
on the dump site anyway, but that' s the way I feel about it.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I guess it' s my turn. All right.
I 've seen a lot of things come about in the oil industry in this
County, and I guess I 've been by the dumping sites probably as
much as any Commissioner that' s here , outside of John, he lives
by it, but I 've yet to come up to any one of the sites and had an
odor problem. I 've been to the one out at, the new one, out
there at Roggen several times, no problem there. I 've been to
-84-
the Weld County site when they did have a problem, their clay
liner was in bad shape . The other one by Aristocrat Ranchettes ,
I have never noticed an odor problem with that one, to really
speak of as an odor problem. Us , as Commissioners, we' re not in
the business to find sites. We 're not, that' s up to the public ,
especially when it' s a private entity. And we can' t propose, say
well this site' s no good, but you go out to this area here and
locate one here, we can ' t do that. That' s not our decision. Our
decision is to make the decision on the site that' s brought in to
us , if it' s legal, if all the criteria that have been presented
is what we 've asked for and it meets the standards and the rules
of the State and the County, that has to have some bearing. The
need for it. Man, the Lord knows we need that site in this area
really bad, because we do have brine water dumped all over and
I 'm a person in agriculture and I know what brine water does to
my crops. And we all gather water out of the river to irrigate
our crops , and if that old river is full of brine water, that' s
gonna cut back in our production. Irregardless of how you look
at it, it' s gonna cut back in your production. So I think you
better take a thought about that. If we could dump that brine
water on our County roads and that would give us a salt base to
help keep the snow melted a little bit, keep the dust down and
work at it in that direction, I 'd be all for it. And I wish the
State would work with us in that respect, but right now it' s nix.
They told me, well I 'd better not say what they said. But
anyhow, the parts about our Health Department. Our Health
-85-
Department' s been teaching the State a lot of things in this oil
industry and a lot of the things that we have done have been
considered primary that shows that our Health Department is on
top of it and we ' re trying to do it, and do it in the best
respect. Our Health Department is here to protect you as
citizens in this County and they' re doing a very good job of it.
And I guess I take a little bit of, I don' t know. I get tired of
people continually badgering our County Government because of
what they' re not doing, and what they' re not doing here and what
they' re not doing there , but when they' re really doing something
and doing it good and then taking strikes at them, I don' t think
that that' s fair, I don ' t think it' s right, and somebody' s got to
take a stand and I guess I will. I also believe that we' re doing
this , or this proposal is , for the betterment for the welfare of
the inhabitants of this County, because it is in a good location.
Geologically speaking all the water, if it did get through the
clay liner, all the drainage from that area would go to the
northeast and it would be on top of bedrock and there' s no
waterwells, there isn' t even good domestic wells unless they go
clear through the bedrock and go below the bedrock to get
domestic water. It would take years for it to hurt anything.
But we've got this thing set up with the perimeter around it,
with the drain pipe encased in gravel which they do and which is
usable, it can be used. I think every precaution was presented
here with this draft. However, I do think one thing that could
be done and I would've liked to have seen the entire area
-86-
circumferenced with a hedge of some kind of foliage, trees , pine
trees , a fast growing deciduous tree , in order to help keep it
out of sight. Out of sight and out of mind has an awful lot to
do with that, a whole lot more so than anybody ever thinks. I
believe that it is compatible to the area. I know that Greeley' s
growing in that area, I have no qualms with that, but I think by
the time they get out there there ' ll be, we have the possibility
cf having enough other ones throughout the County that we could
close that one if need be. If the growth goes out to that area,
that thing will be so valuable that they won' t be able to afford
to keep it in these evaporating ponds , they' ll cover the dumb
thing up and put houses over the top of it. The value will tell
in dollars and cents will tell them that. Of whether they want
to keep it as evaporating ponds or not. So I guess you know
where I stand.
Any other comments by either side? OK. We' ll call for a
roll call vote.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Would you restate the motion once
more so we' re all clear what we ' re voting on.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: The motion was to deny it.
TOMMIE ANTUNA: Gene Brantner.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yes.
TOMMIE ANTUNA: Norman Carlson.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Yes.
TOMMIE ANTUNA: Jackie Johnson.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: No.
-87-
TOMMIE ANTUNA: John Martin.
COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Yes.
TOMMIE ANTUNA: Chuck Carlson.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: No.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Let the record show that the motion
carried and the action is denied. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I would move that we deny the
Certificate of Designation.
COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Second.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: It' s been moved that we deny the
Certificate . . .
MR. ANSON: On a Certificate of Designation.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Certificate of Designation. Is there
any discussion on that? If not, all in favor say, "Aye" .
COMMISSIONERS BRANTNER, N. CARLSON, MARTIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Opposed, "No. "
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: No
CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Let the record show there' s three "Ayes"
and two "No' s" . (inaudible)
We' ll stand adjourned.
-88-
Hello