The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About911788.tiff June 24, 1991 To: Weld County Commissioners Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within 1 mile of residential areas.) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. - Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a 1/2 mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, 1.1:4.31 -3 a ,-4 -3 OC �7 _3O o S. �/L . ) Q 911 788 a A /t,� 2, 2.2_4 / /L/� O d a�/ E NVIRONMENTAL R ECYCLING AND 2200 E. 104th Ave., Suite 214 ISPOSAL, INC. Thornton, CO 80233 457-3333 July 12, 1991 Members of the Board of Weld County Commissioners Weld County Colorado P. O. Box 758 Greeley , Colorado 80632 Dear Sir or Madam: I 'm sure you are already aware that we have been negotiating a host community agreement with the residents of Ranch Eggs Subdivision. I am very pleased to announce that after many drafts of the agreement , we have signed that document and are including it with this letter . I am also proud to say this is a first of it ' s kind agreement with property owners adjacent to a landfill in the State of Colorado . I hope this document sets a precedent for all further landfill applications . I am also including copies of letters of recommendation from people who live within one mile of our facility. I am sure , in reading these letters , you will realize there must be a great need for recycling, since all of these people have opted for our site in their back yard . Several more residents of this area have promised me such letters after the agreement was signed . I hope to receive these letters and pass them on to you before our hearing next week . Sincerely, Ted Ziga President TZ/gw vI1 . .11 Tom, 6t ��' 07/11/91 11:51 $303 356 1111 THE LAW BUILDING MID-AMERICAN Z002/002 NEIGHBORHOOD AGREEMENT RANCH EGGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this UM day of -O-vt , 1991, by and between Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. , an Ohio corporation, with principal offices at 1006 Walnut Street, Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110, hereinafter referred to as "Mid-American" and, Ranch Eggs Neighborhood Association, Inc. , a Colorado not-for-profit corporation, with principal offices at 3110 Johnson Lane, Erie, Colorado 80516, hereinafter referred to as "Association" . WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS, Mid-American desires to site, develop, and operate a solid waste disposal site in Section 28, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. in the County of Weld, State of Colorado; and, WHEREAS, Association represents, generally, the interests of certain property owners located in, and adjacent to, "Ranch Eggs Estates" or "Ranch Eggs Subdivision" , a subdivision, parts of which are located in Sections 27 , 28, 33 , and 34 in Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , in Weld County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, mid-American has agreed to limit and restrict its operation in the manner hereinafter set forth and provide ongoing assurances and assistance to the Association and adjacent property owners; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to reduce to writing their agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows : 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This agreement shall become effective upon the opening of the proposed solid waste disposal site and shall continue in full force and effect until the closure thereof. Mid-American shall give written notice to Association of such opening date immediately following the opening of the solid waste disposal site. 2 . ATTORNEY FOR ASSOCIATION. Mid-American agrees to pay, on behalf of the Association, or reimburse Association, for reasonable attorney 's fees and related costs incurred for the purpose of negotiating and reviewing this agreement. The attorney so retained shall work solely for the Association and shall not be required to communicate or report to Mid-American for any purpose whatsoever. 3 . RESTRICTIONS ON ROUTES. Mid-American agrees to advise all persons and vehicles utilizing the solid waste disposal site that traffic coming to, and departing from, the solid waste disposal EA s' .9 - 07!11/91 10.46 $303 356 1111 THE LAW BUILDING ♦4, MID-AMERICAN 2012/015 site is to utilize Weld County Road 5. Mid-American shall post Weld County Road 7 , at its expense, in any manner permitted by Weld County or the Colorado Highway Department, as appropriate, to prohibit or discourage truck traffic on Weld County Road 7 and direct trucks bound for the solid waste disposal site to use Weld County Road 5 . In addition, if Mid-American determines that a truck driver or operator is utilizing Weld County Road 7, either to or from the solid waste disposal site, Mid-American shall advise said driver or operator of this restriction, warn the driver or operator to stop using Weld County Road 7, and utilize instead Weld County Road 5, and shall refuse to accept delivery of waste from such driver or operator if they persist in utilizing Weld County Road 7 for travel to or from the solid waste disposal site. 4 . INSPECTOR. Association may hire an independent "Refuse Inspector" to inspect all waste products delivered to, and accepted by, the solid waste disposal site. The Refuse Inspector shall be employed by, and shall report to, the Association. Mid-American shall reimburse Association for salary, wages, FICA taxes, unemployment taxes, workmen' s compensation insurance, and such other fringe benefits as Mid-American may provide its hourly employees, in an amount not to exceed Thirty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($30, 000 . 00) per year. The Refuse Inspector shall be responsible for inspecting each incoming load of solid waste for disposal to ascertain whether or not the load contains any waste which is not permitted for disposal at the waste disposal site by virtue of the Certificate of Designation, the Use by Special Review permit, or this agreement. 5. LIMITATIONS ON OPERATIONS. Mid-American agrees to operate the solid waste disposal site in accordance with the following restrictive conditions in addition to those which may be included in its Certificate of Designation issued by the Colorado Department of Health and the Use by Special Review permit issued by Weld County: a. Hours of operation. The solid .waste disposal site will accept disposable waste during the period commencing at 6: 00 a.m. and terminating at 8 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday. Mid- American may process solid waste products delivered to the solid waste disposal site between the hours of 6: 00 a.m. and 10 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday. b. Out-of-State Trash. Mid-American shall not accept for disposal at the solid waste disposal site any out-of-state trash or solid waste and agrees that this limitation may be incorporated in any Certificate of Designation issued by the Colorado Department of Health and any Special Review permit granted by Weld County. c. prohibited Waste. Mid-American shall not accept for disposal at the solid waste disposal site any infectious, autoclaved, hazardous, or liquid waste products . 2 p 07!11/91 10: 16 $303 .356 1111 THE LAW' BUILDING. MID-AMERICAN Z013/015 d. Right-of-Wav Maintenance. Mid-American shall, at its expense, collect and remove any waste products inadvertently deposited on the right-of-way of Weld County Road 5 from Colorado Highway 7 to the entrance of the solid waste disposal site on a regular basis and shall document its efforts in that regard. 6. TEASE DISPOSAL. Mid-American shall provide "free" disposal of residential solid waste at the solid waste disposal site for residents of Ranch Eggs Estates or Ranch Eggs Subdivision. Mid-American shall not, by virtue of this paragraph, be required to accept any agricultural or commercial waste. Mid-American may institute such procedures as it may deem necessary and advisable to assure that residents of Ranch Eggs Estates or Ranch Eggs Subdivision are not utilizing this privilege to dispose of solid waste originating outside Ranch Eggs Estates or Ranch Eggs Subdivision. 7 . REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND ODARANTEEs. Mid-American shall enter into agreements in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with residents of Ranch Eggs Estates or Ranch Eggs Subdivision to guarantee the value and marketability of residential properties. 8 . PAVEMENT OF STREETS AND ROADS. Mid-American shall, subject to the approval of Weld County, Colorado, pave the following described streets and roads with hot asphalt mix to the specifications of Weld County in accordance with the following schedule, or in advance thereof at the election of Mid-American: a. 175th Avenue for 2178 feet west from Weld County Road 7 within six (6) months of the opening of the solid waste disposal site; and, b. Weld County Road 4 for 2620 feet east from Weld County Road 7 within twelve (12) months of the opening of the solid waste disposal site; and, e. Johnson Lane for 2620 feet east from Weld County Road 7 within eighteen (18) months of the opening of the solid waste disposal site; and, d. Lowell Lane for 2290 feet east from Weld County Road 7 within twenty-four (24) months of the opening of the solid waste disposal site. The parties understand and agree that Weld County will accept the roads for maintenance one year following the installation thereof if the roads are constructed and installed to Weld County specifications. Nothing herein shall be construed to obligate Mid- American to maintain any of such roads following the acceptance thereof for maintenance by Weld County; or one year following the installation thereof if the failure of Weld County to accept the roads for maintenance is through no fault of Mid-American or its 3 � `rt . 07/11/91 10.47 $303. 356 1111 THE LAw BUILDINR ++, SLID-AMERICAN Q014/015 contractors. 9. DOMESTIC WATER. Mid-American shall reimburse the owners of the following described properties for the cost of a water tap and the cost of connection to Left Hand Water Supply Company for domestic water in an amount not to exceed Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2 , 500 . 00) for a period of five (5) years commencing with the opening of the solid waste disposal site subject only to availability, to-wit: Lots 1 through 8 , Block One (1) ; Lots 1 through 8, Block Two (2) ; Lots 1 through 8 , Block Three (3) ; Lots 1 through 8, Block Four (4) Ranch Egg, Inc. , Subdivision, Second Filing First Replat dated May 21, 1986 all in the County of Weld and State of Colorado. 10. ESCROW. Mid-American shall escrow, or shall cause to be escrowed, in a trust account with Arthur P. Roy, Attorney at Law, 1011 Eleventh Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, 80631 the sum of Two Hundred Sixty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($260, 000 . 00) , One Hundred Eighty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($180, 000 . 00) of which is to secure its obligations under paragraph 8 of this Agreement and Eighty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($80, 000. 00) of which is to secure its obligations under paragraph 9 of this Agreement for a period not to exceed five (5) years commencing with the opening of the solid waste disposal site in accordance with an escrow agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 11. ATTORNEY' S FEES AND VENUE. Any action brought to enforce or construe this agreement shall be in the District Court in and for the County of Weld and State of Colorado. Any action commenced by either party in any other court may be removed to said court upon motion of the other party regardless of any statute, rule or authority which may confer jurisdiction or venue on any other court. In any litigation brought to enforce or construe this agreement, the .court shall award reasonable attorney ' s fees, expenses and costs to the prevailing party; and, in the event multiple issues are presented and one party does not prevail on all issues then, in that event, the court shall, in its uncontrolled discretion, apportion attorney' s fees, expenses, and costs between the issues and parties. 12 . ASSIGNMENT. Association may not assign any rights nor delegate any duties or obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of Mid-American. Mid-American may assign its benefits and obligations under this Agreement only in the event that such assignment is concurrent with or, preceded by, a transfer of ownership of the solid waste disposal site. 4 (S) 07!11/91 10.43 $303 356 1111 THE LAW BUILDING 4,4 MID-MERIC N O015/015 13 . INCORPORATION IN CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT. This agreement may, at the discretion of the Weld County Commissioners, be incorporated in the Certificate of Designation and the Use by Special Review Permit issued, or granted, by the Weld County Commissioners. 14 . INTEGRATION. This agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof and any negotiations between the parties are merged therein. 15. CHOICE OF LAW. This agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 16. BENEFIT. This agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 17 . NOTICE. Any notices required to be given pursuant to the terms of this agreement shall be deemed delivered when deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified with return receipt requested, and addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth at the beginning of this agreement unless prior notice of change of address has been provided to party giving notice. DATED this // day of -� -41 , 1991. MID-AMERI WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. By ,(,A tL/440ka �� Agen V . AT�'d : XZ�` / ecreta RANCH EGGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, for do Corpora INC./� �&?a-- z -//- 7/ Dorothy Shamy, President c ATTEST: �.� ylV p,‘) 7-//- �f/ 4,k11-1. 9- I - �` I. U cO - a I 07/11/91 10:41 $303 356 1111 THE LAW BUILDING -.-.4 MID-AMERICAN 2]004/015 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY OWNER AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1991, by and between Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. , an Ohio corporation, with principal offices at 1006 Walnut Street, Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110, hereinafter referred to as "Mid-American" and, , whose address is , Erie, Colorado 80516, hereinafter referred to as "Property Owner" . WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS, Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc. , (ERD) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mid-American and ERD desires to site, develop, and operate a solid waste disposal site in Section 28, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. in the County of Weld, State of Colorado; and, WHEREAS, Property Owner owns the following described real property located in the County of Weld and State of Colorado; commonly known and numbered as, • hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"; and, WHEREAS, Mid-American has agreed to guarantee the value of the subject property for a period of ten years following the opening of the solid waste disposal site; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to reduce to writing their agreements. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Term of this Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be ten (10) years commencing upon the opening of the solid waste disposal site (primary term) provided, however, that should the Subject Property be listed for sale with a licensed real estate broker within the primary term of this Agreement and remain so listed on a continuous basis following the termination of the primary term, this Agreement shall be extended untilq the -07/11/91 10:42 $303 356 1111 THE LAW BUILDING -++-+ MID-AMERICAN 2005/015 obligations of Mid-American with respect thereto are determined and performed (extended term) . 2 . Determination of Purchase Price. Within six (6) months from the date of execution of this Agreement, the Mid-American will select and hire a Professional Real Estate Appraiser to appraise the Subject Property and render a written report. Mid-American shall submit the written report to Property Owner. Property Owner may have a second appraisal performed, at Mid-American' s expense, if Property Owner notifies Mid-American of the election to have a second appraisal within thirty (30) day of the submittal of the report to Property Owner. If Property owner notifies Mid-American of the election to have a second appraisal, then Property Owner shall have fifteen (15) days from such notice to select and retain an Professional Real Estate Appraiser and notify Mid-American of the selection and retention of the Professional Real Estate Appraiser. Property Owner will be reimbursed by Mid-American for the reasonable cost of the second appraisal upon presentation of the appraisal and an invoice for the appraiser ' s services to Mid-American. If the difference between the two (2) appraisals is less than ten percent (10%) of the lowest appraisal, the highest of the two (2) appraisals will be considered the appraised market value of the Subject Property, hereinafter referred to as "Purchase Price" . If the difference between the two (2) appraisals is greater than ten percent (l0%) of the lowest appraisal, then Mid-American and the Property Owner shall agree on a third Professional Real Estate Appraiser to perform an appraisal, and the average of the two (2) highest of the three (3) appraisals will be the Purchase Price subject to reappraisal pursuant to this Agreement. The failure of the Property Owner to notify Mid- American of the election for a second appraisal or the 'selection, and notice thereof to Mid-American, of a Professional Real Estate Appraiser to perform a second appraisal within the time specified shall constitute acceptance of the first appraisal by Property Owner and the Purchase Price shall be as established by the first appraisal. Upon Property Owner listing the Subject Property for sale with a licensed real estate broker, or otherwise publicly advertising the Subject Property for sale, and notice thereof to Mid-American after the first year of the term of this Agreement, the Subject Property shall be reappraised in accordance with the procedure hereinbefore set forth and the higher of the two Purchase Prices, so determined, shall be the Purchase Price for balance of the term of this Agreement. With respect to all appraisals the Professional Real Estate Appraisers shall be instructed to appraise the Subject Property without regard to the effect, if any, of the existence, or planned installation, of the solid waste disposal site above-described but shall take into account all other circumstances bearing on the 2 (1.-71_1,,c51.9 07/11/91 10:42 $303 356 1111 THE LAW BUILDING 4,4 MID-AMERICAN Z006/015 value of the Subject Property. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Professional Real Estate Appraiser" shall mean an appraiser who is MAI, RM or SRA certified and who is independent of the parties. 3 . Obligation to Purahaao. If, during the primary term of this Agreement, Property Owner decides to sell the Subject Property, the Property Owner shall list the Subject Property with a licensed real estate broker and the listing shall be a part of the multiple listing system. If, during the one (1) year listing period, the Property Owner receives an offer less than, or valued at less than, the Purchase Price, then, in that event, Property Owner shall notify Mid-American of the offer and Mid-American shall have twenty (20) days within which to instruct Property Owner as to whether or not to accept the offer; in the event Mid-American instructs Property Owner to accept the offer or fails to respond to the notice within twenty (20) days, then, in those events., Mid- American shall pay to Property Owner the difference between the offer, or the value of the offer, and the Purchase Price . If Mid- American instructs Property Owner to reject the offer, then, in that event, Property Owner shall reject the offer, provided, however, that should Property Owner accept the offer the guaranty of the Purchase Price by Mid-American shall not apply. In the event the Subject Property does not sell during the year it is listed, Mid-American shall purchase the Subject Property for the Purchase Price in accordance with this Agreement within ninety (90) days of the end on the one ( 1) year listing. In the event Property Owner sells the Subject Property for, or 1n excess, of the Purchase Price then, in that event, Property Owner shall have the right to all proceeds from the sale and shall not be required to account to Mid-American for the same or any portion thereof. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting the right of Property Owner to sell the Subject Property by private sale without the services of a licensed real estate broker provided, however, Mid-American shall have no obligation to guarantee the Purchase Price upon such a sale or to purchase the Subject Property without the listing of the sale thereof with a licensed real estate broker as specified in this Agreement. 4. Limitations on Obligation to GMarantee Market Value and Purchase. The obligation of Mid-American to guarantee the market value of the Subject Property or to purchase the same shall be contingent upon, or limited by, the following: 4 . 1 Maintenance. Property Owner, at Property Owner' s expense, shall maintain the Subject Property in at least as good a condition as of the date hereof, normal wear and tear excepted. The Professional Real Estate Appraisers shall photograph the 3 07/11/91 10: 13 22303 356 1111 THE LAW BUILDING MID-AMERICAN T1007/015 Subject Property at the time of any appraisal to an extent necessary to determine its interior and exterior condition at the time of each appraisal. If in the opinion of the Professional Real Estate Appraiser, or a majority of the Professional Real Estate Appraisers if more than one appraisal is utilized, the fair market value of the Subject Property is diminished below the Purchase Price because, in part, Property Owner has failed to maintain the Subject Property as required by this Agreement then, in that event, the obligation of Mid-American to guarantee the Purchase Price or purchase the Subject Property shall be void. 4 .2 Title. Property Owner shall not encumber, nor permit others to encumber, the Subject Property with any easements, restrictions, or other encumbrances which adversely affect the fair market value of the property, nor shall Property Owner sell or convey any estate or interest in the Subject Property including, without limitation, mineral estates or rights, without the prior written consent of Mid-American. Mid-American agrees to accept the Subject Property with the restrictive covenants, easements, and restrictions of record as to the date of this Agreement but shall not be required to accept those liens and encumbrances which would normally be paid out of the proceeds of the sale including, without limitation, deeds of trust, tax liens, judgments, and water rents. In the event mid-American purchases the Subject Property, then, in that event Property Owner, at Property Owner' s expense, shall obtain a standard ALTA owner' s title commitment from a title insurance company licensed to transact business in the State of Colorado selected by Mid-American in an amount at least equal to the purchase price of the Subject Property. Within fifteen.days of Mid-American's receipt of the title commitment, Mid-American .shall notify Property Owner in writing of any defects in title other than those which Mid-American is required to accept pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement and other than any defects which in Mid-American' s opinion do not render the title unmarketable or which may be removed by ascertainable amounts of money which shall be paid by Property Owner from the purchase price at closing (the "Permitted Title Exceptions") . In the event that Mid-American does not notify Property Owner of any such title defects within such fifteen days, all such title defects disclosed by the public records as of the date and time of the title insurance commitment shall be deemed to be Permitted Title Exceptions for all purposes hereunder. Property Owner shall cure any title defects which are not Permitted Title Exceptions promptly and, in any event, by the date of closing, at the expense of Property Owner. If Property Owner is unable to cure any title defects which are not Permitted Title Exceptions by closing, Mid-American may elect to purchase the Subject Property subject to such title defects and deduct an amount from the Purchase Price to cover the cost of removing the title defects or an amount by which the title defect reduces the fair market value of the Subject Property. If Mid-American elects not 4 21.C.,1:19 07/11/91 10:{4 lanco 356 1111 THE LAW BUILDIua 44+ MID-MERICAN Z008/015 to purchase the Subject Property with the title defects then, in that event, Property Owner shall have until the end of the primary term of this Agreement or sixty (60) days whichever last occurs to cure said title defects following which Mid-American shall be obligated to purchase the Subject Property for the Purchase Price. Property Owner, at Property Owner' s expense, shall have the title insurance company issue at closing an owner's title policy in the same amount as the title commitment. 4.3 Granting of Permits. ERD being granted a Certificate of Designation and a Use by Special Review Permit by the County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado on its applications presently pending as Case Number USR-925 . 4. 4 Limitations . The guarantee and obligation to purchase contained herein shall be limited to the real property and improvements. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to obligate Mid-American to guarantee the Purchase Price or market value of, or purchase, any fixtures, equipment, or inventory of any business conducted on the Subject Property. In the event Property Owner sells, offers for sale, or receives an offer to purchase the Subject Property in conjunction with the sale of a business, or interest in a business Mid-American shall not be bound by any allocation of the total purchase price between Property Owner and Purchaser which allocates less than the Purchase Price to the Subject Property. If a dispute arises between the parties as to the allocation of the total purchase price to the Subject Property then, in that event, the Subject Property shall be reappraised in the same manner as set forth in Section 2 . 0 of this Agreement with the total cost of such appraisal to be divided equally between the parties. 4 . 5 Resale. In the event Property Owner sells and conveys the Subject Property to a third party for a price, or under terms, that does not require Mid-American to perform under its guarantee and Property Owner retains a security interest in the Subject Property for the payment of the Purchase Price and Property Owner forecloses such security interest or accepts reconveyance of the Subject Property in lieu of foreclosure then, in those events, the guarantee and obligation to purchase by Mid-American shall extend to the subsequent listing and sale of the Subject Property provided such listing and sale are in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 5. Incorporation in Certificate of Designation and Use by Special Review Permit. This Agreement may, at the discretion of the Weld County Commissioners, be incorporated in the Certificate of Designation and the Use by Special Review Permit issued, or granted, by the Weld County Commissioners . 5 q 5. Incorporation in Certificate of Designation and use by special Review Permit. This Agreement may, at the discretion of the Weld County Commissioners, be incorporated in the Certificate of Designation Weld County Commissioners. and the Use by Special Review Permit issued, or granted, bye 6. kUSSOL laneoua rovieions. 6.1. Binding Effect and Benefit. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Mid-American, its successors and assigns and Property Owner and their successors, personal representatives, heirs, devisees and assigns. 6.3 Assignment. Property Owner may not assign any rights and liabilities under this Agreement without the express written consent of Mid-American which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld if the assignment is between related persons or entities. Mid-American may assign its benefits and obligations under this Agreement only in the event that such assignmentc solid sconcurrent with, or proceeded by, a transfer of ownership f disposal site or a transfer of its ownership of its shares of ERD and Mid-American shall be released from its obligations hereunder in the event Property Owner consents to such assignment. In the event mid-American assigns its obligations under this Agreement without the written consent of Property Owner, Mid-American shall remain liable to Property owner for its obligations herein contained unless the assignee assumes the obligations of Mid- American and (1) the assignee's overall financial strength in the opinion of an independent certified public accountant is comparable to that of Mid-American at the time of the assignment as determined from the most recent audited financial statement or if no audited financial statement is prepared in the regular course of business, then from the most recent unaudited financial statement prepared in the normal course of business, and a copy of such opinion is provided to Property Owner; or, (2) for so long as assignee maintains in escrow, One Million Five Hundred Thousand and No\loo Dollars ($1, 500, 000. 00) or a letter of credit in that amount issued by a commercial bank to secure its obligations to Property owner and others whose property values are guaranteed under similar agreements relating to the solid waste disposal site above- described, in which event Mid-American shall be released from any future obligations as of the time of the assignment. 6.3. Invalidity or Partial Invalidity. In the event that any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall for any reason be held invalid, remain ng prov sions of illegal n respect his Agreement hall remain in full force and effect. 6.4. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be construed and 6 f,�_ 07/11/91 10:45 $J0? 356 1111 THE LAW BUILDIvr MID-AMERICAN Z010/015 change of address has been provided to party giving notice. 6.6. Attorney's Fees and Venue. Any action brought to enforce or construe this Agreement shall be in the District Court in and for the County of Weld and State of Colorado. Any action commenced by either party in any other court may be removed to said court upon motion of the other party regardless of any statute, rule or authority which may confer jurisdiction or venue on any other court. In any litigation brought to enforce or construe this Agreement the court shall award reasonable attorney ' s fees, expenses and costs to the prevailing party; and, in the event multiple issues are presented and one party does not prevail on all issues then, in that event, the court shall, in its uncontrolled discretion, apportion attorney' s fees, expenses, and costs between the issues and parties. The parties hereto acting under authority of their respective agents, when applicable, have caused this Agreement to be duly executed this day of , 1991. MID-AMERICAN WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. an Ohio Corporation Agent ATTEST: PROPERTY OWNER • 7 21.Q)in 07/11/91 11=50 $303 356 1111 THE L:1« BCILDISG ---, MID-AMERICA). L001/00? EXHIBIT B ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Arthur P. Roy, Attorney at Law, 1011 Eleventh Avenue, Greeley Colorado 80631, hereinafter referred to as "Agent"; Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. , an Ohio corporation, with principal offices at 1006 Walnut Street, Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110, hereinafter referred to as "Mid-American; and, Ranch Eggs Neighborhood Association, Inc. , a Colorado corporation, with principal offices at 3110 Johnson Lane, Erie, Colorado 80516, hereinafter referred to as "Association" . WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, Mid-American and Association entered into an agreement dated , 1991, whereby Mid-American agreed to pave certain roads and contribute to the cost of connecting residences to the Left Hand Water Supply Company, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is hereinafter referred to as "Agreement" ; and, WHEREAS, in the Agreement Mid-American agreed to escrow with Agent the sum of Two Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($260, 000 . 00) to secure its obligation under the agreement for a period not to exceed five (5) years commencing with the opening of the solid waste disposal site to be located in Section 28, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, state of Colorado. HOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree and follows: 1. DEPOSIT WITH ESCROW AGENT. Mid-American shall, upon execution of this agreement, deposit with Agent the sum of Two Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($260, 000. 00) , One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180, 000.00) of which is to secure the obligation of Mid-American under paragraph 8 of the Agreement and Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80, 000. 00) of which is to secure the obligation of Mid-American under paragraph 9 of the Agreement, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, to be held by Agent in accordance with instructions hereinafter contained. 2 . TERM. The term of this agreement shall be five (5) years and shall commence on the date of opening of the solid waste disposal site above described. Mid-American shall give written notice to Association of such opening date immediately following the opening of the solid waste disposal site. 3 . ESCROW INBTRUCTIONe. Agent shall hold the Two Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($260, 000 . 00) in an interest bearing trust account at the Union Colony Bank, Greeley, Colorado in the name of Agent as Trustee. virtri9 07/11/91 10. 40 U303 366 1111 THE LAW BCILDIV6 M1D-AMERICA. 002/016 Upon delivery to Agent by Mid-American of a request to withdraw all, or any portion of, the escrowed funds and the reasons therefor, Agent shall notify Association by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, of the request of Mid-American and the basis thereof. If Association does not give Agent notice of its objection to the distribution in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, within fifteen (15) days of the date of mailing of the notice, Agent will distribute to Mid- American the funds requested. If Association timely objects to the distribution of the funds in writing and Association and Mid- American are unable to reach agreement and provide Agent with written joint instructions with respect thereto within thirty (30) days of the Association's objection, Agent shall interplead the funds requested in the Weld County District Court, State of Colorado, and shall name Association and Mid-American as parties to the action. Agent shall distribute the balance of the escrow together with all accrued and undistributed interest to Mid-American within thirty (30) days of expiration of the term of this agreement unless objection to that distribution is made by Association, in writing, by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement in which event the provisions of this Agreement with respect to other distributions shall apply. All parties agree that the Weld County District Court, State of Colorado, has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties for the purposes of this agreement; is the court of proper jurisdiction; and, that Agent may recover in the interpleader action all reasonable expenses incurred by Agent in the commencement of the interpleader action, including reasonable attorney ' s fees. 4 . NOTICE. All notices required to be given under the terms of this agreement shall be deemed delivered if addressed to the parties at the addresses indicated above unless the party entitled to receive the notice shall have provided a change of address in writing to the party required to give notice. 5. INTEREST. All interest earned on the trust account shall be payable to Mid-American at least quarterly, or upon demand, without the necessity of a request, justification, or approval of Association as required in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement. 6. INCOME TAX. Mid-American' s Taxpayer Identification Number shall be used with respect to the escrow account, and Mid-American shall be responsible for, and pay, all state and federal tax obligations with respect to any interest earned. 2 ;�lCr19 07,11/91 10:41 $303 356 1111 BLILDIVG MID,O1ERIL .L003/015 7 . INTEGRATION. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties with respect to its subject and purpose and all discussions and negotiations with respect thereto are merged in this agreement. 8 . AMENDMENT. This Agreement may only be amended in writing signed by all parties hereto. 9. LIMITED LIABILITY OF AGENT. Agent shall not be bound by any agreement between Mid-American and Association regardless of whether he has knowledge thereof, nor shall he be required to determine the amount or validity of any claim between Mid-American and Association. Agent shall not be liable for any acts or omissions of any kind unless by his negligence or wilful misconduct. 10. NONEXCLUSIVE PROTECTION. The provisions of this agreement are cumulative and not exclusive as between Mid-American and Association as to other rights or remedies which they may have at law or in equity, or under any other contract. 11. CHOICE OF LAW. This agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. MID-AMERICAN WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. an Ohio Corporation Agent ATTEST: Secretary RANCH EGGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. , a Colorado Corporation By Dorothy Shamy, President ATTEST: Secretary Arthur P. Roy 3 Gi r 7 di \ E !/ DAT• i ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R . D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this applicatio or the following reasons : intrei IdatizS n, l,7/31:g • RA" 71_474.Pc4, SIGNATU 01 it rt � 'k :�_._ w 7-/- 9/ DATE 3-21/11(OS Jl .nrr)e-4 NAME '79 air, Fri2e, 4 A5/(P ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R.D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : 1 T < c I 14 CC La d *1 II tS Going & IP) III 15 IS rk.z. sccfcsi `-i' Most MOjev.po cis left c\ra _. ,„_ //. / CSIGNATURE e r r ..e_ _'v .).LZI -1-91 DATE o r0l n l/1Eff Y NAME 79`71 ale k 7 _ Fr Op tp 8o57 ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R.D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval of this a(�p11p''l1lication for the following reasons : 4Rer far-Afar th'e .1_ feel -Mail "IA 1.c 71yiz. it)r I Li r I"; 471,, -Yip safest ants mr s f des rr a LIP . l.Qh�4'r &i/t ill D SIGNATURE -7 - 7/ DATE Alger/ 114-Af e NAME .274 7S2:4 C—J. SOS tG ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E .R . D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : /a nis roci4 t r,t/ BSc riT.K A9( 7iNnS /s mire- fgt.sT lrl/7e/t/�' Tfaci, �-. :2„r, GNATURE Tune, / / 957 DATE 4 r-tettA.r Leo NAME ? 90 / s al tiL, F271 e&toR41)0 8'o S/6 ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E . R .D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : —�fcc e �`�� Q —i u,itp of SIGNATURE ear *All a.:_.-.i DATE 9 1 1rAMC? l?,'� )0..64) ids / ADDRESS ' Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E . R.D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for the fol/loowing reasons : _7? tom! (LC/ 7i C. 6 el SIGNATURE ; -- i t� DATE Th)Cl/d f lL� ��. ae—i) NANE cr y17 lc) • 7) -"Ad, (99) 5-2),67 / ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R.D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of thiCss application for the following reasons : �L,C'Y L s J 2,2_y . SIGNA RE 2 .J6619 ATE ME ar3"l6 ADDRESS . Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E .R . D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : z 7/A i ee,e ' aw71 46 9.7eg‘ celwa ail, n a&,1 • rhot-af ‘vsf,6,40 ; 7 /),/ ,- ",emze) ti6OicA/ te 1)-4-0 Cigar 4 SIGNATURE June 13 , 1991 TO: Weld County Commissioners Mr. Ted Zigan FROM: Bill and Dolly Beisner - 2870 175th Ave . - Erie , CO. 80516 SUBJECT: Environmental Recycling and Disposal (ERD) Landfill I live within one mile of the proposed ERD landfill and have been asked by Mr. Ted Zigan to write a letter supporting the landfill . I believe it is important that you and Mr . Zigan know the reasons for this support. In order of importance the reasons are : 1 . Mr. Zigan will be managing the site . I have been contacted only three times by Mr. Zigan but he seems concerned about any complaints I may have. I understand there is an Ohio partner. I would have liked to see all control remain local . 2 . It appears that ERD is trying to be a good neighbor. They have offered to pave our road ( 175th Ave . ) to county standards with three inches of asphalt and have the road inspected by county personnel . 3 . Hours of, operation at the landfill are to be 6 AM to 8 PM. Noise from the existing landfill in our area is one of my major complaints . I believe noise from a shooting range on one side of us and a race track on the other is more than enough . I will appreciate anything this operation can do to reduce noise levels . 4 . We will be allowed to use the landfill at no charge . 5 . Mr . Zigan has agreed to keep local roadways and right of ways used by trash trucks clean. 6 . Mr. Zigan has agreed to guarantee property values in our area. 7 . County road 7 will not be used as an access road for the landfill . There are two things I discussed with Mr. Zigan that he did not agree with but I want to mention. 1 . I believe the landfill should have a life not exceeding 20 years - a 10 year life would be even better. What I do not want to see is southern Weld dotted with numerous 30 year landfills . Open one at a time and fill it fast . 2 . The use of the land after the fill is complete should be one that does not detract from neighborhood property values . The trade for lower neighborhood values now while the landfill is filling should be made for better values after the landfill is full . Uses such as a regional park or golf course come to mind. With this support I also want to voice my concern over numerous landfills in our area. It is my opinion that we will have a landfill at this location whether or not County approval is granted to ERD . An annexation is all that is needed to avoid county permitting . I do not like this situation we are in and hope there is something that can be done. But , as mentioned before , I would rather Mr. Zigan managed this project than someone else . If the above verbal commitment made by Mr. Zigan can be included in the permitting process or supported with adequate safeguards then we support the proposed ERD landfill . frail" )1c, 6P/9/ DATE 7DA)R---yeseyereinHeia-/ g // .,_/,fed.,) �cQ/�/ C 01 o O aS7-6 ADDRESS . Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E. R .D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this pplication for the following reasons : ,r 9 qx / N adG r✓ / i4��jy/ kW, CJ,-P, 74ei-T /�LC'yclef Q- /7/.Sa .j,4v,e- 7-4P rniace-tva , % /e 74. 4L7-- ffr�trT e-re UO/« `i P .r/d trnSt T/I cieGLs QxJ /r ` / i,i.: ti-- —3 S GN URE la/ br i/9i DATE/ lcnnegi H©fincy NAME 339V" GJcld• �ovn� �ooc� `/ CYI�i e01070olo frOSX ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R. D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of �j -thesis application for the following reasons : / [J /�( 311(/S 9� ©r/1/y P7o/2o;toe/ o/7t7W CO 70 /fr7e‘)//fa 7etyekr /16/y eleieleg • 7/,s I s fL en/y ,Q nofisse.,1 corm ew s al (-7/i/ co//�crr r 1este/erlf a7FS" Pee/ 4)4 fv e-ootexij w/{L Ebel GJ/a/1�' AO, 4 yes/cieh YS // ' l L/ p f iL,yU((-ro 5lJt//7a f� r,s !�n,..i ! / fC-e7 TiioT -e«C (7e nvi 'Y�'i 17Ou-e /� lOlrl/47/ /.r1[ nJ FnnC�/n ‘7 l/1/,`vJl/C" /.9 �\jl/ll2 47/ea /e/e-ep/ 710 Q<�7/ c.,e4e'x� /ow./ c•� 7 t o!'J0/' 710 by of )-ip 7C ✓ �•re;,.4 �e L / y 1/ �/ �n o/�/' �'�•r� CJ�i,��i !s ?c% 7�1 c�u�oy Wire" ` / SIGNATURE C Vre "n 7'Ys�ar• #1-C Et L —�t� �// / 7i c" G3>/y /w o 4,5 I1.5 /t- duly elye7C14,9 7C (7okr l infc L�� cUc'NY W -9 7 rs 1`rP%(f oC�/e e r•fr �f'10 4 Ae rot- 5 e—CI C�A7 ca-7e re:6 z G)!<o o Tc //1i °the) 4441 w�^--(//!� ,bc 04 re r{l coll;c7r'e 47 al /9 re PC Stet" /o r+</7/; � [ C7�E �—c/ C 19 ti -Z7-1/ DATE /611 ea d_.-x4i��_ NAME ( CVO hArsoi) 1.a ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E .R .D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : L /-/Re. ` iv, /deo_ OF /415 /V ffcJJ(0i5), l C'5.ties5/ rpr /d/ a 4/q N��G/ . (-X76// 4A-di SIGNATURE ‘0.- 1/'? ( DATE !/ ( 4t( i E NAME �o I (QO /11Q orV ER.; e co . Soil l ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R .D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : �I7,1,1y7/1/J CNATURE 401: r oi-199/ DATE NAM ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R.D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : /UQ D/ <e> llJ� i, IL�Pj 444,4 71.02,4 .74402-c2. ,u /et) P)/(-1f, lie, -,11e, �.�, ade j�e--) 9 SIGNAT June 13 , 1991 TO: Weld County Commissioners Mr . Ted Zigan FROM: Bill and Dolly Beisner - 2870 175th Ave . - Erie , CO. 80516 SUBJECT: Environmental Recycling and Disposal (ERD) Landfill I live within one mile of the proposed ERD landfill and have been asked by Mr. Ted Zigan to write a letter supporting the landfill . I believe it is important that you and Mr . Zigan know the reasons for this support . In order of importance the reasons are : 1 . Mr. Zigan will be managing the site. I have been contacted only three times by Mr . Zigan but he seems concerned about any complaints I may have. I understand there is an Ohio partner. I would have liked to see all control remain local . 2 . It appears that ERD is trying to be a good neighbor . They have offered to pave our road ( 175th Ave . ) to county standards with three inches of asphalt and have the road inspected by county personnel . 3 . Hours of operation at the landfill are to be 6 AM to 8 PM. Noise from the existing landfill in our area is one of my major complaints . I believe noise from a shooting range on one side of us and a race track on the other is more than enough. I will appreciate anything this operation can do to reduce noise levels . 4 . We will be allowed to use the landfill at no charge . 5 . Mr. Zigan has agreed to keep local roadways and right of ways used by trash trucks clean. 6 . Mr . Zigan has agreed to guarantee property values in our area. 7 . County road 7 will not be used as an access road for the landfill . There are two things I discussed with Mr . Zigan that he did not agree with but I want to mention. 1 . I believe the landfill should have a life not exceeding 20 years - a 10 year life would be even better. What I do not want to see is southern Weld dotted with numerous 30 year landfills . Open one at a time and fill it fast . 2 . The use of the land after the fill is complete should be one that does not detract from neighborhood property values . The trade for lower neighborhood values now while the landfill is filling should be made for better values after the landfill is full . Uses such as a regional park or golf course come to mind. With this support I also want to voice my concern over numerous landfills in our area. It is my opinion that we will have a landfill at this location whether or not County approval is granted to ERD . An annexation is all that is needed to avoid county permitting . I do not like this situation we are in and hope there is something that can be done . But , as mentioned before, I would rather Mr . Zigan managed this project than someone else . If the above verbal commitment made by Mr . Zigan can be included in the permitting process or supported with adequate safeguards then we support the proposed ERD landfill . G /L//`I I DATE I�LL 1'1 /�r1 ?YEA( NE:iL NAME 32)1"3 /-.r5( h42-kt y Cr) *A5/ 6. ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R.D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : r' • i2 i_ rYVC -.ri E)^, li1 �Z �< L v i1 i"L • . �� ` l; C!':.r'Lc /7° c C SIGNATURE 0' � , V/3/T( NAME 33 J..v..e„ 1.4-N re, ea�dh ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E .R .D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval o£ this application for the following reasons : I �G�, 7 e - n ' i� tS (✓v� dt n �_ -� 1c O rr Se_x rrv� ( _nn et4 1n' i 4s n U e DATE athriiiet_ LioArneiz_ la3 {iced CoceLly_ Rd_ .2 ER/C cofo c6osiG -- - . _ �R}:ss - _ -- - Dear +'eld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E . R . D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : .. atat,. — a frer -�io-e, eze' _ � a �� ..�e� .�� ,.e. - - - - - -freereol __ / SIGhAiIRE • 210619 (7C7/n0_ Li /qql DAZE Ee ‘c3a._3 ccee cily Gd 7 rice ror6 coo-562 ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R . D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : -****4 (gee? ,ferr eele Zrzellerte.0144-, !'.9 _71 arl as-40, telt -Pi/2i Aril ,72efjp-r. 4;p 17 S GN " 5- /6 -R 1 DATE CAICAP-.5 Fn AR Pr___ NAME 3 II -ti *A) S x) 01,A) ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E .R .D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval of this application Eor the following reasons : r r V /? /4 Alp ger r e Prtherf17 - QAIA7-4,3te-gzAtiti .I- 1/,/"�Q1 Lc , � P1C • O€42 cl— 42..4 ,z.��f All.E`%z_i ' el s � — �/ < v// (� . CO _Ln,l v A 4)-17 h oc @`1 .v n AI' �L. �p r' 4-�. oleuisi (c:5 _ {----- SIGNATURE (1.-P- 21.061.9 . d- JO DATE Ci. E • !°o 4-7- NAME 3.311 TrOhNSOM /ra{lP ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R.D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : E 4 , A CD,t_ , i �_ec DATE _ NAME O/1 /l,v Ale S ,< /9-4/.%' TIC' 32 b/ N s O ✓ X.4-4 e do g0376 ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E .R . D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : re,e 7�zZ€-•14; dezzSI�NATURE syozo l 11 - R-9 / DATE dint tint/ /ME 3 .2�� 04H' s.°ni e ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E .R.D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : / t kgt-OlSIGN RE 21(Jan G - * W DATE DitrteY 91- At T`iena s NANE/spy Waif 7 ,Frio, ]/d. 70,76 ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R.D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for tithe following reasons : / hie T-he /G�PQiD � ecci Ge-. 17 /4„r. hQp�r.� T CtS tc 7G1ruS S//i t._J .7- ,StG nr) re-Lt S mii ,�l�y 7 N is S � ntiL We)/4, �4Adtitt � SIGNATURE 1_L C1A a - 1-1/ — � ( DATE ME As- 7 �" NAB' ,ve 7 ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R.D . recycling and landfill facility. I support the approval of this application for the following reasons : Q�c' � � �J 7A-ga� v . ��,a2 g/r ��c.c cQ ✓mac e i�x • c1 -- SIGNATURE SIC Bob and Rose Fortner 3298 West WCR 4 Erie , Colorado 80516 May 28 , 1991 Gordon Lacy Chairman of the Board of Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley , Colorado 80631 Dear Gordon : I am writing in regard to the application by E.R. D . for a recycling and landfill facility near WCR 5 and 6 . I live in ranch eggs subdivision , less than a mile from the site . In the past I have been a stauch opponent of any landfill in the area . I ' m still against any standard landfill . What I am for , is a recycling facility that can reuse one—fourth of our trash . I understand that E . R .D. can ' t build the recycling facility without it ' s own landfill . Therefore I now support both the recycling building and the landfill . Recycling needs to be done or we will bury ourselves in trash. It is my opinion that curbside recycling is only partly successful . No one talks about recycling commercial and industrial solid waste . E . R . D . ' s plan will recycle all residential , commercial , and industrial waste . No other landfill company has made that commitment . No body wants a landfill within one mile of their house , but if it means that recycling will take place , I am willing to support it in my backyard . I hope you and the other commissioners have the leadership qualities necessary to recognize , as I have , that the E . R . D. plan is different from any other landfill plan and that you will support it . Sincerely , Bob Fortner r v Rose Fortner /04.4,1 21.0619 _frdzia_g____/s /99 ) DATE ' /fit. I. a NAME 226, 9 co gv.4/ ADDRESS Dear Weld County Commissioners : I live within one mile of the proposed E.R.D . recycling and landfill facility . I support the approval of this application for the 11following _ reasons : �YiG�F C- LC�.G dJC� fAt / Gll.to Cer. SIGNATURE fitLefalif • June 24, 1991 To: Weld County Commissioners Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within 1 mile of residential areas. ) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. - Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a h mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Resp Ef ly '�cfitted, }/j/cfj_„ awkw o � 0-°- r I t • " CLELAND DAIRY ` ' 2474 Weld County Road 7 ^7VErie, Colorado 80516 d 1 -- 303-828-3347 � . w - w.,. July 8, 1991 TO: Weld County Commissioners RE: Proposed E. R. D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to go on record as opposing this landfill. We feel our area of Weld County has become the dumping grounds for the entire Boulder-Brighton-Denver Metro area, and is fast becoming a very unsightly mess. Years ago there was a local dump which served our area very well, then the "big" operators moved in, and the problems get bigger and bigger. We feel it is unfair to the area residents to bear the burden for trash disposal for all of our neighboring counties (and quite possibly other states). There is no need for any more dumps in this area. Since we live very close to existing dumps, we are truly authorities on the nuisance factor. We live approximately one mile northeast of the existing dumps-- in Colorado most winds come from the west. There have been times when our entire dairy farm has been covered with trash, paper and plastic hanging from our trees and buildings. One year we had to call for trash pick-up in a field which was too full of trash to be plowed. Trash falls off of the trash trucks into the middle of the road constantly. Our farm trucks, tractors and personal vehicles regularly get flat tires from nails, etc. The high rate of truck traffic increases damage to the roads and makes the dust fly on our gravel road. This dump definitely is not compatible with our dairy farm, nor the surrounding farm land and residential areas. Weld County is "the" ag land of Colorado. Taking land out of production for another, unneeded dump is also not compatible with the image of Weld County. A very big concern is decreased property values. We feel, at todays' market, it is a very real possibility that our property alone could decrease in value by as much as a quarter million dollars (a conservative guess). When we bought our farm property 27 years ago, we had a dream. We wanted to live and raise our children with a rural lifestyle, enjoy the green fields, the beautiful mountains, and we knew our property would appreciate in value so that we could leave our children a legacy of which we could be proud. As our dairy grew from 27 cows to 600 milking cows, and we added more land, all of our hopes were being fulfilled. Now as we look at the manmade mountains and the other problems mentioned above, we see a loss of the quality of life we so desire. With this landfill land option Sit 6'1.9 &kcal 64T d� Cleland Dairy Farms Page Two only one fourth mile from our property line, selling property may become almost impossible--who, in their right mind, would buy property next door to several dumps? Of all of Weld County, this area probably has the most potential for positive growth. Would it not be better to concentrate on the positive spin-off from the Metro area rather than the negative? We realize that trash disposal is a problem and as long as Weld County allows, we will continue to be dumped on. Perhaps one solution lies in using desolate areas where minimal people will be affected. This area is heavily populated with development. You are our representatives--we helped elect you to office--now we are asking for your help. Please vote to deny this landfill. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, .2 � ('e �, _ John and Shirley Cleland Cleland Dairy Farms adj.( 9 9 8897 Baseline Rd. Lafayette, CO 80026 July 8, 1991 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Zigan application for the E.R.D. Facility Scheduled for Hearing on July 17, 1991 Dear Commissioners: Enclosed are some copies and some originals of signatures gathered to attempt to prevent the Horst Landfill. Several of the signature sheets have been lost. Some of these people have moved or died, but I send these to you in the hopes that you will see how the community has fought to prevent these dumps. Many people worked on these petitions. Many people attended meetings and Erie Town Board meetings, but to no avail. There are still some people in the area who remember trying to prevent the expansion of the Columbine Landfill in 1982 in Greeley. They organized and presented material and lost. Many people have lost hope. Erie claims that if they don't allow them, Weld County or another municipality will. The winners are the landfill developers laughing at our foolish predicament all the way to the bank. I hope the wheels of government can work to protect the citizens and plan for better cooperation and defenses in the future. Sincerely, Marilyn Brand Concerned Citizens of Erie ✓u� Mr i reL We, the undersigned, as residents and/or property owners in town, do hereby state our opposition to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the land owned by Dan Horst for the purpose of creating additional land- fill(s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to residential areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the Town Trustees consider our opinions in their decision- making process. Name Address Phone C.E444fri } 160_1 CO lvni/a /ems ie 5---7sr, 7 . 4 , Pdo60y M 311:CC 1.9 We, the undersigned, as residents and/or property owners in town, do hereby state our opposition to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the land owned by Dan Horst for the purpose of creating additional land- fill( s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to residential areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the Town Trustees consider our opinions in their decision- making process. Name Address Phone 17_1cam, �� 1 1�� 772 C2.4-5-4-) �' a � 3 < .. � � b ±)-(--u" �t -7,9 zt 9y Ge.) .307o• L o• - r�3U �� (V S!0 Alc0-) CAL-2 _ 43 ?-463Cow ;ict e11 21..C431.3 We, the undersigned, as residents and/or property owners in town, do hereby state our opposition to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the J.and owned by Dan Horst for the purpose of creating additional land- fill( s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to resideptial areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the Town Trustees consider our opinions in their decision- making process. Hzme Address Phone ./.! r,ict! ge[ a -(F)0 _ 1/ / 9 C es 6G=55N/i Di& %GS- Z`1SG ra (10 -6/7 -b es -- • z yd a Beztakica Cr. iCa -St fg � ;Vat, taak-ea•. tr. 14 a 4 -5 . � ti it , / , L., r � �� , iid file in r. � 6.Ct- d3..31t A'� �,Id 1R,, S• azssti/4 ii 1'�5 7 7V.! �✓ 4--.224 l /(/` Y r �,, i PA- �,� �\/F.f✓1:/t��i-{.�n"�"- 1c5C/ (_(" Ste;vA d/A-- ��l 6 -9(v S / fr � l - _•� I27c_ ...uc //!'1(%11,'(�i Jere 1� C k_st-vc �, U It - O .(.. ,}S/,.,,pii °�� X30 c 2 ; c ,-)A- (.-(i5 - o0a ,-;2.-- e ,�� ,L4 ,i..-7- I' l ',_�' I C is L L-` / I�ii�; /i (.l 1 P \v'.) I/ J (( , I f / --,as---,__ ",z4(3, \,_ Le---7, vt"e )_�Q-.rC%�� / a .S— .G C !s5- /U/9' cA/ t_. Ce., ,c,/O S�/C, 1.06'2`.9 ., • We, the undersigned, as residents and/or property owners in town, do hereby state our opposition to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the J.and owned by Dan Horst for the purpose of creating additional land- fill(s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to residential areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the Town Trustees consider our opinions in their decision- making process. Name Address Phone ti iL ei -. i ( ) 2- 1 . , :.') r( ;5-O — ( n C A l t z.a.t--- Lail /` /3ti � C c 0 c7f2 6r r,-fc -4- --41 1---/i 4----7---- "“2572 _ISA--vt .S4 ��/u fir; ?-,Q _3 f�.5 L/??, ,, 7. _ ifs / v �h,//A-` A '-C., z .s?G s ��, CIC E- X33 �. �� 7 `� H, �/� � ) L.1 /1 f ' e/ za 2�� rJ �i 91-? r� 1J�e_erc. - � Z t—:; 9-G ^;� 1, , - r, � f •fie I :CUL . )(71L--f- (14/ -- JU -� 1/41T -, r •, _ ,, 1,._ � 4�s�-- L' ! 1: x7.-1��--- a . L" A 67(✓,_,t, z ✓J?'= �I Al Y1 v I{Jw- ,�� %r _5 },..z% },..z �-e e a o `.;C1 We, the undersigned, as residents 2nd/or property owners in town, do hereby state our position to the annexation y the Town of Erie of the land owned by Dais Horst for the purpose of crating additional land- fill( s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to residential areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the Town Trustees consider our opinions in their decision- making process. Name < Address Phone / /ice' /t/ �' J. `/,cam. t!-527 ---2L%/in i.,_,A:, 17,-2 S----/ Y; ) a_ �5 H P:\ • q.7 - , coo ln� i. rta tt„,,..,Jr)- /den (4'1CR i1 233 - 3 ?? (>1/Lo„,j4,0 A �?go �, lbr.,� K A . ,21,-) Sot k- 13.541 _ 7 (� -3,9,, ,y4/ ' z _r 9-2_ t- 3sy/ I L e e , , ryA � 1 VC-- &HIM froth cc\( �- T-71 Si /f rf 7 ' ' ,S /7 c 6-/ F<`r t� - (N c i eocK . -2,Z- -3,2 IS-2_ 1744 6 • Sze- 3 ?i5_ tf 17/6 SI Qt, :` yyr - 2a60 ( � ��s .lik -ay/ 28�--3637 n << . -,,,,i€7" - V‘5" -/-::-Ze -co / --e(c --__so s-7 / 7 r� �I 7 ..e._1 1) i // ems _ I, ii ''{< if ' /4-. l i;,,�,, l- '�. � i = �� S�? , is <AC,-911(14----/ rll:(1(-4,1 ��; 5 :��:�`z � ,f c 9-k 'y � 3a5lk16roo45f 6105-5-110 "pi "pi----____ 3zs lb et, M l -5t5-0 �.� We, the undersigned, as property/home owners with property within the Erie Comprehensive Plan area, are opposed to the annexation of the Dan Horst land by the Town of Erie, for the purpose of creating additional landfill( s ) . We believe that additional landfills, so close to residential areas, will create additional heavy traffic problems, environmental hazards, and deflate property values. Name Address/Phone Date '2/144-711 SZ2q CJc!{ �S ersisc5 s `F1)/7/94/7 7'-144-e-A- ( "a71/1‘75- /d/c7, e -iii,e-D.-&, no-0(e /—�/G-ye_ Pei'- 3.5-73. 37/zo%9 r c, _0o -8 �'i/at 614:2Ld akin u.0� 194/ 7 /csnc , cf-30z1 Ah,1a-6a7( S G, (1 Gc_tri c,. �. ?-,(- 2“" -) ‘,��. J 0-,,-t�� `s - - e f .4k KGs 3a 9A' s -77 Pi° "�_.L.c�/lAv-tnA ,� / zgCS'2�a, i/,c.e,w 8848-302 c#"ao -87 61, Q_ e..,,, /' L/,JC„, , _ 1/:-LA--.3 8 7. S - _cn-t -2 S" �1-• S,9' 1 & G ' �� L._ - } ctA � iC�� G 6_5-__ jai-5 _75--- .f�7 ,5-577 �c 77 I 7 S / i a'n Zit , -- (.el,100-Q^'7-00,,x if u i 0 t I 32,77 ucAm(-5- 8,23- V-5 1' sictii9 We, the undersigned, as property/home owners with property within the Erie Comprehensive Plan area, are opposed to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the Dan Horst land for the purpose of creating additional landfill( s ) . We believe that ' additional landfills within close proximity to residential areas will create heavy road traffic, environmental hazards, and devaluate property values within the Comprehensive Plan area. Name Address/Phone it Date Pik' 1039 &ce 69a8-376a '/SAY 33(3 wcR 3 52?- 38'1/ .S/3079 $� 3 1 .. a a 1 . F.;..C.6:1.9 .�....c..-. -..',* .�. . ..._.'T:+r};.'�..t.r.=T?l•:Ft+,.?�.:..�.a�.;'Jt. i.;ii�+:r7 .�fCa:'_`.'.'_'�-(s'.'.,.$�TL+e'�'?'R.. _. ..�. _ _ This petition, with signatur-s of concerned citizens of this -ommunity attached, is being presented to the TOWN OF ER in Weld County, Colorado in di _t protest of a solid waste landfill proposed by Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. A solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE STATE! ! ! ! - J SI NATU E ADDRESS and PHONE DATE -A./ A / Yff _ leVgn902 3'df 3130 3/?0Sio `-er — to)76r-e e-{c C-2-7= .38 372 qa mc-t r�u , ) 2.r)f-te a 37,s— l,— eLc_c J a:a € - „?d s— 3 8/0)y1/4d i� ovnail. 345 Aa., t 0 4-- nag - 3O5-3 _3/24112 4 o n n kc. inch 7� KC�S1�Q c$-#/07 Fat - A754 3/a2V/9 �� lnff 37b A_ciSi' S7.2B'— .,„?/2c3 3-211-Pa Ir. n , L 340 /rcv<u� Xr� le2P - X43 / F- 2y- 9, �// �r�k A-tao Buy-_-.x..51. 6,-6 -3503 5-d 4-4/0 7 7,7 -7-Cie Y71- lz.. °fide ft: a7/fn �m l/ SS LPe�, ce 2*, gag- 305 3�aY�50 441/4 7. P yd'C �icd c S�- 2.)=930��' • 3 -2-Y—qa Pa ttUD \.)\Ecce %I-- lac-3a- I G 3-,D -90 ,1..,r>et t/ • ' .27 Ci,4.--"-1 / 'r :✓/e Z, c S 7- Sg - Cif) x"11. �l� Lt-c�� 7 � 5 fte4'CC S (. / C 'yin , .1_u p� , / Cr G'_�-�.. -� • afar v 3/is?It 11),p suLiv� /.)---s- 6i .c.o> ≥0 ,.. ?.`-. G�. v 31d-.r/3o / 57? 3/Z--:--7?‘ ! p y N�, a 9q { _ '.J We, the undersigned, as residents and/or property owners in town, do hereby state our opposition to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the land owned by Dan Horst for the purpose of creating additional land- fill(s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to residential areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the Town Trustees consider our opinions in their decision- making process. Name Address Phone q i z�� svcl 7/46 rfr ,.t z�- �� u��D R �z 9l� f d,s „;i4 a r= .7( � � . 7i- _crcc-cy� 7/.I,. �� c,3 rya, l �'- 1 �� y if G' JU </�S/ //o- v T ,ti-� �� .1.�-1—...� l�oX yz�7 sl2 C2� 1 c>e) v,�chi,,-- 6-oc ,-i5.,&e 5-01 Rol broce eox (yc3 59,?. 9 - 33b 7 (? I) n, v._�� l ,� 5-74- /1,)I .�� ! SZ LS'- s z_/ J c6-; c6 - 3336 C�� -'��` � ---- 5"---- (20-r, i VZ? 3�G 2 e 1., • . •r- a r.r19 r We, the undersigned, as residents and/or property owners in town, do hereby state our opposition to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the land owned by Dan Horst for the purpose of creating additional land- fill(s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to residential areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the Town Trustees consider our opinions in their decision- making process. Name '• Address Phone �� tMA.-4 <_� 7145- t$1 G-m- ST ; 0 , 130 .`S-. 4153 'L-5 90 C-1/L)`4_,^ /4_ j 5` if 1/ 1 l 5 S— 7 � - _ 72O ti s X51 LITE-34'03 r- 0 1-_ . sL • Sea This petition, with signatures of concerned citizens of this community attached, is being presented to the WELD COUNT] BANNING STAFF, BOARD AND COUNTY )MMISSIONERS in Greeley, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed oy Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. It will be in addition to the existing Laidlaw landfills and a proposed Public Service Company Fly Ash Landfill just south. The solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. We will receive nothing in return and neither will the Town of Erie. WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE STATE! ! ! ! SIGNATURE ADDRESS and PHONE J DATE �l .rr�ec` � tam /7g/ ��iw« l r . ��. eel o5y/. Pas-a7s3 SA.s/940 4444 k 4.10 K✓v ,w�a / 7 b 1 5f/tau, biLiik Litt 1.-P PP 5.7 , g 3 71.5 17 SI0_�� t. 51-Le SO5/�o—/645-6*-s al244>e !"< �v ( se,fi Sys ZS C� �e2..n4 �r� Dr. �nk e t C 0. 3/z '79v /old /8S! SPRuce DR J Erne/ co gos/6 3As�ya We, the undersigned, as residents and/or property owners in town, do hereby state our opposition to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the land owned by Dan Horst for the purpose of creating additional land- fill(s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to residertial areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the Town Trustees consider�-'•-��ur opinions in their decision- making process. 6% ) Nape Address / Phone .80j I: at� 73I ✓hq,n g.,23- 357T 77 let W/-ia c&-u 6-04 lc -g6 21 Pa)( Gdtitist_ . "7 -r Igo li-r`-� � ,�� tZ 73 '3 ri\c-,-),. . 8 2 8 *-3 a a 1 X17. 4744,0 4 y6-67,742b-ri silr �J e ir- ,57/a V / c. \< °' (-3S- 1 os ea iq6 77-f-(ei fi ( 77' --9-76-6,-e4u- ,51.(s• - w,..2._ \, , � �) (\ 55(C�\�. � �� J0. 2,_ "J. _ - ' -A' , F to %10e 221 del r . 7.55 iro-v St 1{51 - 05 s w* r:..“1,ea C tilik avo' -764 /i'o vg-41832/ - ./��C^a7.4, 12-3-7(o212-3-7(o2 /rl c(o2 W O , _ Ng- (1(65 r- iCkt-i- 6 -735 tvka:t.n.- 1 .qCs -el e (��r � �� et> 7-1,421---707 - 531.-? g-5 0741> .. .G'j-4- )91= o 7Oy G' tars 74, a.-111 51et:e%) 50.5- a';-cd 67r-,/3-0 i � .i---- eir 6-> r 6AkeL, .1-1 tag- 3).4/ e__ - 07/0 - , _ 1/1- ! 2 f oCA--3S3e l 27Kez liv'e /4 (P2(-- 5t6r ? .14}— 7Os r_v `,..,, rr— f2.. -ec A 7 w IdP � 7 rod S ' C) This petition, with signatures of concerned citizens of this community attached, is being presented to the WELD COUNTY ,INNING STAFF, BOARD AND COUNT`. DMMISSIONERS in Greeley, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed by Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. It will . be in addition to the existing Laidlaw landfills and a proposed Public Service Company Fly Ash Landfill just south. The solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. We will receive nothing in return WEdARE1NOTrTHE1l the Town of DUMPING GROUND FORTHE STATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS /and PHONE DATE 41 ) r �� t �� ,, /^ z Js/(r i'i i � � 1 .v/. `C Ci: L:k�-c. c r: I "7 y 7 23.r.?„,—t.E"" „="c�._�. L. i Vic: 3//7/c?*. t � i i _/ i i` -'e/` % -z -L._442 1.77.«A� ( ' rig;4 (/ /0 - .(1S- - 3 %7-`'4 ..Er, � aa� At_ 11 o � sit C co ��6, 3- lc- o I irt 9 1111 11 9 DC- 4,467,1A q 7002_6 5 • • B1. 19. This petition, with signatures of concerned citizens of this community attached, is being presented to the WELD COUNTY -.ANNING STAFF, BOARD AND COUNTY "MMISSIONERS in Greeley, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed .,y Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. It will be in addition to the existing Laidlaw landfills and a proposed Public Service Company Fly Ash Landfill just south. The solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. We will receive nothing in return and neither will the Town of Erie. WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE STATE! ! ! ! 1 IGNATURE ADDRESS and PHONE DATE 51 Lc,s.��4� >1 __.k__ // Scf �`t L e_-A. t7'[l/ ?‘ ��v(1 t (. 1.----4 'r, .:2-.26-40 ' i'"-r\M"d(A.k e-- Tnizii2,:p.,.1-.4y4- nig itti,,,, (4. -7' ilezt,:14‘ a 6/1&,ti, 115y. a.u.s-' ele,; ( & i ,.‘,,et",,,,,-( (r. /1 i_d,-...:��'- 1713 Ic)� 'al 7/2.44, --.2.4, (1O Z ). _ -0 i-- / 4 7/t f c� —_._., b i�Al AAA.... Z . f�-�r-2.,,y-�,_ ,G.,-(( 1zti.a- 'b is T fz k,t S7' (r(7-1.R , (c.) -2--"1v -i o O1)'ill,t_ 1-Yptii./TY) /LC ati2 fil)_ 7&`;7' t''./7 Co: a'ti z , C ti,�a- . 1`i'-f U (24 e 1 e,A i Clt4 CZltiNC, g-0-ti 4, - Z i i ' or 'i� Artif:� a/2/c, cot. e400 � i 2 - 20- o rijj:7‘. ' YZfr3 aii67 A'-110)- ' 6a_ to SS �-1-6.7 fin, i.--r.'... 00 803 ( L. z,--z0-70�_Al- T� ' 47e g C.Q Z-J...- einif2 (P6 gas Jc z .20-- wa • 17 6 Z 453o-P, gif„. _ ;.. $asi6, 2 -,2 a -7,0 0,e,�A. :: )1„.€4-..- `/ 74.2 Es, , `t. .,L.,, eo-e. e a S /4 , �c�- ' t 7k 3 P' el,_4__- Co -oSf 1 1.- � To _��,L, cFi-�.-�-�v 19044 C j Z rn m A C�'. Ef a e i �,a g L�l 1�a �� --,)1-- (%t, 1,1 ., fitec,44",-- A/0>7 c� �_ (� gup ��y, ��7�, 6 91.-1/-7v�� / L ,/01 YC_ DO X/5 r1�� &;(g ra h).7G, d - Li__ firck--.. Ict(.0 dic4, (..le --11--,-,1 ,6",-,‘ c („ ci--O3-1 G .k.?.1-1 ,c____ Ckf1c�., 4 0� 2J? ., s e� euz:.,0 y‘2 5- /3 _ii,%—/ In, e,--At...-rice. ,> e .-,--/ 6 .. � tZ ��,-- 1/4"x{4" w4 T '' e - E 5- /Pt /ia gec1A ;J ii(go 1 `ke\`kt\ u3C?. S �•e. Ca 8,D 6 3��'10 ,.,,,,,I.,,-- `� , ,- - ;-, ^, /„Z.3 Y Z es r i s C !,C het'/c` c.;_•..) .,yUJ 7 ` 31/7/5 b �( _ / 4} "1.:�1-it, 7 11..)., a?7n� i i i 1. 1 1, ,t‘:b2. Lac-L eC.,_ 1,4-4- 6'1. i -b S i l, j - l 1 - `r'/J J. d - 46.75 , c 3 E___ P ..)1,_ L►2 i_ Y,0 51 L L 3-1 7- q0 ' 2- _,-,--1- -a- es,.-K. ij k--11*-- 14611-; 0.../Y`c'"Q___. Pt c' A;k_k_ Cer_) 26)L-7 6 3 -17-ck% '1)4 a (` ) �} ><-- _n 3 f/ )/cie) 4�� ' ��; r Y7y7 ,A/A/e ,z, 12/z, l F. )57A" coy 5 /7,./70 .� i ..1:_c•-).,".‘•L ',/e":„1/ j,....,,d.t s)-.1 j-4- /4-- (.7 ,:,74,5-i t 7)14 46 7(-7 /._.,?.-r-c.‹., ,,------,?.,,,_ ?...„<,4 (:fd „/",/ (. 3 -/ 7.49() `) /- / f p ://,,Z/,,Z -r,ri LA.), � ( � S o ;; Le 1L () ,,f: r✓,?�(' Sr rZ,os-. ��) 1.-z ice. 5-/-)-`;:-:= L / �A This petition, with signatures of concerned citizens of this community attached, is being presented to the WELD COUNTY "ANNING STAFF, BOARD AND COUNTY 1MMISSIONERS in Greeley, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed y Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. It will be in addition to the existing Laidlaw landfills and a proposed Public Service Company Fly Ash Landfill just south. The solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. We will receive nothing in return and neither will the Town of Erie. WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE STATE! ! ! ! u,.!^ SIGNATURE ADDRESS and PHONE DATE ' / 5 ZTIc9 784 rnawt S . k ie, I CO . 3zg - 3 z �l J . 7 . Tacx,arc.f: 37(.02- w cr& I 'I R 6‘..LL 8 z E 3/a4igC) (7('On) 7 c 7 � f�-90 /� r e ,ec 7Ye 0i (— � ii ni 79 �'�z-e�� /��i1 7 714-5'756714-5'756a 111 1 / �. l4 j1 / t l� l e�•ti-.L Lift/1 ! ) ?�J `" %Z�i�' (°fir . 3._� �' a '12' %C - C .l "2 I "4 X1.3 . This petition, with signatures of concerned citizens of this community attached, is being presented to the WELD COUNTY ANNING STAFF, BOARD AND COUNTI )MMISSIONERS in Greeley, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed ay Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. It will . be in addition to the existing Laidlaw landfills and a proposed Public Service Company Fly Ash Landfill just south. The solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. We will receive nothing in return and neither will the Town of Erie. . WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE STATE! ! ! '. SA ATURE- Al&- 1 ADDRESS and PHONE DATE �� _ r�� , 1� �.�� 8�Sly-....:...A3\c\c() • ,�i We k i 3/iefro ioteie4e0.41 01719 /Air, it O— s,g.ie_ a ?ci.s--/ea ai) ib 6 ,?G‘al------ .t 5 .I.( 14) e4. / e) A° :4. a ra s'l ‘ 3//e40 3 lile.,t-i iii k)(�72( �� , ��46 f1/0* . • • ---I i 2 tEig 1 _____ This petition, with signaturew of concerned citizens of this rnmmunity attached, is being presented to the WELD COUNTY ,ANNING STAFF, BOARD AND COUNT` IMMISSIONERS in Greeley, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed by Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. It will be in addition to the existing Laidlaw landfills and a proposed Public Service Company Fly Ash Landfill just south. The solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. We will receive nothing in return and neither will the Town of Erie. WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE STATE! ! ! ! SIGNATURE ADDRESS and PHONE DATE Lite _-2.1251154JCC 0723,0e. • gat o , Si_61.9 This petition, with signatures of concerned citizens of this community attached, is being presented to the WELD COUN'T'Y ANNING STAFF, BOARD AND COUN`T'Y )MMISSIONERS in Greeley, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed oy Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. It will . be in addition to the existing Laidlaw landfills and a proposed Public Service Company Fly Ash Landfill just south. The solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. We will receive nothing in return and neither will the Town of Erie. WE ARE NOT THE DURING GROUND FOR THE STATE! '. ! ! _ --- SIGNATURE ADDRESS and PHONE DATE t-e�e /y �?i t:. Cpl' 3 3 � :� s •�.. -'c-- �/ fe R�� --, _ D- 7 i r� �,,.)4Ke.e' . !l C.;,...4.,, ey.,.(c,.....,, : ...s,..;:/ / r i , ..,,, ,Y�s-..jmr' :V�l� i;?_s-- _ ii,--,6 - _ 3 - i O / /4—)kii.,c2, -&„&./ti-4.,•h-• - 71 ‘i 0 430.t.i. , /11^(- //)/1.4- et WA_Z3(/';2.[1:2 ---? - i:' -.� _s::::.,,,,,,- .S`-3�7 (Jr <__( e f� -.3c (// .3 --.;-`90 o, , (wit>,_ , .� .. Ps -e, iii.c. 5-576) A...,,, et--1 6e 1-4--(--e & , ,W--5 57-z- -s--c- : ! )/.. ..:7 1-. /�'-1 "l' ;5 ..) 1 / ''/5%Ji!) � 1,, 60,., (,? r?r Jyyj ) - ., 7L' (_ t,t,_4L., L_PALLL., ).:311.°C1 , -)latik_ , 1 . ./-*;-e 6.c) 8 atc )q3 . liovitk., `I"hfrp q 1-1 Avs„,_. 4-i , .),_4L,(1„' , `2:Y . 37P P ? - 9 . k ii , .- 4. j 2?•C ?• 3- /'C 4,,..,ttik. RASA-ft t o tit /8..; 7 .-4„--n r,7 Pe.644,,, .4,i— '...7.4.:.,..., •Cep 6 6,s--30 P4-- _..;2- 3 - YO _jar-,L., '•1 6..e t.1,Q,L,,.4 / 1 eig' j,-- ,,,2 Ago e" ..—,/, i,, -1.4_e Ce 4 4 6, ?A 3 3 9z• F /f( et tG' ,l_ `417,\CIi-LA,-c ! 1 V7 04C Yee �'r� a_/lam- Z 6 Co �q�-6�pL7 .S 3•- ` O �, L�7 C 71 A-- ,1 Nl t''u'4 .�--' z(-) �� C-r.. L e�L, A.,.....-..._ ��L� ,��v� -e---.5'-. / � � (: _ p i `( . l Lett L t t.-)1. /I IP 6 .111.6tv,Pile -tivk V cc[0-37 [.2 c�t' (In 11.,7g- 3 6 t,/ 3- .- (70 ,C----- ' /5/1-.2-.A.A.____ "1.1--/-� 6', 2-1--L... _5:-.c/7i-5,4-4, ,f dr. C/ffe ro, f6S�-.T,;S _ ?- te -- j a �A l ."4Z7. 0/5 _5_53- ^1 M r EN AVE . t � 6,:we -.31-6 - -- 4- l O c.,/ etk:.ca. ree , / fr"s-7 .f_s,',,e, ,,,iti,o e-- _66_ ,- f.:.-y--)v -- a7c5/26- - ).. -111-"-1 -9 - t�,C�t-=z.- .---° .5- G:7 / 7 � dive C�.0 .e1-4:0- A--2,i---3/1g .a'-S`yL { 8.-:',._r'f7,43 / This petition, with signatures of concerned citizens of this community attached, is being presented to the WELD COUNTY ANNING STAFF, BOARD AND COUNT) ]MMISSIONERS in Greeley, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed by Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. It will .. be in addition to the existing Laidlaw landfills and a proposed Public Service Company Fly Ash Landfill just south. The solid juste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. We will receive nothing in return and neither will the Town of Erie. WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE STATE! ! ! ! • SIGNATURE ADDRESS and PHONE . DATE • " .` ..w c)._. cµ �! S )- ( L._ -G�'c- Z k_ C c . S C S-7 -, p t a Y/4-o RIMMIlblalill sty Z w' ra -. Cu, ,35Gz 2Y Q /, , , Sr /-u • 'l �Cii F/%� 1 ,14Y/5-6.) � sir. . -ZC -�J _ aTig_c.----- hg,,- -,. 4—a, Qcj ..,-,,_p_ c_; 0/ ?c•., ��''� '/ J i x ..t (.7,_( 322- �)Xdrh.G r�7-. 6pr� C� 4G�13/?,-_-..& 3 3 � .& �3 7i g-g/t. 717. ---__Th_ c3/3 &1611r---7 tez9 6.(c--- 6 Yzs;'57-e .-- /j/cc .__Sq (-(,,4-17 lu (.• ,-//-_. , 51/47. ,g#4 /.-- 7-.(/ ''''.72-('--e, 6 '� ezdt-�� —. • / ' ' -/-6-‘22-e-44— o:ZC' '`� h/�d �/ „ii ..7/3 jli /�l - 307 �srv,e� "ems c/31y� h ,,_,_ l' � O 0 $ kA) Q � -hi( e K., 4 r _O6, _3.- 3- 25 l /.e- A/-4:Q, lJ—.^n .- .:(:5--- (. )�s'f-/�c,_: /rc e el_, ,19(1:-: % -J' -' P w . .1i,//.4-7-c-rt- 8W /<- e277 Pt/lib/ c c.v /2f--� e-//e _ Fa 3 - 3 `io ti��ti fr. ,c() --/6 _,_ L 7( !' ��-rt� 57,2/3 t ,/_-- '' - � � 3 �/O i r _. • S .f.:; 1 �.--� / This petition, with signature of concerned citizens of this c-ommunity attached, is being presented to the WELD COUNTY ,ANNING STAFF, BOARD AND COUNTY XVISSIONERS in Greeley, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed ay Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. It will . be in addition to the existing Laidlaw landfills and a proposed Public Service Company Fly Ash Landfill just south. The solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger the health and safety of nearby residents. That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to exist. We will receive nothing in return and neither will the Town of Erie. WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE STATE! ! ! ! 4, , SIGNATURE ADDRESS and PHONE DATE %4^.PJ0 Abu /l 1,57-$7 ��r2ir.e . ./-; ,fir,e SA,: 3�,4" -3' 7-.t' it' / ig vi 4 ,,,,,e___ qau . eft—c, , (2, ,F2Y 57‘) 3pfiq c= c � //ye/ Awe- Tvadi St �� co cb'- 3aj,6 3/795 ()_ /I - 0-)-Lev se b .si-i co k - 304, 3/ii %0 �ti-.k_o_ ak 1II 3 /C Ai -eta iZit-. ' GA (bi-_t) 3C� -1/7 et() q _e_ /7o_ � ,4,,A r�a 09�- J5/4- 5 9d c` —> ' ,i ,c A/4s- /4 ci s7. (,.-,., 6), 1)4?-_;y7y 3/ /gw • aA ) 111Orn S IS -2- hi-- Et�4 S-t . F-{ r Co- OZb--atkp -JLIorio . / ZGZ✓l Li ( (to 4 Pikers eoak S4 Er,'t? Go Lo X28 30C3 3 —( 3-9Z:" ,, ,k,,'! A, �.I !9 ^ft f LA,:, 1. ( i it..2_,f i��L ,u (7-,..17, :-.-..„;k'/ ', ,17'-4 '/4-, 46,,E-� /SX 3 Q'l,Pad6-) (`wk_ C, 4_ 82c—.7oc 71 ? -76 (� —0—� /174-Weed � �a t & , 20,?-365703 —/1-- 9Q S7- .e.,/%4O,C..;ta,, /.(e-JY ��r��/w ot[ (f);,tic rtja-•.3l s-O 3- /`/- VT) d - ti/C _/9yI 44 !� E��T IC/Z.- ,�zu ,3,593" ,3 i7- 90 /di 1rJ�,Zern_/ MS- ./r-M. 1/tecu)_St• /-r'.'Q �� e--3.3VS/ 5-14-90 n Y /J n t h ' �( CJ /2 /3-A5 "hill, V a.4,- J�7t (iu; 3-a fs -seazp 31940 C1-e u "cR 6-\_c A`\ L".Ca �I 1_,U3 `> C � �.c�e_ `i Th-CCa °i- 3-w- CIO C , Pi( lI6� �✓%et) J • cl -/ c 8-21- 35i) 3 -� a-c & ci S337 Ash 4ve- , F,-:c K2 8-3ail 3-?6-yo Y Sl e6 9 i J . ,), We, the undersigned, as residents and/or property owners in town, do hereby state our opposition to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the land owned by Dan Horst for the purpose of creating additional land- fill( s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to residential areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the• Town Trustees consider our opinions in their decision- making process. Name Address Phone g %O/7-tt7-22 0.7 - '07. t. ill4; 496 /4,gel G C g22---3261 7 b `-I `l2I�kf-le \! VeY 3722_ . ..., �g•��. " vs-DAL,<tefg ira a7-- .c/ IS IllirtD n 62:21/14/4--,././ /,.,/�,, /f ,� I' / �.i 44'`� 2 n . "2C. L, � l . OA:161-r-' ---J S as 1<r�e 8)a- -SS-64.1 2• A4A/9"- Pa/ Sao ken <s:a- - 3104 �.--.,4 ( ia_c_ .-- 3 oo KA T-ELL Ezo -310 6 `f)--'- 1.-7 1 7a(i `//,/ �� y �� z 24 i _� / "( l , �-Z--Ll z:;i .e_,--,C S4-9-7 ,-- ,4-•s 4../ea /l 1 t !/e�t& (/ �i..,E � 5 a/7(y) ( . ,14,44,,,,---� y ISO K,767, s,vu - 3 3 / 2- cA) -�_,r,c4rvk - lb 6 ei.46,e, i C -S— 6 -7/,_/ 2r-- ✓ 0-'1-- /al) /4 d ,e7 Coles �!/ 9i7 i. 71 i CO refry 4 fil 117.0 K 0, ihr /1 2.. c- -if ice- --"?.... -Nov--8:2.5%-- -a- Lk-1O Kt� SL.` `rte6- "O-0(-1 -i - 0 r b 1--V-)i-6 0 ACI_YU -) A), A. Q c�,-C I) 10 1`•1-4--0 9 (' �;D��. _ E:, f`614 LACI This petition, with signat7 s-of concerned citizens of thi community attached, is being L. /presented to the TOWN OF ERJE,in Weld County, Colorado in direct protest of a solid waste landfill proposed by Mr. Daniel Horst. If permitted, it will last over 40 years with an area of 550 acres to be filled. A solid waste dump of this magnitude will devastate properties around it and endanger. the health and. safety of nearby residents." " That would make three or four dumps set down in the middle of a populated area and possible growth area. Valuable properties will cease to.&1st. WE ARE NOT THE DUMPING GROUND FOR THE STATE! ! ! ! SIGNATURE ADDRESS and PHONE DATE -77 2 , . _5,�_.. , _ a I, 1.?3 3 90 -2 , / .. } S7 is/ti 57,:- /f Bz8- , r 2 90 .<. • , • , r. „.,2 - .r, G —3—Yo - r- ''1 - // NT .-� i €1,4,2 , L",-'-l'-AL_ o 5—.3 6 - .6 • .�-,. (2,2,�c et-Le (1,? tF.> s-30V/ 3 -9-c) LI/cafe gt4, --3b7 0-0:• ..c ,--Q, /�� cs--io 5 ',u C', „E" , size-557a 3-_5.-7 1 et(&_ _ e, t. � ;53 7 A ��. . Arai �'r^, - �S �'�°-.314'3 ' -i-.3 r � r r 3'L _ yi-d_11_, f S, ' a • 2 i-173(/ 3- 3- '76) i. _ L o l c a> 3 ' 1G I <<-'a t -. ` (- i' ( u.. 24.se 0a,,,() e .'" et 6- 7�n0 3- - 9c. , t-k ni-,._., (2?t an-c,s.-2/ _S`/r /i fro v_,-) l-A-e A -,, <0 . �/•-33,,7( I .3'- .3 ) D e �Kc! �. 5-5-, ll< .. C �. �+—�L ( 7P J o3/(. zrf..i.3��3 3- le- YOU i /��/ _ �-e --c _ _5,517 ; - /fe'<-. L=/t/ •CtrVas/G 665 -To/3 49-Yo u c-Q1.- QR-c.,- 55'7 sgEm .AvE - '' ElQes- 34(0/0 3-4-90 . ,-,�/rj . tsar....o -6/ '7 �� - 't�� 01-0 A-2E-2/(4 3-S`9U f t - • . , . • a 0 6,l We, the undersigned, as residents and/or property owners in town, do hereby state our opposition to the annexation by the Town of Erie of the land owned by Dan Horst for the purpose of creating additional land- fill(s) . We believe that additional landfills, within close proximity to residential areas, will be an overall negative for Erie' s future. We ask that the Town Trustees consider our opinions in their decision- making process. Name Address Phone e_eot lip irteidikif zits /lock? 51-, ceie ce,), lus--sit 0 �C+'��17 �miff-es-494-G'�-> .5 75 �li� S�� J=;�,/�jC.�� d`-' �'— ti 6 �� c._3%/ \ I\.\l, , �<3\.,u„. 3,-kck\NR;,i. c� c' i:e , C- `4Z"A--c1\`l 1 1-IN C7 34--S MA,N L 2t e_ Cc, 9 2 3--3 G I C d. , 7 2O.,-/- .t'l asr 5071-6n g z fi _. ,3 ?f39' ot , O C10511 4. C_"?tiu. Ct,- `6 .`6-3? I ,�a.>..-- V7Tt;��s1 /�70 ,X2�� c�%.,:_z. CIS 'Yyh/- eny(-)O J �j _Oonea L. 7 J7-0i2 o--.4-7c4-44, � i, �� 3.;?/ - 3,x-0( . . ..... - c •, , .':.(i.Q. rc) <3•_)s'""-3Tho i • 11 r� ��rn ilz_L•� 4��, (%,i>, 71i f�,P- s/<oz fa $1�— { �r )1 �u ? ,r 7 / �? (),(,t!( %.)u.k-Cr 4 ifs— i 11u U._, -cc,: (e I / r, . L , . ��/,� ��,j ,. 1, ;,. i f -) (wi, ,� 1 • _�i�� ' "A rier �� ?eye Lci e Co, 7)(C-- co.-5 V. �.. nn•1.7i��uczp /( Z20 P Cjxt e.. � Co. ,K2a-cl6Sz" .L r P.O. Box 643 Erie, CO 80516 July 8, 1991 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Zigan application for the E.R.D. Facility Scheduled for Hearing on July 17, 1991 Dear Commissioners: The Concerned Citizens of Erie and the S.E.E. (Safe Ecological Environment) Committee would like to respectfully submit to the Weld County Commissioners reasons which are listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan for denying the application of Mr. Ted Zigan for the E.R.D. Facility. It does seem pertinent to quote the hopes of Weld County to encourage a healthy residential environment. This dream of those in the area is being destroyed. See page 22 of Weld County Comprehensive Plan. "A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs. . . The police power is not confined to the elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary of people. " Stated in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.1: "This Ordinance is designed to promote the health, safety, convenience, morals, order, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Weld County." One of the means to this end was listed as (Section 4.1.10) : "Encouraging the most appropriate USE of land." We contend that this is NOT the most appropriate use of land in such close proximity to residential areas with potential for more development. Also, please note Section 4.2.7: "This Ordinance is further intended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by: Regulating the USE of land on the basis of the impact of land USE changes on the community or surrounding areas;" Also, Section 24.4.2.3: "The applicant shall demonstrate That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES." We would question (Section 24.4.2.7) "That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY. " In the section entitled "Uses by Special Review", section 24.1.1 again states the duty of the Commissioners to take special precautions in determining the appropriateness of this Use. "Uses by Special Review are USES which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact than the Uses Allowed by Right in a particular zone district. Therefore, Uses by Special Review require additional consideration to ensure that they are established and operated in a manner that is compatible with existing and planned land USES in the NEIGHBORHOOD. The additional consideration or regulation of Uses by Special Review is designed to protect and promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the present and future residents of Weld County." Ricth 6AT rE / -2- Please refer again to the Comprehensive Plan on page 74: "In addition, compatibility with existing and future land uses in the area must be demonstrated in terms of visual degradation, pollution, traffic, dust, noise, scale, density, topographic form, geology, operating plans, and reclamation plans. The daily operation of a solid waste disposal site can be an incompatible land- use if it is located in proximity to areas containing residential, commercial, and light industrial uses or areas designated for future expansion of the same. For example, land-use compatibility can become an issue if it is determined that the landfill site will cause negative impacts by visually degrading or polluting other surrounding land uses." The nuisance factors of noise, lights, blowing trash and visual degradation are currently impacting residences in the area of the present landfills - more is not the answer - the residents are not "getting used to it". It's irritating, but it's already there. This doesn't have to continue! The new proposal would blight new areas. Section 24.6.1.4.1 requires that the lights be shielded to prevent a nuisance. The nuisance and safety factors affecting the welfare of the citizens are the traffic, road damage and dust. The health and safety factors affecting the citizens are the potential pollution of the water and air by facilities of this type. This could lead to loss in property values as well. The operation of any facility on a 24 hour basis with 100 employees in the neighborhood appears to be blatantly out of line with the welfare of the residents. We would request that you carefully scrutinize the plans complying with page 79, #9 of the Comprehensive Plan. Many of these requirements will be difficult, if not impossible, to comply with. In addition to the obligations the County Commissioners have to the residents in the area, the Zoning Ordinance states under the Use by Special Review section, specifically section 24.4.2.4: "The applicant shall demonstrate: That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the future DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with future DEVELOPMENT as projected by the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN of the COUNTY or the adopted MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities." Also, see the Comprehensive Plan, page 30: "Goals and policies within the urban growth boundaries are intended to address the development of land on the border of a municipality. They are also intended to promote harmonious and mutually beneficial uses of land among the various jurisdictions in and around Weld County." Both of these sections promote the cooperation between the municipalities and the COUNTY in agreeing to planned uses in a particular area. This seems a very reasonable goal since the municipalities may more sharply feel the effects of a decision of this magnitude on their plans for the area. We know that Broomfield, Thornton and Erie have written letters recommending denial. We believe their hopes for the future should be protected. Related to the hopes of the municipalities are the developments planned for the regional area; namely, the new Denver Airport and W-470. These positive transportation routes could provide the area with added businesses locating in the area. Referring to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.1, wherein is stated: "The present and future inhabitants of Weld County will be benefited through: (4.1.5) Protecting the tax base of the COUNTY; and (Section 4.1.7) Fostering the COUNTY'S agricultural, business, mining and other economic bases; and (Section 4.1.9) Conserving the value of land; ". Each of these statements should encourage you to restrict the number of landfills in the COUNTY so that long-term beneficial uses may be encouraged. Past landfill sites will have restricted use in the future at best. Liability problems have raised many more fears for potential developers over old landfill sites. Q✓' _iy 3�.f� -3- The Weld County Commissioners may be taking on a liability for its citizens with approval of additional sites that are certainly unnecessary for its own needs. The population of Weld County, as reported by the Census, is approximately 138,000 people. With the stated average of 5# of waste per person per day, the needs of the COUNTY are for disposal of 110 cubic yards per day or 40,150 cy per year. This is a far cry from the Laidlaw intake estimated at 2,600,000 cy per year or E.R.D. 's estimated 1,500,000 cy per year. It is about 40 TIMES MORE. (E.R.D. 's intake vs. Weld County needs) (This was based on 3 cy/ton of trash. ) We would also like to raise questions concerning the MRF or recycling facility. What guarantees do we have that the facility will continue to operate after being issued a permit for the landfill? The Governor's Task Force Committee on Reducing Waste stated that approximately $200,000 per year would be required for continued operation of this type and that public support would likely be needed. It is pointed out that the paper market is not good in Colorado because of the cost to transport it to the West Coast. Statistics stated in the report indicated that Coloradans recycled more pounds per capita than the national average in 1989. We are not going to argue that a MRF is not desirable, but that in combination with a 200 acre landfill, it is definitely not desirable. The water source has not yet been confirmed as required by Section 24.7.5.2. of the Zoning Ordinance. The CDH has declared that this site meets minimum standards for the operation of a landfill. We would still be concerned with the heavy faulting in the area and the coal mining excavation borders not having been proven by empirical data. The large size of the total area of current and potential landfills is more than 600 acres. The EPA stated in their Proposed Subtitle D Regulations that "Higher contamination and, thus, higher risks are associated with larger facilities that have a greater mass of waste." All landfills present a hazard to the environment and the water sources. Hazardous waste will enter the waste stream in the form of Household Hazardous Waste or brought in by Small Quantity Generators. With the CDH investigation of the current and past landfills in that area, the reality of dangers is driven home. The Concerned Citizens of Erie and S.E.E. have been consistently working together since 1988 as grassroots community organizations to prevent the proliferation of landfills in the area. In closing, we would respectfully request that the Weld County Commissioners perform their duty for the citizens of the area and deny the application. Sincerely, Donald Brand, Chairman Janice Whalen, Chairperson Concerned Citizens of Erie S.E.E. 494-5585 665-8904 • j6119 I c 8897 Baseline Rd. Lafayette, CO 80026 July 8, 1991 Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Zigan Special Use Permit application for the E.R.D. Facility Dear Commissioners: Enclosed please find evidence which documents some of the valid concerns the citizens of the Erie area have regarding the operation of a landfill. Mr. Zigan's goal of 25% being recycled is the EPA's goal for 1992. The National Governors' Association has proposed a national goal of 40% waste reduction. The land use of landfills to the west and north of this proposal are use as justification for the new landfill. In my view, and those in the Concerned Citizens of Erie, those uses should not have been allowed in the first place, starting with the 160 acre Columbine Landfill permitted in 1979 by Weld County. Digging even further back, the 60's landfill was used to dump the metro area's chemical waste. The area has been abused. If some agency doesn't put their foot down, the area will be destroyed for other possibilities. Although we have moved from the area, we still feel concern for our friends and neighbors and distrust for the corporate endeavors and government scrutiny. The realization of the small manpower of the Health Department and the relative little protection of the little man's rights. Perhaps what we have learned is that democracy requires participation to be effective. Vigilance is necessary. We hope that you will listen to the area residents this time and vote to deny the application. Thank you for your consideration of all of the materials sent to you. Sincerely, Marilyn Brand Concerned Citizens of Erie 21C-C611.) June 24, 1991 To: Weld County Commissioners Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within 1 mile of residential areas. ) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a 1/2 mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, y y e)44"--, , 91161.9 r��n v Al GREELEY(Coto.)TRIBUNE Landfill emissions targeted EPA wants halt to harmful gases THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency proposed rules Friday that would control emissions from large landfills of air pollutants that cause smog and could contribute to global warming. .The standards and guidelines, which would be administered by the states, would apply to landfills which • _ are designed to handle at least I 100,000 metric tons of solid waste and which emit 150 met- ric tons or more of such organic compounds as benzene and vinyl chloride.. • Those landfills would have to install gas collection and y control systems. • The rules would control more than three-fourths of the 255,000 metric tons of non- methane organic compounds emitted each year from land- fills, the EPA said Methane is not directly targeted, but the regulations would have the ef- fect of controlling more than • half the 10.5 million metric • tons of methane emitted each year. Methane is among the "greenhouse" gases that many scientists believe may cause the Earth's climate to become much warmer during the next • century. "When final,this regulatory action will reduce air pollution that contributes to smog and it will encourage energy recov- ery at municipal waste land- fills," EPA administrator William Reilly said. "Just as important, it will reduce a significant greenhouse gas." EPA said it expects about 620 existing landfills would be affected, along with 90 pro- jected new landfills within the next five years. Costs were estimated at $240 million per year for all existing landfills q and S26 million a year for the -!i7AA new ones,for an increase of$3 to $30 annually per household served by those landfills. Ouotes from EPA: (Taken from the Proposed Subtitle D Regulations) MSWLF = Municipal Solid Waste Landfills SQG = Small Quantity Generator HHW = Household Hazardous Waste RCRA = Resource Conservation Recovery Act Small Quantity Generators: "Furthermore, the survey found that solid waste disposal facilities, includi-ng MSWLF's, are the second most frequent destination for SQG hazardous waste shipped off site. EPA estimates that MSWLF's may receive from 5 percent to 16 percent of the SQG hazardous waste produced. " Hazardous Household Waste: "This study indicated that common discarded household products, such as household cleaners, automotive products, paint thinners, and pesticides, may contain hazardous wastes that are either listed under Subtitle C or exhibit one or more hazardous characteristics. Household wastes, including HHW, currently are exempt from regulation under Subtitle C or RCRA. " Distance Factor: "All other factors held constant, risk decreases with increasing distance from the facility. Contaminant concentrations diminish over distance due to degradation, dispersion, and attenuation. " Size of landfills: "Approximately 42 percent are small (less than 10 acres) . . . . " "Higher contamination and, thus, higher risks are associated with larger facilities that have a greater mass of waste. " Risks: "However, the Agency's recently completed risk assessments indicate that MSWLF's present future potential risks to human health." Air Pollution: "Pollutants commonly found in MSWLF gas include vinyl chloride, benzene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride. " "Some of these compounds can create an odor nuisance while the VOC's [Volatile Organic Compounds] and other toxic emissions can constitute a health hazard. " 2 G� x WHAT ARE THE HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH r: . HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS? The average family y 1. Some household products create fumes which are uses approximately unsafe to breathe. 55 gallons of 2. Some household products can burn the skin or hazardous household eves. products each year 3. Children are often injured by playing with or even eating hazardous household products. 4. The hazardous components of household pro- ducts enter the environment and pollute water. soil. and air. SOMETIMES IT IS NECESSARY TO USE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN MY HOME. . HOW SHOULD THESE PRODUCTS BE SAFELY USED AND STORED? Safe Usage: 1. ALWAYS read and follow the directions on the label. The label will tell you about safe use, disposal. and emergency measures in case of accident. 2. ALWAYS use proper safety equipment, such as rubber gloves. safety glasses. or a face mask. 3. NEVER mix chemicals. It is possible for you to create an extremely hazardous or even deadly chemical by mixing unknown materials. (Never mix bleach and ammonia. They create a deadly gas.) Safe Storage: 1. Store hazardous materials on a high shelf, well out of the reach of children and pets. 2. Store hazardous materials in a locked cupboard. 3. Never store hazardous materials in an unlabeled container. It is too easy to forget what material was put in the container. 4. Never store hazardous materials in a container previously used for another purpose. Children who can't read can recognize familiar containers. 5. Never leave hazardous materials out in the open and unattended. 6. Never store medicines in the bathroom medicine cabinet where they can be easily reached by children. Si_'y619 ROBERT J. SAMUELS° Who Cleans Up walked away from a loan.It won't take the property,even though the borrower is in default. What will happen to damaged properties that neither their owners nor lenders want?Eventually,they will land in the the Waste? taxpayers'laps.Their value will drop to little or nothing until somebody cleans them up. If,at this point,you are not scared stiff about owning a piece of real estate,this column isn't doing its job.The last to hear about these new environmental risks are small investors and _ If this column homeowners who might easily blunder into a property that could cost them all they have.Any property owner is at risk if: ""` ■You depend on a well for water and live near a landfill,a doesn't scare chemical plant,a gas station or any enterprise that produces real-estate owners toxicwastes.Your water supply is permanently endangered. and investors Your location has already lowered your property's value.As more buyers learn about these hazards,your home will be rt stiff, it's not even harder to sell. l,+ ■You live near the spot where a town stores the salt it '1 doing its job spreads on the roads in wintertime.If that salt reaches the ground water,it will corrode your pipes and appliances. ■You buy a farm,or invest in a second mortgage on a farm id you hear the one about the homeowners in and foreclose when the owner doesn't pay.Fuel tanks were Columbia,Miss.?Reichhold Chemicals,Inc.,bur- doubtless buried in the land for gassing up the farm machin- ied thousands of barrels of toxic waste on its ery.If they leak,you may not be able to sell your property property there, and some of the waste escaped until you dig out the polluted dirt. The land may also be into surface water, soil and air. Homes around infected with banned pesticides like DDT and Chlordane. the site have lost 25 to 80 percent of their market value, ■You buy any piece of vacant land.Who knows what it their owners say. The company vigorously disputes that might have been used for once?Fifty years ago a mill or a claim but has settled with some owners nevertheless.Oth- factory might have occupied that site and dumped wastes ers are pursuing their case in court. that,today,have to be removed. And how about the investors in Grand Rapids,Mich.,who ■You own a vintage apartment house.The ceilings might intended to turn some farmland into a wilderness club for have been sprayed with asbestos.The walls might be shed- trout fishermen? Before buying, they tested the soil for ding lead-based paint.Lead-based solder might have been common pollutants and found nothing.Later,they discov- used on the water pipes.The cost of correcting these hazards ered about 50 head of cattle,slaughtered and buried years maybe more than the building is worth. ago after the animals had eaten contaminated food. The iUnder state and federal laws, buyers generally aren't chemical contaminant poses a risk to the ground water. responsible for sanitizing property as long as(1)they didn't Under Michigan law,the investors may have to clean it up. cause the pollution(or their tenants didn't)and(2)before Then there's the industrial park in Rochester,N.Y.,built buying,they made"allappropriate inquiry"to see if the land on a sanitary landfill.New York's Environmental Conserve- was clean. Big deal. You still may go broke. Once land is tion Department found radioactive thorium sludge on part of polluted,you may not be able to sell it or borrow against it. the property and listed itas ahazardous site.The sludge isnot This is just as true of inherited land as land you buy.You'll considered a health threat.Still,banks won't make loans have to sue the polluter to recover its value—that is,if the there,so the businesses can't sell,refinance or expand. villain canbe found and has the money to pay. Bad stuff:When it comes to owning a home or investing in When you buy land strictly for business or investment real estate,no one seems to be safe from the costly drive to purposes,the lender will usually want a full-dress environ- eliminate hazardous wastes.Almost any piece of property mental audit.But so far,banks have gone easier on single- might,in the past,have had bad stuff buried there.Almost family homes.Quick audits are done by the bank's appraiser, 'rf any vacant lot might be hit,in the night,by guys in dark shirts wlio looks for such things as asbestos,a suspicious oil sheen on who are making an illegal dump.Almost any homeowner pu clesandproximitytoalandfill.Onlypropertiesobvious- �1 might turn on the tap and find the water stinking of chemi- ly at risk get full inspections,says Boston attorney Lynne cals or of oil from a nearby spill. Barr,who handles legal issues for lenders. These discoveries are knocking billions of dollars off prop- Banks maintain lists of qualified environmental auditors. erty values.The newsletter Real Estate Investor's Monthly They charge around $1,500 to $3,000 to check for such proposes that Parker Brothers add the following card to its pxflblems as asbestos,radon,lead and hazardous wastes.The famous Monopoly game:"Toxics Found.Declare bankrupt- audit is worth it!If you overlook a contaminant,the next cy.Do not pass go.Do not collect$200." bdwer might not—and you could find it hard to sell.If toxics Bankers who make commercial loans are vividly aware of are discovered, get an estimate of the cleanup cost and the threat. Many won't finance business properties until negotiate with the seller fora lower price.A helpful booklet: they've conducted an"environmental audit"tosee if the real "A Home Buyer's Guide to Environmental Hazards," 50 estate is clean.Cost of the audit:$2,000 to$10,000 or more.If cents from R.Woods,Consumer Information Center-W,P.O. toxics are found,the property's value is reduced. Box 100,Pueblo,Colo.81002. Small businesses that use or produce toxic substances are Warning:an environmental audit won't necessarily find finding it tough to get any credit at all—among them,gas every hidden bit ofglop.Like the trout-fishing investors,you stations,scrap yards,dry cleaners,paint stores and printers. may wind up with a costly carcass on your hands.Warns Bankers are terrified of the liability.If such businesses fail, Raymond Kane of McLaren Hart, an environmentalcon- and the lender forecloses,the lender might inherit the clean- suiting firm,"There is no zero risk in real estate." up.In the case of the Rochester landfill,one bank has simply AAssoctat¢:..ppVIRGINIA WILSON O JFE'IW��3Y.Fa MAY 20, 1991 49 yr' + l l YlunictotI vutta1� on_ v-,1,.@Wy, -ir, C>vrftt-On "07(-rime cbak�c�O. tea 0.t tittrUNes CDN1 jn`Icc crn`,vhals lobs.° kArcu��s a b, (3)ruv idi e -9croc1 o ncl kartoote.rye, 41-0-0-, E-4,-.--r- r*,,..Loo k` �.�,�;� Q,v,crJ. wto$cv c� +tr. * d. 4{Q.4,1 "1��tsvwt� ott@ecc,�, �10`�g- S �a Yww a v.$ acrd cxi.'A vnois,w Anti-nuclear waste meeting in Santa Fe . RadioAction is receiving enthusias- tic support from both new and estab- By Mark Collier,Chapter Chair RadioAction is a conference con- lished organizations fromcoast tocoast. With the revelations beginning last ceived by an ad-hoc group of long- For more information onRadioAction, October of the massive contamination time radioactive waste activists to fa- write themat 418 CerrillosRoad,Santa that surrounds the plants that produce cilitate the educationof thesenew waste Fe,NM 87501,or call them at(505)982- materials for the U.S.nuclear weapons activists and to show the synergism of 5995.A industry,manynewactivistsandsome all of the nuclear issues (weapons, ✓ old organizations have become con- power,wastehealth,national security, ,' "Biodegradable diapers" cerned with radioactive waste issues. environment and government ac- \ highly misleading Organizations have sprung up around countability).It willbring activists from the nudear weapons production sites. all of the issue areas and all parts of the ByKittyDuBois,ChapterRecycling Established organizations that have country together in a setting that will chair heretofore worked on issues concern- facilitate our common education and The fact is that disposable diapers ing the proliferation of nuclear war- the development of new integrated are bad for the environment and bad heads have taken on the spread of strategies for dealing with the nuclear for babies. The bad word on dispos- nuclear contamination as a major is- question as a whole. able diapers is slowly but surely get- sue. dugout.Evidence of this is the sudden demand for "biodegradable diapers" vw.cy currently being marketed.Pleasedon't /// %/ /L��/ h -....,--•- �.��'t`�� hIL.. 1�1t: a be misled. /��%� �,.�"' Z; \ `\��1 ,. The primary difference between the At .r • ,�� r P110-11114_Stilt ,q new biodegradable' diaper and stan- 1 G'''l�ll lF��! .N.- tol " 1i�. lard disposable diapers is that the ;till r`•'�.�f .0 a �.,,_ ,. ,� \tic ,. ? IUL dp I�.:_ i• II J ,a . - d i �I�l,',,, 'ril!� ll r�i µ.I tl , "biodegradable" diaper has a plastic ��' ®ILt /vG� E %71,r )� JI �, T 41 _ ,� ), � �1y� +�, �/J ,. i1 ;Il) J,I liner that is cornstarch based. Corn- T ti "' : % l� �/ Tif (I t I i11 starch plastic is still plastic and does WC i ! ff • _ not biodegrade. The com molecule iktitra t z �•'y r �IN % biodisintegrates,releasing Plastic dust , +1 ., " ., iLI qinto the air, soil, and water. No one ( . `' + a`tJa, n�'` µfj,1 knows yet just how dangerous this is. �� . Ipill td} bm i� l��' a1ldisposable diapers pose anenvi- _'.Atunic:1 l�/!" �'i�•'��',," ` _ ,�i%., / "e----y,.; ronmental threat because of their 11 `1 u' 1 ;<< `! d \�\\R�'`' �+ .ry Improper disposal, The only correct , Pl t„� / nn o+oil r c way to dispose of a diaper is to remove ---- -re : 1'i.,� �i _,, �JG , � •-r— the plastic liner and send it to the landfill t oy:i;j,jj.� b way of our trash can. Next, the �.; ` --- Y -� �f '� • ��'�i1i,�•' iIIII 1.t: .lr. Il�tn.-l ;p,,a diaper mustbe sent to the sewage treat- f y J ‘ `' ' I ,, ment plant by way of your toilet(after .4 ).+ / ;� ,_i o„. Y - repulping). .mil . ' -."- /* Y,.Elevins How many parents do you know •. __ • who are currently following these in- structions? The common method un- A Handmade Home Has Come A Long Way lottwatelyisto toss the entire diaper into thetrash,sending RAW SEWAGE toour landfills. Untreated sewage isa aNNPW4DE 440MES co. health haunt These new disposable diapers are still a waste of valuable resources to produce.Biodegradable diapers a re not the answer.The educated choice i s cloth Award winning Energy Efficent Design and Construction diapers which can be home laundered or conveniently provided by a diaper service, (both of which cost less than disposables). Please be a respon- RICHTILLOTSON M.S.SOLAR ENGINEERING sible parent and don't be fooled by this .ineffective solution to a very real prob- 440-9008 258-3669 lem.d 91.C.619 n.qt dbeww-p1r Pc)S'k-.. w vie,' a4s, 1g"td . _ * 5A Dumping. of nuclear waste in landfills OK'd New NRC policy outrages environmentalists By Knight-Ridder News service scrutinize this new NRC policy." WASHINGTON — The Nuclear The plan, which capped years of Regulatory Commission an- work by NRC scientists, classifies nounced a controversial policy as "Below Regulatory Concern" a yesterday that would permit low- broad array of items,from labora- level radioactive waste to be tory test tubes and clothing to dumped in ordinary landfills and equipment and parts from nuclear • recycled into consumer products. power plants. The plan outraged environmen- tal groups who said the decision While the policy itself does not would increase public exposure to authorize any dumping or recycl- potentially dangerous radioactivi- ing, it paves the way for electric ty and was contradicted by new utilities, medical laboratories and - scientific evidence that shows low other generators of nuclear waste levels of radiation are more harm- to toss materials contaminated ful than previously thought. with radiation into local trash Public Citizen, anon-profit re- dumps or to burn them in incinera- search and advocacy group found- tors simply by petitioning the NRC. ed by Ralph Nader, sent letters to Congress calling for the resigna- The NRC said it would begin lion of the five members of the acting on such petitions July 3. NRC. Until now, mildly radioactive Commission Chairman Kenneth waste had been handled with cau- M. Carr dismissed critics' con- tion and put into three licensed , cerns, saying, "None of this is go- dumps in South Carolina,Washfng- ing to affect public health and ton and Nevada. safety." I Nevertheless, Rep. George Mill- The policy also permits the re- er, D-Calif., announced a July 26 cycling of low-level radioactive congressional hearing to review materials into frying pans,jewelry the policy. and other consumer items and sets • "I am disturbed by the prospect guidelines for cleaning old nuclear of permitting the disposal of cer• power plants and sites so they can tain low-level radioactive wastes be released for public use. i from nuclear power plants in thou- The new policy says nuclear I sands of landfills across the coun- wastes can be dumped into land- I try instead of in licensed low-level fills so long as the material ex- waste sites,"said Miller. "It is irri- poses individuals to only 10 milli- perative that the Congress closely rems of radiation per year. Li 4.0319 vyreildcat dumping out if control With only two inspectors, state powerless to enforce garbage laws By Bruce Finley ty to do this . . ." Denver Post scan writer •WASTE DUMP Jeffco residents spend Only 14 of Colorado's 143 municipal A blue pickup drove past the Meadors' weekend pitching hazardous waste./4B dumps meet U.S. Environmental Protec- place in Erie last week and dumped more tion Agency standards. Most dumps in the open pits —with about 70 percent of them garbage into Coal Creek. Kathy Meador state have no liners, no supervision and no called local, county and state authorities. failing to meet environmental standards. monitoring to detect pollution seeping into But government seems powerless to Pam Harley, chief of the health depart- groundwater. make a difference, laments Mal Meador, ment's solid waste and incident manage- EPA standards taking effect next year Kathy's husband, who says he observes the men section, said the agency is relatively µ,ill require liners, supervision, monitor- dumpings several times a month. powerless, leaving the burden of enforce- ing wells and a system to pay for possible "I don't think anybody really cares," he ment to county and local authorities. damage. Yet state health authorities still said. "And some of these counties have no may waive such standards if they can Colorado Department of Health offi- idea how to run a landfill," Harley said. prove exceptional geological conditions. cials, who have ultimate responsibility for As for local police: "It's a burden," Erie And enforcing the federal rules will re. regulating handling of garbage, acknowl- Police Chief Jerry LaDoucer said of the main largely up to state, county and local edge that wildcat dumping is out of con- wildcat dumping reports he receives. authorities. trot Yet there is little they can do with "You're getting pulled away from other Colorado probably never will stop envi- only two inspectors to cover the state. things to track down illegal dumpers. . . . ronmental destruction at the dumps, Har- Also, dozens of dumps in Colorado's ru- There should be an agency that monitors ral counties amount to little more than this stuff.I don't think it's our responsibili- Please see DUMPING on 4P 48 Wildcat dumping out of control DUMPING from Page 1B ley said. "We don't have the dol- lars to do the job," she said. Dave Schaller, chief of the EPA's solid waste section in Den- ver, said states still could "get away with" unlined dumps. Members of Gov. Roy Romer's Task Force on Integrated Solid r Waste Management are supposed to help Colorado regain control . over wildcat dumping and substan- dard dumps. Some of the 39 task force members are holding a se- ries of six-hour meetings to discuss who should be responsible for reg- ulating dumping. • At a recent meeting, National Solid Waste Management Associa- tion lobbyist John Turner warned of "a national waste disposal cri- sis"because landfills in most East- ern states will be filled in less than four years, versus about 10 years in Colorado. Turner said state government should become more vigilant. Yet many task force members prefer- ' red to defer to local authorities. • "The state's not going to dictate anything to anybody,"said Charlie 91_.,;,619 Unseld, planning program manag- er for the department of local af- fairs. SATURDAY, MAY 12, 0 THE DENVER POST r Y 3 40 *P'5..,:' ; ,f r: s� I aa . i :t sar r ,, 5. O A- �• x a'�'� ; , ey ejr N s a 9MWIF,,vwt sun rater mr , 0' t- 4. 66 MOW :flit, • Pbe. Jaut one''lohm‘‘�ta “" ,.�' .t bX a : W.i -v trh ».,,� E,'.,,,,,,. 4.4 M' */ ` $ "`r`t� { ., � 7 a .;--#:t4 0,4 ,:- a at } ltil tkbe :.� :hstfr-flattop, gA ..' ,., r — 0-Aut ,. :t/rtia h-i , i.„4-,, of s , -'7, �, ti: 3 µ x n �•� the ss .Ahsrq � p . -WS t° ' ti :,"4, ""' - , c < Sp �S �L •� Qy:.s{. YR p " " ' t It"I J t. p1 # 4".i!. q A�r �;4... .-,01-e,.- ,S.:11:'�'4. {w. 5Y��z�`,ft * i SATURDAY, MAY 12, )0 THE DENVER POS' * 13A `t egulating garbage . ,,,e_ �.� r� �.� 7ra_.._:. ii m East to ►e d :- .` �p co has been considered as a site forestial-; g ` BAOEfromPagelA P for East= gain d for Morgan County. The economics p thexisting ing Technologieb Inc.already is Tipping fees"in t �den el�� thong citizen approval inI the three coon- lated Eastern states average f dal r�l tits for a 30-acre complex to receive waste $100 per cubic ton of trash st delivered via trains or tracks, confirmed In Colorado, dumping costs r Wit" mid� Kest Riggs, secretary of the board for the " $3.25 to $50 per cubic ton. incidenfrom Pam Harley, gem of the solid the and Denver-based company. Even when waste-management tent. z ' eatae.-'' of_ -"' ,Last year, Edgemont, S.D., became the hies include costs of transporting C garbage "n '. ..,. Porting Garbage And regutitiogarbagefromthodeiagei F ittte of a dump designed to receive an esti- b9 train or truck, "it could be�a�to the wfth o�-o¢Nate p i meted 300,000 tons of solid waste annually explained Paul Poulsen,an en to bb from b from New Jersey. solid-waste section of the Colorado Depart- tog i1 small town in southeastern New Mexi- meat of Health. 'That's the probtaa.* i , �+� „Yl . .,. � q .�,�r .4#. M1 :.t.'1A≤dif�lx`3Y � `s y .f�.�3 420e , theft* they.Ito tail , yy.r r a{ o �f ' $�'b0� �r �. x�.4; Fr� +n Paton A/tNSF m4 Cs '' "7 L �t�. F r4 t M% ! 5 .,, ,i a i T' '. 't, r repel S 3`iFt¢ td. ��Y�N' I,.4:..r.----- i ,,,{� 2 t k4Ct ars 4, C 7:n" z aqua , 4"P J� ? p � 1 ~ i VJ1.C61.9 Quctes from ;PA: q ) (TakenSWLFfrom the ProposedMuniicipali L lid Waste aLandfills SQG = Small Quantity Generator HHW = Household Hazardous Waste RCRA = Resource Conservation Recovery Act Small Quantity Generators: "Furthermore, the survey found that solid waste disposal facilities, including MSWLF's, are the second most frequent destination for SQG hazardous waste shipped off site. EPA estimates that MSWLF's may receive from 5 percent to 16 percent of the SQG hazardous waste produced. " Hazardous Household Waste: "This study indicated that common discarded household products, such as household cleaners, automotive products, paint thinners, and pesticides, may contain hazardous wastes that are either listed under Subtitle C or exhibit one or more hazardous characteristics. Household wastes, including HHW, currently are exempt from regulation under Subtitle C or RCRA. " Distance Factor: "All other factors held constant, risk decreases with increasing distance from the facility. Contaminant concentrations diminish over distance due to degradation, dispersion, and attenuation. " Size of landfills: "Approximately 42 percent are small (less than 10 acres) . . . . " "Higher contamination and, thus, higher risks are associated with larger facilities that have a greater mass of waste. " Risks: "However, the Agency's recently completed risk assessments indicate that NEWLF's present future potential risks to human health." Air Pollution: "Pollutants commonly found in MSWLF gas include vinyl chloride, benzene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride." "Some of these compounds can create an odor nuisance while the VOC's [Volatile Organic Compounds] and other toxic emissions can constitute a health hazard. " 1)L L`74 S E fti of lL: .It. e,vc Les s eo i1✓�-,4) eb0 C)S 75 L'-rz. f-i-it set4L rat._-L�5;oewce-s 3 (LEsiDt2-Ice-s X onfe a.asithee-ss 0ry we_'-LI3 e.44Ni49 (4O4.3 , f}LL 'gns oN Eptsr Sice OF June 24, 1991 w-4 e. w. C. 203 ,J(tt-rvo o/4 wcu_S Fo4. 1r ,hrrez Larbi_ S°`4"11a el I+LL c(Q RA-cc"ries a-ICC f‘a/ eLO sc PICO xiriry To: Weld County Commissioners re-) I�Pos(-p Soc:q wit-see F�c rt.i1-3/ . � r-r/<_ 1159--e- OPPoctS e_70 , Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colora o We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences , -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby. - -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties ':? ._ -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks _, -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within 1 mile of residential areas.) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. - Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a k mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of rho land an,i ,+c ^.,-,......- Malik you for your consideration. C J HEWLETT PACKARD Barbara Tillman Respectfully submitted, Site Environmental Manager Environmental, Health&Safety . ' °Lei. ,i1.Le61.9 Hewlett-Packard Company 3404 East Harmony Road �! Fort Collins.Colorado 80525-9599 CJ A 61/1 1- C,'hi 303 229 2778 i , '.,, / r �# 1 — a/ _ —c a \ r • �. V Y q 1, \ 1. 4 • a1 1, \,, • !� ' - -P 1 +a i ' 1- •T ) i •-ii : _ „ ' ' etc. I - \. -‘- •zi• a -‘", -, ri a ;r . - L! \ _ C ,` O �\ • . _.�TF ice• el as ,_ �� • 1► _ may in e • ,-• • ; t • x \ �ca ail in_ • ��' �L. 1 v��. _� �- bfY4� \ • 1' a J t ` � I Q \I -/; ^ \ �. Jr m ,-. ` 3 d a' 'x \�� Ll-oi i e�j G ` x q l �, m t_o t �,� • _ , `l - iii C C ✓a R, 1 t �� ` , •^ . ice_^�Y ._ I ID ` .GI 2 r 4 • /, / N L j • J • m i. it • rl L 11 \Ir I--_N• q. y - -.`• iaaLt2. t o GI F •f.J �Y_� I 1 ~- - .ins:a._Z r J. • - u x _ s•ipro-tog e L •v a. • • - - • _ ' tie j �, E • ,, L R•. '.\ I - - i • ' /. r �� r . - j-� c a ; Y. ��es \�. �✓� — �c * �Y n, LINT: � J / �� , O F O a N z n. `•;', N' M • - O W1 Y 6 V' ��L N kill, >,;/,1 1 ! . •'\ • •-2, r . ��'-c rY\\' Honf� .. ; 1 = as a . . a • i‘i - s� , m to m t : - ! ,^ 3 m r H .� .ar-i -+ ' / / b • 3 S Ul / IJ ¢ F W +a - --• .7,-,!, 'ate n .. 0 G Q — _ ! �,I. ..1�it5 ,a a F/;�� . ..,_:;----4-- A f `1 - m g H +•I F N p r N :••• •••••y^r. \ i C- - ri x +I 0- ,-e-- i . ` a N N 00 ., rI N. • ..I.A. .IC �'(: =XX X. -:�.tk • J� — . . x cota a I::. EC 7 W' I .. _ i v\ �q j W 834'I�Oe CO _ C • _ . a P. O. Box 218 Erie, CO 80516 July 6 , 1991 Weld County Commissioners Gordon E. Lacy , Chairman P. 0. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Response to Environmental Recycling Disposal Co. Facility proposal ( Zigan Landfill and Recycling Center) Dear Mr. Lacy: I am a citizen of the town of Erie and a community college educator. The multiple aspects and consequences of yet another landfill a short distance from Erie needs to be considered carefully. I support local citizen involvement in the process of determining what businesses will be invited to develop in our area. The landfill industry is being thrust upon the citizens of this region by default . Many landowners and landfill industries are interested primarily in their own economic gain and since we are the only county which has not called for a moratorium on landfills they look to us because of proximity to the northern metropolitan area . As I understand , we have no county ordinance controlling the quantity of landfills , their locations, and their development . If landfills were considered a public utility, then much more would be considered . No one wants to live immediately next to a landfill because of noise, light , blowing debris , and constant truck traffic. For economic reasons, the town of Erie wishes to locate a second landfill close to the one already in existence very near the town . The Zigan proposal would make the third in close proximity to town. As design , the proposed landfill is just too much in a relatively populated area. It would affect our lives in many more negative ways than positive. Already we have noise and lights at night , as well as blowing trash and stuff falling out of trash trucks which the drivers don' t see. I witnessed a huge strip of tractor tire fly out the back of a truck onto the roadway . This is dangerous for anyone directly behind the truck? the driver was unaware that the incident had happened . 9106119 Weld Cnty Comm. , Zigan landfill /recycling , page 2 I strongly support a statewide assessment of the needs of all regions for landfills and recycling centers. Weld County needs to be involved . I understand that Governor Romer' s Integrated Solid Waste Management Task Force is examining solutions to Colorado urban and rural solid waste management issues; however, their report is not yet available for study. It is my hope that we will not continue to be lead strictly by free enterprise and default in determining where landfills will be located . If regions are producing trash , they need to take responsibility for it' s disposal and recycling . This is doubly important because not only is quantity of trash increasing but so also are environmental problems associated with landfills. Many have to be closed because of serious harm to the environment . Their clean-up is expensive for all taxpayers, regardless of whether it is federal , state, or private money . The citizens of Erie and the surrounding region have never had the opportunity to really consider what options might be available to develop the region economically. As a small town, with very limited income, we have been thrust into the big city and national problem of what to do will the enormous amounts of refuse which our society currently creates . Recycling efforts are important . Yes, some clean recycling/recovery businesses could stimulate the economy in the region; but businesses which cause more disruption than benefit only serve to deteriorate the neighborhoods which live in relative peace otherwise. 1 urge the County Commissioners to remain involved and to encourage recycling and recovery businesses ; but not to be hasty in approval of landfill sites. Further studies are needed at state and regional levels both in how to best serve population centers and how to cause the least potential harm to the environment. Neither the state nor the region has long-range impact studies which makes regions responsible, to every reasonable degree , for trash and waste generated , for geologic and hydrologic conditions, and for the most modern cell-block construction possible, not just the cheapest to get by state and federal standards. People would waste much less if the cost of disposal were to equal the purchase price. Periodically , I visit the Laidlaw Landfill next to Erie, and I am always amazed at what is being thrown away which could just as easily be recycled or given to someone who needs or wants it . We need also to discourage East Coast trash and utility companies from using Weld County as their 4,31(619 Weld Cnty Comm . , Zigan landfill /recycling , page 3 next dumping ground . Weld County could consider making waste disposal much more costly for any who wish to import it into the county . Considering that the population of Colorado is predicted to double during the next century and we may be facing serious drought , this land may be better used for agricultural purposes and clean industry . Weld County residents need to have convenient centers ( i .e. , Western Disposal , Boulder , within city limits) to discourage dumping into county ditches . We need a promotional program which educates people about all the costs for dumping in inappropriate places . Furthermore , they should be rewarded with lower costs if they take their trash to appropriate centers . I urge the sponsorship of citizen meetings which focus on both economic development of regions and giving the public ample opportunity to consider the best locations for landfills, beyond reasons of free enterprise and default . Citizens need education and they need to have their opinion and ideas respected . We very much need to lessen the division within our community which the landfill proposals have created and focus on what really will help us keep up economically and still maintain some semblance of a peaceful existence . Our town has probably set a record in the number of executive sessions which the town council has convened over landfill business. The trustees come out of executive session much too late for any real input from the citizenry. Hostile exchanges have ensued on more that one occasion . The county commissioners could help this community by providing leadership for this economic dilemma. Litigation is very costly , and much of the expense we currently look forward to could be reduced if we were afforded the opportunity to participate in a setting which encourages respectful cooperation . My personal concern is both for the well --being of the community in which I live and for the environment which must sustain us all . And it is not so much for the current generation that I am concerned . In spite of the poverty which the proposal makes reference , we are being taken care of or are helping each other when the need arises . People in southwest Weld County are much better off than many inter-city folks , and we are not starving . Our crime rate is low and our youth are relatively happy and occupied . 91b6 V--) Weld Cnty Comm. , Zigan landfill /recycling , page 4 I did some recent research on the ground beneath the proposed landfills . The cross section B-B' indicates a number of faults in the Laramie Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone both of which are primarily sandstone and sandy shale . Claystone , shale, coal beds , and lignite also exist . These formations come to the surface a few miles west of Erie, so they are relatively close to the surface just east of Erie, angling down to the east . According to the U. S. Geological Survey text , the Fox Hills Sandstone is an important source of groundwater , suitable for domestic use . The region being discussed is " . . .preserved , notable, in downthrown blocks of faulted areas . " The report also states that the " . . . Erie / Frederick quadrangles . . . tare3 interrupted by numerous faults and folds . " The report continues Many of the faults in the area are not visible at the surface because of lack of exposures and thick alluvium cover , but were found by studying coal -mine and well records and , where possible , checking in the mines . Many more faults are believed to be present in the subsurface in the area . . . . tand ] . . . . it was not possible to determine the depths to which these faults continue. Water , which may for a variety of reasons , become contaminated at landfill locations can get into the groundwater . There is no way that even the best technology known today can absolutely assure that some leaking won' t happen, despite every precaution . Strange chemical combinations are known to occur in these circumstances with unknown effects upon any life-form which later consumes this water . We have no assurance that natural percolation will distill these contaminant combinations. It is my understanding after talking with John Romero , Supervising Professional Engineer , Geotechnical Services Branch , Division of Water Resources, Colorado Department of Natural Resources , that the largest potential problem will be with the mined areas underground . Water has a tendency to move more quickly in these caverns and in the loosened rock where subsidence has occurred . It can also well up in fault regions where it is locked in , or it can travel easily for long distances along a fault . 910619 Weld Cnty Comm . , Zigan landfill /recycling , page 5 A major negative factor about contaminating groundwater is that it can not be tracked conviently with any degree of certainty . Other than expensive testing , once in the ground , educated guesses will be used to determine where the contaminated water will go , where it will be stored , or when or where it will emerge or be pumped for domestic/agricultural use. What we are responsible for creating now could affect life for thousands of years to come. No clay liner and no plastic liner in existence is completely impervious, depending upon conditions . And no sump pump can assure against some type of failure. According to my knowledge of landfill technology , the Zigan proposal does not represent the most advanced state-of-the-art landfill technology . A series of much smaller cell -blocks stacked and covered would be a better solution considering the ground beneath . And all -night lights which are strong enough to light 3 football fields will surely be distressing to surrounding neighbors , along with the night-time rumbling of trucks. The proposal suggested that their employees would be welfare recipients . Will employment be contracted through Weld County Social Services or are they simply suggesting that these individuals would be eligible to apply for employment? Will employees be limited to residents of the immediate region? There may be easier methods of getting a few people off welfare than adding the tremendous costs of disturbing the well - being of the existing communities of people and to the environment . The people in the Erie region are capable of determining , for themselves , which types of businesses are most compatible with their interests , if given more ample opportunity . The landfill industry is imposing itself upon a community where the majority do not wish them present . The citizens of the Erie area have not yet been afforded adequate opportunity to consider economic expansion efforts . Thank you for your review of this matter . L ncerely , r Ci1. l'i.e._ -4.46,40'In----- Barbara J . Preskorn enc . UT-ti� 0 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR /"T DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY \ \ . Dallas L. Peck, Director \ UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Spencer,Frank Darwyn,1904- Coal geology and coal,oil,and gas resources of the Erie and Frederick Quadrangles, Boulder and Weld Coun- ties,Colorado. (U.S.Geological Survey bulletin;1619) Bibliography:p.37 Supt.of Docs.no.:119.3:1619. 1.Coal--Colorado—BoulderCounty. 2.Coal--Colorado— Weld County. 3.Petroleum-Colorado—Boulder County. 4.Petroleum—Colorado—Weld County. 5.Gas,Natural-Colorado=Boulder County. 6.Gas,Natural--Colorado—Weld County. 1.Title. II.Series. QE75.B9 no.1619 557.3 s D53.2'09788'631 84600113 (TN805.C61 910619 J '3J Coal Geology and Coal, Oil, and Gas Resources of the Erie and Frederick Quadrangles, Boulder and Weld Counties, Colorado By FRANK D. SPENCER i U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1619 9103,619 s _ — — .I Thick- Coat bed LITHOLOGY Coal bed ness number name (ft) . -r_____ '=-=_----______ ---- -=-_ te n = al _ d - o. j Shale or sandy shale interbedded with three sandstone beds and one or two thin coal V n beds N 3 _ O — 7_— N _— -- o _ =_— CO Coal bed -_-.C7_--_- a) .- No.7 =- -- ______-__ - c tivi _----_ E 8 I _========-_ /Coal,lenticular with a parting E ___ ___ o-3 Shale, grading laterally to sandy shale and containing one or two sandstone lenses j _ _ and one or two thin coal beds -- (Upper seam) —Coal, with considerable lateral extent but not - consistent in thickness Coal bed _ Ire/� No.6 g Coal,thin,lenticular N s _ - /Coal, interbedded with thin sandstone lenses O- Coal bed = o.rs-+s / and one or two lenticular coal beds t1 n o = e-3e c persistent,lenticular in places i �� /Shale, clay, and carbonaceous shale grading - lateral) into sandy shale containing two or _ -- (Middle seam) / y three coal beds and two or three sandstones Shale,variegated, alternating with sandstone, - - 15-80 medium gray,fine grained No.4 Coal,lenticular,nonpersistent Sandstone, light gray,coarse grained with rip- 0 ple marks,called the C sandstone Coal bed _ _ Coal,extensive and persistent No.4 =- ,,,,, ° s-10 Sandstone,white to light gray,fine grained Coal bed ` (Gorham seam) 3-11 /Shale,brown to gray No.3 (Main seam) 3-�/Sandstone, changing laterally to sandy shale '` -.� 7_42 and grading into overlying sandstone '! / 10 " (Sump seam) _ 4- Sandstone,light gray,mottled yellow Coal bed '1 t /Sandstone,brown to light brownish gray, No.2 t-11 contains Ostrea glabra Coal bed 3- 1-0 —Coal,grading to shale,carbonaceous No 1 1-a —Shale,carbonaceous /Sandstone,light brown,fine to coarse grained, Ir c i i 5_ Fox Hills Sandstone 200-100 cross-bedded; lower part quarttose, upper part contains large brown hard sandy con- cretions Figure 2. Generalized columnar section showing the Fox Hills Sandstone and the Laramie Formation, Erie and Frederick ' ii -- quadrangles, Boulder and Weld Counties, Colorado. 9106:19Shatigraplry S i Boulder Creek in the area of this report, but streamflow and arkose;the middle section of approximately 9,000 ft is rates per square mile are probably similar to those reported predominantly shale; the upper section of approximately above.Even though the stream-gaging records do not give a 5,500 ft is predominantly sandstone and siltstone, only complete picture, the confluence of South Boulder Creek about 1,000 to 2,000 ft of which remain.Only the Fox Has and Boulder Creek at Valmont, on the eastern edge of the Sandstone and the Laramie Formation are considered in city of Boulder, makes it a sizable stream. Records corn- this study. A generalized section showing the Fox Hills puted for a period of 22 yr at a gaging station at the mouth Sandstone and the Laramie Formation is given in figure 2. j of Boulder Creek near Longmont for a drainage area of ap- proximately 512 mi'show an average daily discharge of 59.5 ft'/s, a maximum of 154.0 ft'/s, and a minimum of 0.3 Fox Hills Sandstone ft'/s, with diversions and storage above the station for irri- gation. The Fox Hills Sandstone (Upper Cretaceous) crops out- 0121 Creek enters the Erie quadrangle about 1 mi east of near the southwestern edge and in the northwestem third of Lafayette and flows north of Erie, where it joins Boulder the Erie quadrangle. The Fox Hills Sandstone crops out in Creek. Big Dry Creek and Little Dry Creek in the Frederick the area surrounding the Panama No. 2 reservoir and is quadrangle flow northeastward into the South Platte River. bounded on the south and southeast by alluvium along Boulder Creek. The Fox Hills Sandstone is not exposed in 2 Climate the Frederick quadrangle, and the depth to the top of the Fox Hills is no more than 700 ft.T7)the map area,sandstone The climate of this portion of Boulder and Weld Coun- about 200 to 300 ft thick is an important regional source of ties is semiarid. The average annual precipitation is slightly _-_- - more than 14 in.and falls mostly as rain from June through bound water.The ground water,which is generally suitable for domestic use, has been used by local communities, the September;the remainder falls as snow and rain through the suburbs of Denver, and industry. A few drill holes in T.-2— other eight months. N., R. 68 W. have penetrated the upper part of the Fox Hills Sandstone. The "White Rocks" in T.1 N., R. 69 W. ELECTRIC POWER (Trimble, 1975), ]0 mi to the west of the reported area on the northern side of Boulder Creek,is an excellent exposure The Boulder-Weld County coal field, formerly called the of the unit. The contact between the Laramie Formation Northem coal field, of which the Erie and Frederick and the Fox Hills Sandstone is not well defined.As it is used quadrangles have been a very important part, has been a in this report, the Fox Hills Sandstone includes at the top prolific producer of coal since 1890. During this period, two massive light-gray to buff sandstone beds called A and mines in the Erie, Frederick, Louisville, and Lafayette B by Emmons and others (1896, p. 71, 74) and by Fen- quadrangles furnished fuel for domestic and industrial heat neman (1905, p. 33) but included in the basal part of their and electric power for the cities of Denver and Boulder and Laramie Formation. Trimble (1975) mapped the A and B their surroundings. sandstones at White Rocks with the Fox Hills. Machette Electric power is generated near the report area at the (197'7) mapped what he considered to be these same two Public Service Company of Colorado's Valmont plant, sandstones with the Laramie. Romero and Hampton which is about 4 mi east of Boulder. Electricity from this (1972),however,indicate that,on the basis of subsurface in- plant is used principally in the immediate and surrounding formation, the Fox Hills Sandstone (that is, the A and B areas,but some of its output goes to Denver.The plant uses sandstones of Eldridge (Emmons and others, 1896, p. either coal or natural gas as fuel. About 1% lb of coal are 71, 74)) in the area south of Lafayette is 500 ft or more required to produce 1 kW (about 750 t/d of coal are con- below the surface. The contact between the A and the B sumed).When the coal mines were operating in the Erie and at White Rocks is well defined and marked by a thin bed Frederick quadrangles, approximately 250,000 t/yr of coal of coal or carbonaceous shale 2 to 4 ft thick that were used at the Valmont and Denver generating sometimes has been misidentified as coal bed No. 1 and powerplants. that marks the base of the Laramie Formation. The thickness of the Fox Hills Sandstone ranges between 200 STRATIGRAPHY and 300_ft__The base of the unit Ts not exposed in the White Rocks and in the Erie or Frederick quadrangle Rocks ranging in age from Precambrian to Late areas. Elsewhere, eletric log data indicate a range of Cretaceous crop out 20 mi to the west and are inferred to thickness from 120 to 160 ft, and maps by Romero and underlie the quadrangles. By the end of the Cretaceous or Hampton (1972) show that the approximate configura- early Tertiary time, about 18,000 ft of sediments were tion and depth to the top of the Laramie-Fox Hills deposited in the study area. The lower section of approx- aquifer indicated a thickness of 80 to 170 ft for the imately 3,500 ft is predominantly sandstone,conglomerate, aquifer in the Denver Basin. 4 Coal geology,Erie and Frederick quadrangles,Colorado 91 ggcc A.`LA6 19 Laramie Formation Coal bed No. 3 (Emmons and others, 1896, p. 361- 363), locally called the Main seam in the Erie and In this report, the Laramie Formation includes all Cre- Frederick quadrangles, overlies the shale or clayey shale taceous rocks above the B sandstone of the Fox Hills and the lignitic sandstone. Coal bed No. 3 attains a max- Sandstone. In the Lafayette quadrangle to the south, imum thickness of more than 12 ft in the Frederick quad- Machette's(1977)mapping of the contact of the Laramie rangle (pl. 4). Although lenticular and unminable in with the overlying lower part of the Arapahoe Formation some areas, it is the most persistent and has been the suggests the possibility that the lower Arapahoe may be most productive bed in the coal field. Resources of this present in the southeastern corner of the Erie quadrangle. coal have been calculated. In the Frederick quadrangle, The Laramie conformably overlies the massivve B sand- the roof rock of coal bed No. 3 is either sandy shale, stone; the base of the Laramie Formation is a gray to shale, or carbonaceous shale ranging from 3.0 to 40 ft in black, locally carbonaceous shale bed 1.0 to 3.0 ft thick. thickness. However, at surface exposures in the Marshall The carbonaceous shale is overlain locally by a thin coal district,the coal is overlain by 8.0 to 10.0 ft of light-gray, bed herein called coal bed No. 1.The Laramie Formation coarse-grained, quartzose concretionary sandstone con- is as much as 870 ft thick in some places and can be di- twining casehardened ripple marks at its top. Emmons vided into two parts. and others (1896, p. 346) called this sandstone the C sandstone of the Laramie. The lower part of the Laramie Formation (or strata The remainder of the lower part of the Laramie For- between the base of coal bed No. 1 and the top of coal mation (that is, from the top of the C sandstone to the bed No. 7 in fig. 2 ranges in thickness from 110 to 500 ft, top of coal bed No. 7) in the Frederick quadrangle con- and the base of the Laramie to the top of the C sandstone lists of as much as 420 ft of predominantly clay, shale, of the Laramie (fig. 2) is best exposed in the Marshall sandy shale containing a few thin, sporadic, lenticular area on Pine Ridge in SE'/aNE'/< sec. 20 and in NE'/a sandstones, and coal beds. Four coal beds (No. 4-No.7) sec. IS in T. 1 S., R. 70 W., south of the Davidson ditch. are lenticular but locally attain minable thickness in the Coal bed No. I in the Erie District .(Emmons and cal- culated, and coal beds No. 5 and No. 6 have been mined quadrangle. Resources of these beds have been others, 1896, p. 360), in drill holes in the Welch mine, in in the Frederick quadrangle. the Louisville district (location doubtful), and in the Stewart Garfield mines in NE'/< sec. 24 in T. 1 N., R. 69 The stratigraphic section between coal beds No. 3 and W., below a 5-ft coal apparently was miscorrelated as No. 4 is about 0 to 40 ft thick and consists of up to four coal bed No. 1, and in the Mitchell mine, sec. 25,T. 1 N., or five lithologic subunits. The basal subunit is locally R. 69 W., near Lafayette, a coal bed 5 ft thick is called developed and consists of a shale or Carbonaceous shale coal bed No. I but should be called coal bed No. 2. that ranges in thickness up to 2 ft. It is overlain by a coaly Overlying coal bed No. 1 is a unit of hard, fine-grained, shale or coal that is as much as 1 ft thick and may be part quartzose, light-gray sandstone that is mottled with of coal bed No. 3. This subunit is overlain in [urn by yellow, ranges in thickness from 2 to 17 ft, and changes variegated shale alternating with medium-gray sandstone laterally in places to include a 3- to 6-ft brown to light- that is from 6 to 40 ft thick.The highest subunit generally brownish-gray sandstone. The base of the brown sand- consists of shale or sandy shale that is from 1 to 2 ft stone is 4 to 6 ft above the base of the gray quartzose thick. Locally, however, coal bed No. 4 is underlain by sandstone unit. The brown sandstone commonly con- clay or claystone that is about 6 to 7 ft thick. tains abundant pelecypods identified by Emmons and Coal bed No. 4 ranges in thickness from less than l ft others (1896, p. 74) as Ostrea glabra. The brown sand- to more than 7 ft in sec. 32, T. 1 N., R. 69 W. (pl. 5); at stone changes laterally to sandy shale and locally grades most points where it has been observed,however,it is too into an overlying fine-grained thin-bedded white sand- thin to be included in resource calculations. stone that varies in thickness from 8.0 to 10.0 ft and con- The interval between coal beds No. 4 and No. 5 varies tains lignite and iron-oxide stains. The white sandstone is from 16 to 80 ft in thickness. The base of the interval overlain by a brown to gray lignitic shale unit that varies consists of 1 to 10 ft of thick clay,carbonaceous shale,or in thickness from 7 to 12 ft. In places, this shale contains shale that locally grades laterally in the upper part to a coal near its base that is 1 to 2 ft thick and is probably sandy shale. Overlying this basal unit is an interval of coal bed No. 2, locally called the Sump seam and shown alternating shale and sandy shale that ranges in thickness on plate 3.This brown to gray shale grades upward into a from 5 to 50 ft (1.52 to 15.24 m.) and contains two or white to light-gray, fine-grained, lignitic, shaly quartzose three coal beds 4 to 20 in. thick and two or three fine- sandstone that ranges in thickness from 3.0 to 10.0 ft. A grained sandstone beds from 8 to 12 in. thick. thin bed of shale or clayey shale comformably overlies Coal bed No. 5 ranges from less than 1 to more than this sandstone. 10 ft (3.04 m.) thick, as plate 6 shows. Rocks between 6 Coal geology. Erie and Frederick quadrangles,Colorado 9 11331 . 4 II 1 i coal beds No. 5 and No. 6 range in thickness from 20 to cline increases, the magnitude uenof true. The The folding decrrike eases, f he 60 ft. The section generally consists of 8 to 38 ft of shale and this assumption is app Y that contains one or two lenticular coal beds ranging in axis of the major folds and of many of the fault planes I} thickness from 6 in. to 2 ft. In places, the base of this approximates that of the regional strike.The trend of the i alinement with the trend of theshale changes laterally to as much as 5 ft of coarse sand- fault ecambrian shear zstem is in one a described by Covering and God- stone grading upward to as much as 18 ft of fine-grained tar zo in the mountains southwest Gf the sandstone. Locally overlying this fine-grained sandstone dard (1950, p. to the sedimentary con- , is a coal bed 9 in.to 1.6 ft thick.This coal is overlain by 8 area of this report and mapped to 24 ft of shale containing a few thin sandstone lenses tact on the eastern edge of the to Range. This shear , and in places grading laterally into sandy shale. A shale zone probably ly extended in east s wh of ich h he Frontmoveme Ranget was and was repeated i N carbonaceous shale forms the seat rock for coal bed throughout later geologic time. At least, it appears to No. 6. 1 Coal bed No. 6 ranges in thickness from less than 1 to m v n Late Cretaceous and (or)Tertiary considerable fractur- more than 7 ft, as plate 7 shows. More than 2,600 acres g of resources 2.5 ft thick or more are believed to be in the Many of the faults in.the_area(pl. 1 and 2)are not visi- quadrangle. Only about 10 acres have been mined. ble at the surface because of lack of exposures and thick Between the top of coal bed No. 6 and the base of coal -alluvium cover but were found by studyrnt etig unt TZ bed No. 7 (where it is present) lies a sequence of rocks ""well records and,.where it was possible, by checking in ranging in thickness from 25 to 110 ft. This interval con- the mines. Many more faults are befteyed.to bepresent in sists predominantly of shale that grades laterally in places the subsurface in the area, but evidence for them could to sandy shale and contains one or two sandstone lenses 1 not be found during this investigation. From the avail- to 2 ft thick and one or two coal beds less than 2 ft thick. able data, it was not possible to determine the depths to Coal bed No. 7 is lenticular and contains a parting of which these faults continue. However, on the basis of bony coal or bone. The coal is more than 4 ft thick, as what is known about the regional geologic setting, the plate 7 shows. underlying sedimentary sequence,and the many fractures The upper part of the Laramie Formation in the report present in the apparently more brittle sediments of the I area is preserved, notably,•.)n_down[ rown_blocks of Fox Hills Sandstone and Laramie Formation,the author faulted areas. Drilling in some of these fault blocks believes that the faults do not persist with depth_but die out in the u er 4,000 ft of the—Underlying U r Cre- I revealed as much as 370 ft of indurated rock above a coal pp _, Upper bed identified tentatively as No. 7. The rocks are pri- taceous Pierre Shale and are probably nonexistent in the manly shale that locally grades to sandy shale. Interbed- Hygiene Sandstone Member in the lower part of the ded with the shale are two sandstone beds ranging in Pierre. The following history is suggested. thickness from 7 to 20 ft and one or two coal beds that Tectonic movements that caused the upwarping of are less than 2 ft thick. sediments along the Front Range during Cretaceous or Tertiary time also caused movements along the north- eastern extension of the Precambrian shear zone as well STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY as folding and faulting of the sedimentary rocks(Lover- ing and Goddard, 1950, p. 25-54). It is noteworthy that The area included in this report is mostly on the west- Covering and Goddard (1950, pl. 2) showed a fault of ern limb of the structural Denver Basin.The regional dip Tertiary age coursing along the Precambrian shear zone of the rocks in the area varies somewhat,but the strike is in Coal Creek Canyon. basically uniform. Rocks in the western part of the basin lie within the foot of the Foothills monocline, are more Folding accompanied by minor faulting took place in steeply dipping, and have a regional dip of about 10° the lower part of the Cretaceous section of sandy rocks SE. where, even though the beds are relatively competent, Fre and a northeast strike. Throughou t th eer and pressure resulting from the overburden was sufficient to Frederick quadrangles.the regional dip is low,averaging about 50 ft/mi to the southeast, and the strike is about allow flexing along with excess fracturing. Folding and 35° NE.-SW. The regional dip is interrupted flowage were probably dominant,and only small amounts numerous faults and folds.The dip of the rocks is usually of faulting occurred in the middle part of the Cretaceous high near ua is but decreases a short distance away and section. However, because the upper_part___ of tle Cre- resumes approximately the regional dip. taceous section of sandstone,conglomerate.an__ _._d s_dtstone • In general, it may be presumed that the major folds -fiad-iess weight of overburden_it tended to be faulted and faults of this area were caused by the same stresses more easily th__an folded_The case for a growth-faulting that formed the Foothills monocline. It would be logical o licoi of f most of the faults in the Golden-Leyden area to assume that, as the distance from the Foothills mono- southwest of the area and in the Marshall area southwest StratigraphY 7 91061.9 • i FUTURE WAT E R An Exciting Solution to America 's Most Serious Resource Crisis John R. Sheaffer and Leonard A. Stevens WILLIAM MORROW AND COMPANY, INC. New York / 1983 S 421, ;[ . ,, t x , ,,,,-,;:f,.n )•v s ,T, t , �pp ii §'•1 ty ""4";,";.„,,„'„'°, e,`°,;„„,,,R,„F ^ � tf- ••I '{) .,-.It„,,....;;...,, *F4tSx k ,*} i1 t n'.1 .3141 '144'144' K A rY1 �"� q,^I ri( > t d ,4 r44, ,t,;',-24,,-e- a f tl li Tr I7 ko r s i -,',41441-t ,) i ," ' ;J g KMa y 'I.4 rte. r --4,,,,4-7 ° ' " .7.1r "'4I r'4 y� , , k 7, i. 9 r p F p r v a+ �T�.` �''� ► 3- i I c�6� r � I r Il ' � F , r. 't 1 4vp I t 1't t a u H a 1 1 ,I ,I < i.r 44 r , , 4 rC , 4ia l �.4 _rvIi , r ��1 ,jt 'a1^.t.k 14% r._ e 1 ,,'.F" I ; a • P 4 / - 4 ` ,• Ir v , •1 ,J is , ,,,,,1 ,1-I I r' F�1 - a I . rt . t � k�l k k Ids R°�� ' ,� Cl � i ' na ' , , , �� i k , I ' 'k ,.. , ) 1. f. r I 1 „51. '; < if r k GIII , § A x ; k c+ -.)-it irk , a,.. - i.„ 5Atj �. t14 _._._....._,...__ .�._. .,-.. t __ 3 IC 3 .)iY; S: IU.Jo tIOSu➢M -ry• e �' t 'is [ a c1C -'-i' _ 4 i' • _ i .n r 7;I. 130 ai-3al rs- � m. IY )6J( '.r .[ PEg c K 7 ` '�- �.' TI 52n, ;Meld n :r..: :cil - loilap =7, ti O ,- 1° ;must..[ .twR - ,c; x. at ow ;rlapal t� ,, °' 1 a.3\ l l3ty`) " 3, ui 1 )a uto n � � ,- I -, i ]ruas I).a15am - ' w� I.Ir , IC pu • ..a11E . -_ _ I ' ' S_ V.4 , a st:rloiaad ,.0 " i 1 • IT''LIE ,OgiY,H - _ v p t as inoj aau _ �` a�! 1 _ n v on r i I':. • h31 01 :F.11 SLOE a '1 r , 1 i�+14' �i 1: 4 ntutntt uat{M _ ?n l �. ,y ,1 a af" = M v � II _ / �'�' J g �, y I IF r � � t. 1 al � Q ' - � s � m a .1 I � JI, � '` S o m `° 'v II 1li 1 • � � '°m= � -,o ,T, m �� i � _ -- c ill O -• A a� S i l'' ��, .. �';I 4 s�-S :1 _ 4 r h 7 6 � I it `�>1� Q \..p96 cc Gr'oA_-__ \ sv� \� o e--sran�_ .G...-.. i ;-�-1 -�\ '�� '0 \ _-547 0'• °60 •� \ � �� --094: • I: \ \\ Ih _ i \ 009 / ' 0�6 • -----,(9,7\ 'V A 'tii\ vim_ , -+\ • • a 66°� A " �/ _ � 0 1 �P-� .�. A \ r - . AV / n N \ 0 �� • ,HNs.ki ..H\ „..„..„4---e , \\ N, - L— / 0 � . ) ii " °aso •9.90._, ° .1.�� a _ el , ;; _ �� / vo v�vv , ,,,N. oN • `` �l 4)0 1/ .:. °/ aQV qy 7. • •�_ epos ,� x 1 y./ • A _• 49o0• —0280 -i �\ \\\ J •� OL6V 1 \ •—ee_ •/ . V �_i • • I o _ _�� —_4940 \ I ki \ of / / N. - I• �v 8 I ¢' • _�� i �� + Ow vp '6:5.6, _ JAVA \\ o �vA • Yy • tip I 0 2 \ bra ho • 6.o �- .. •I \ . ^ . v / r06 "v _.• ot' o o ry. s �A O��ao 006 C � } • .;y \� r ..s\ V �0 �r,or fw : A' ... - h, a n y \ �--- k � ( c J � •� 6l , t - t \ \O • \ _ _ N 8 , �\ t � •1800 �) �S.�y 600 I •-•, .. _ .•V A V v _ 888;....., OA.. A • • 1 k:: e. A % V • 11, °.1, v� ,p�• • .. !� • • \ \ \ I, v ov t - V ° V A • \ id P / wok � 1 I.\\ \." P7�)�ev `4� Y •� yn mA, d e �%h 0:.`s ' q t- � .. i` a i i 4 t.C o v M\ pro , � � . Jiu° ,E“ '4' A f + i u ,[ I , P Inisiq-a, AA N, V • oc. '� IF 4; ;•�.., . h - An.. ,a ��t tai.. V • -,1-` '� 5. _ i�•� _ tali tr. FYI 4.4+ ^� • s4 44' wr A9 ‘44:set _Alr) •t .S � s '_ �N. e. V I � .�1 C ., f ; I,, 4 r . r �.�,� k � r .- ( A ) 6, 1 I, a ' c t & .;rW _ t 1 411 t F fj‘i EI k, i 1/21 anti - ; tfriCi c' boulder Creek �, \\ r ..,� , a — — 1 v \ . r '�; joor 9 At \ � r �` �' I i�� \ I � a `\v., iti If 4r \ .� \ ,, c ( \ , I . w �\ :,,,,;,?t, w' a i s'''''o nck N. K 141. :, zrt t �" ;I 4 �11 i �� 4! , d 1 , D e-,1 3 , �I � � \�-��a p 6 vv . � El • 5 I ' «y�• El m `• f „a C . RI' „s,'. m e o ^ ��.a n � . ` r ,.,�.-r � il,I rl T- . ;:lt° ...,..... .3 i D 8,K E, A•) \ i 1 �Tl A Z �-:, e a K A.Z - 910619 lI-llY,tll LI PLATE 1 DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS (Shown In sections only) Natural gas well(producing in 19791.N, • pe';W R;j Ianmia Fomwtlon—Lauer 100 leer of ` not in Production.S,shut 119791 �� •�.:- 1i g4 the formation h light-to medium-gray summa sandstone Into and mkosk / sandstone divisible Imo benches eep- i / rated by day,fire day,shale,or coal • " /• / • � scams Upper 600feet predominantly Measured etratlgmDhic sections/ •/ claystone,shale,sandy shale,and / ncular beds of sandstone and lignite.In this area Includes rocks Previously / , ho- / / called Arapahoe Formation, (Heide 3C9)1AirshsR • • / - 1955 D 22) / eill Drill hole / � — Fax Hills Sandstone—Greenish-bull,fine /: Nla_ to coarse, croab¢dded 9uanwse sandstone In lower pert grading upward CI) Mine shaft • /C /� to light-yellow and white line- m / / madlumFelnW sandstone containing/ / polygonal weathering patterns.ams.Includes CI) Electric lug i A and B sandstone units of Emmons et N(1996)of the Laramie Formation I Pierre Shale—Predominantly lead-gray to Mine shag //"1OO0FM••FF/ brown tlayey shale containing some siimone,silty sandstone,limestone and O Active(1952-54j/ • I ConaetioN I / I EXPLANATION OF MAP SYMBOLS H Inactive U9523/) r' U High-ads fault-Drawn on coal bad No. • • • / D 3. Dart si'^Dashed where vPr° °ta�' I°' -0 InetlM air shell 1195g341 1 I � f used. U, uprbmwi aloe; D, down- Jf thrown side. Arrows Indicate relative movement •I#�1 -I .. Slop I�i • —dBBD— Structure contour—Drawn on vi e of e be I coal bed No.3 locally called the lower main seam and In the Mamba-Louis- -.g Alive(1952-30) � -.) ville District called the Gorham coal: solid where well controlled by velour I• • • lace information,dashed where Mon -a< Inactive(195251) ▪ • motion is sparse_Short dashed where i II I saugwn contours are dawn above land surface.Hachures indicate a sing.It ii • coal depremlon Contour Interval 20 Area where mat has been mined out or •- • het and 100 lest whore projected lost In mining _ above land surface1 • I __—_— Approximate limn o1 coal bed No.3 Coal bed ryo.9 • • Drill hole Im coal Coal bad No.4 h Water well Coal beds No.9 and "1 ' Water Inlmtlon well Cost bed Ne.5 • \ • - • �I 1 • Oil well hiscing in]9991 N, not in Coal bad No.6 „,///. �, production:S,shut in(1979) • a'�o • • \1 1� - COAL MINES IN THE ERIE AND FREDERICK QUADRANGLES (c^v� • VI 1. PARAMOUM SLOPE 49. MORRISON MINE SHAFT / 2. BLACK DIAMOND NO.2 SHAFT' 50. MORRISON MINE SHAFT • 3 MILE HIGH SHAFT 5I. EUREKA MINE #1 SHAFT •/, • / '• I. STANDARD SHAFT • 52. EUREKA MINE 62 SHAFT • • / /• / 5.SHAFT (NAME UNKNOWN) M. EUREKA MINE 63 SHAFT `/l // B. MITCHELL SHAFT M. EUREKA MINE i3 SLOPE � /j • 7.GLADSTONE SHAFT 65.SHAMROCK MINE NEW AIR SHAFT B. EXCELSIOR SHAFT 56. WHITEHOUSE MINE 61 SHAFT / �� • 9. BANNER SHAFT 57.WHITEHOUSE MINE M2 SLOPE / 10. SHAFT (NAME UNKNOWN) 68. EUREKA MINE AIR SHAFT / Ii. CLEVELAND SHAFT 59. IDEAL MINE SLOPE C � • „ • / 12. MCGREGOR SHAFT 60.SHAMROCK MINE SHAFT / f3. PINNACLE SHAFT 61. PURITAN MINE SHAFT (COAL 5) I,. 82. PURITAN MINE SHAFT (COAL 31 / • 11. GARFIE L SHAFT M. IMPERIAL MINE AIR SHAFT / • 15. LISTER NO.1 • • • 16. LISTER SHAFT 61. EAGLEIMPERIAL MOUE SHAFT _4 I / fl. SHAFT (NAME UNKNOWN) �• EAGLE MME SHAFT '� / U. STEWART SHAFT Si EAGLE MINE AIR SHAFT I /,, 19. TYNAN SHAFT 67. WASHINGTON MINE SHAFT - --- 20. CHASE SHAFT M.WASHINGTON MME AIR SHAFT I • 2f. JACKSON SHAFT O. WASHINGTON MINE (OLD) SHAFT 22.. NORTHROP NO 1. SHAFT 70. LINCOLN MINE SLOPE i 1 �\ \ 23. NORTHROP NO.2 SHAFT If.OLD LINCOLN SHAFT ' \\• 21. LONGS PEAK SHAFT 72. HINGLEY-MORGAN MINE SHAFT I \ $ \ 25. CANFIELD SHAFT 73. GRADEN MINE SHAFT d ( \ 26. OLD STAR SHAFT 74. BOULDER VALLEY MINE 63 SHAFT qn 27. SHAFT (NAME UNKNOWN) 75. BOULDER VALLEY MINE N3 AIR SHAFT ' B p 28. ARROW,NEW (CRESCEMI STAR SHAFT 76. BAUM MME SHAFT - • 29. BRENNAN (CRESCENT) 77. STERLING MINE AIR SHAFT 11 \\u. 78. STERLING MINE AIR SHAFT • - \ M. NOLDOR BOULDER VALLEY SHAFT 78 STERLING MINE SHAFT II \ I' \ 3/. NORTHWESTERN SHAFT 80. WRHEBBEE (SILVER STATE) MINE SHAFT 1 \ 32. SHAFT (NAME UNKNOWN) Bf. PEER)FSS MINE SHAFT \ 33. BRIGGS D NO.AFT C. FREDERICK MINE OLD SHAFT \4600 I 1 ` \ 31. GARFIELD N0.2 SHAFT l.1, FREDERICK MINE OLD SLOPE I 1 \ 96. LLOYD SHAFT 81. FREDERICK MINE AIR $HAFT �� / ( 36. MITCHELL N0.2 SHAFT \ 37. LEHIGH SHAFT' K. FIRESTONE MINE NEW SLOPE I 38. PARKDALE SLOPE 88. EVANS MINE SHAFT 39. MONROE SLOPE 87.WARWICK MINE SHAFT 40. UNKNOWN SLOPE 88. RUSSELL MINE SHAFT / " 41. COLUMBINE $HAFT 9B. GRAM AIR SHAFT / • 13. STATE (ANDREW) SHAFT 90.GRAM AIR NHAFT / 9f. McKISSIC MINE SHAFT _ _ 13. STATE NO.2 SHAFT 92. DAVIES-MAXWELL MINE SHAFT 46. SHAFTMCKIS I(N SHAFT 81, EVAN JONES MINE SHAFT - 45. RELIANCE SHAFT M. EMERSON MINE SHAFT _# i�/ b. SHAFT (NAME UNKNOWN) %. McKISSIC MINE SHAFT • y O. ERIE STRIP MINE M. McKISSIC AIR SHAFT / i CLAYTON MINE SHAFT 91.Q61,9 61,9 Coloradc . t • y VI er d all boo�C em..... - ____---- _____-,, Nc__. __ -- - -- - - _- _� �= �__ • • 0 i L I .�� •��. t I � • .� ,., .e 00 a ca /// / e 0 � � "r • • • V•:. c • •; ••••/ ' a• 0 O \ . \� Colorado Water The Next 100 Years A Colorado Endowment for the Humanities Project 910619 COLORADO CITIZENS' WATER LAW HANDBOOK Colorado Endowment for the Humanities Project "Colorado Water. The Next 100 Years" by George Vranesh, P.E., E.M., L.L.B. Edited by Kathleen Cain Photographs by Barbara Preskorn Cover by Bob Coonts Graphic Design, Inc. Fort Collins, CO Printed by Design Press Boulder, CO ® 1989 by George Vranesh Boulder, Colorado 3111619 n k@§tP 145. aA4# ' K S44p • s zuat vitt w 44,6 .34 tinisiestiitita v A if •V p " Children playing in Medano Creek, Sand Dunes National Monument 910619 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE i OVERVIEW SPONSORS AND ADVISORS viii I. DEFINITION OF TERMS 1 II. CONVERSIONS 4 III. LEGAL ENVIRONMENT 7 A. Colorado Water Law 7 1. State Organizational Structure for Water Administration and Control: Engineering and Judicial 7 2. Administration of Water Rights 8 3. Administration of Wells 10 4. Resolution of Water Use Conflicts 12 5. The 1969 Act 13 6. Related Agencies 14 7. Method of Acquiring Rights 16 8. Rights-of-Way 18 9. Measure of the Appropriative Right 19 10. Changes, Sales, and Transfers 20 11. Plans of Augmentation 21 12. Loss of Rights 21 13. Storage Waters, Artificial Lakes, and Ponds 23 14. Groundwater 24 15. Water Organizations 26 16. Interstate Compacts 27 17. Indian Water Rights 31 18. Conclusion 32 B. Water Quality Problems and Attendant Impacts 35 I. Overview 35 2. Salinity 35 9 X61.9 3. Clean Water Act 38 4. Clean Water Act--Dredge and Fill Permits 39 5. National Environmental Policy Act 39 6. Wild and Scenic Rivers 39 7. Rare and Endangered Species 40 8. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 40 9. Impact of Wilderness Designations 41 10. Air Quality Problems 41 11. Resources Conservation and Recovery Act 42 12. Toxic Substances Control Act 42 C. Right-of-Way Problems 43 1. BLM Procedures 43 2. Forest Service Procedures 44 IV. WATER SUPPLY AND ACQUISITION OF GROUNDWATER 49 V. ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS OF WATER LAW 53 1. Water Records 53 2. State Engineer's Office 53 3. The Adjudication Process 53 4. Calls on the River 54 5. Tabulations 54 6. Abandonment 54 7. Conditional Water Rights 55 8. Injury 55 9. Historic Use 55 10. Value of A Water Right 56 11. Water Quality 56 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 59 VII. ARTICLE XVI OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION 61 910613 �.m 5 �. 'chi • i 9.1 ga R '0 gyffiy $¢'�"g $� • '& yffi B E& .'� 4 $O.. ffi° #s as ":41,4$'� affi$a'e.'4.'�Q $'Q b v yW'S; } ? 4 .,4 Li' ..9 S.S 9 effi g&ffiE" ffi* ?A. t$ w `u& 4:$$ffi.4 4, ,Q,q .. + .. a 5 1 k # :4v}k a� .. w a-Y`a leitS d Southwestern Arizona Pumping water into canal 90619 PREFACE This handbook will help citizens learn about the intricacies of Colorado water law and define for them the role of water engineers. The author is George Vranesh, a natural resources attorney, mining engineer, and author of a three-volume text, Colorado Water Law. This is an in-depth handbook designed to better prepare the public to participate in community and state decisions regarding water. Many citizens are already involved; the handbook can serve as a further reference. A general overview is available in the Colorado League of Women Voter's publication, Colorado Water. This handbook has been specifically prepared for participants of the Colorado Endowment for the Humanities project "Colorado Water: The Next 100 Years," a series of programs and discussions being held during 1990 in the state's seven water divisions. The public programs will address past, current, and future use of water in Colorado as the use relates to cultural values, historical development,and current law. In discussion, participants will focus on the spirit of the laws of the future. Choices and options regarding future use of surface water and groundwater, implications of long-range weather patterns, and population growth projections will also be subject to discussion. New environmental guidelines (e.g., the Clean Water Act)being administered by the federal government through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, are already influencing current Colorado water law. These new requirements, combined with projected increases in demands for water during the next century, indicate that legal changes regarding water are inevitable. Colorado water law is unique and some other states have modeled their laws after Colorado's. It is important to note that states' water laws vary considerably throughout the southwest. Public interest and involvement has never been so important to the lives of future generations. The programs are designed to reach a variety of citizens, including those who are just beginning to understand water policies and to be interested in the future of water in Colorado. As a result of participating in the programs, it is hoped that more Coloradans will become involved in local, regional, state, and interstate water decisions. Barbara Preskorn Westminster, Colorado December 1989 i 910613 OVERVIEW Colorado Endowment for the Humanities PROGRAMS ON COLORADO WATER Throughout Colorado history, the acquisition of water rights and construction of storage, distribution, and treatment plants for water dominated the thinking of public officials. Social values demand that water be made plentiful enough to keep a semi-arid land green, support numerous industries, and continue to be safe for consumption. Determining how water will be used in the future and how much will be allotted for these uses is subject to evolving values. -<, , - ,�,n , v , " . .dit t.-.-0..1.1-.C441.4116,,,9 -.l @'T*. . 1.tk )L� ;4`2yr. [ e}', qx Ygpti{i j 1 Watering fields near Monte Vista Approximately 85% of Colorado's water is used for agricultural purposes. The remainder is divided for domestic, municipal, business, recreational, and industrial uses. In order to support increasingly diverse and urban populations throughout the state, it has been necessary to store great quantities of water for future use and to divert water across mountain ranges. Current federal environmental and public health regulations compound the issues surrounding water management. Improving effective conservation measures, replenishing depleted aquifers*,maintaining minimum stream flows*,and controlling *See Definition of Terms iii 91.0619 salinity and non-point source' contamination will be included in future considerations. The water problems of the next 100 years could consist of increased social and legal conflicts, since water, for the most part, is appropriated. It is already over appropriated--on paper, at least. Mounting tensions over the most efficient use of water and the increasing demand for water can be lessened only by conscious effort. Coloradans need to consider the best use of all the state's water. Joining together to solve common water problems will be challenging but most worthwhile. Water systems used by past civilizations, as well as those used in Colorado, will be considered as models in the public discussions. Values regarding water held by traditional societies in arid areas differ from our values. Traditional societies practiced conservation by restricting almost all uses to subsistence activities. Those who study the water use of traditional societies conclude that these societies have used and consumed, per person, only a fraction of the water consumed by our society. ry caaa i, M.,. 4tid�xi r. aye ,-- i '... . >w fountain near Phoenix Today's values about water use and management differ from those of indigenous people in the Southwest iv em All r Modern water systems in Colorado are more extensive and sophisticated than any used in the past. Present systems include moving water over mountains (trans mountain diversions*)and creating electrical energy at hydro-plants. There has never been a time when so much water has been provided so consistently in times of drought. But during the current drought cycle, Coloradans are facing limits as to how to further divide already appropriated water. Hence, new technologies and new interests, which can co-exist with water laws, are under consideration. <, ! • .. r . . '. �� Y" i , ; • z a s � "Altk +x a. I fix. aa„, .. ��' ♦..Y.a-u .0 4kf NtiC. .:vv., x.....w..a .x Ni f Water rights are now commonly sold Water Law History: The "Colorado Water" presentations include colorful stories of how and why water law developed in Colorado. As the population increased and agricultural, municipal, and mining interests grew, the order in which water was used was systematized. The first onto claim to have used the water beneficially* was considered the most senior. In times of scarcity, those holding junior rights might not be able to use even water that was close by. Colorado became the first state to adopt a strict appropriation* system for water usage. It is often referred [. as the Colorado Doctrine and sometimes referred to as the First-in-Time, First-in-Right Doctrine, or the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. Water rights in Colorado are held separate from other property rights. v 81[16/9 During the past century, the circumstances governing the creation of water laws have changed considerably. Now water rights (pp• 7-33) most often must be purchased, rather than simply claimed. During the past century also, Colorado's water laws have made possible unprecedented engineering marvels. Water has been made available for many in regions previously inhabited only by a much smaller number of indigenous people. Fifty years ago, water projects were designed for fifty years of use; planning for the next 100 years is now more complicated and challenging. Fifty years ago legal considerations were primarily technical; today, cultural, economic, social, and aesthetic values are being weighed along with the technical. Today, interstate compact*(p. 28) agreements and an international treaty with Mexico compound the scope of what must be considered in long-range planning. Economic and Cultural Values of Water. Today, only a small number of Coloradans routinely work directly with or manage water. And even among this small percentage, most water managers, users, attorneys, engineers, agriculturalists, and politicians possess only a partial understanding of water law and policy. Current attitudes towards water are shaped by a knot of political, legal, business,industrial,economic,agricultural,recreational,spiritual,and environmental interests. Short-range gains,combined with a multitude o£long-range considerations, make a challenging snarl for the ordinary citizen. Yet knowing how to "run" water is essential to understanding Colorado's economic and social fiber. One Colorado division water engineer says it is important that Colorado citizens know four things: "readin', ritin', 'rithmetic, and runnin' water." Future agricultural, industrial, business, recreational, domestic, and municipal interests throughout the state will depend on having sufficient supplies of usable water. Water is a commodity in our society. This means that shares can be bought and sold in the market place. The competition for water rights has grown. An enormous economic market for water exists. Presently, some water developers and water users are having difficulty securing projected future requirements. Compounding this predicament are the social changes and human emotion which sometimes ensue when water rights are bought from agriculturalists and water is transported to other regions, usually urban centers. Water economics is as great an issue as are those of water availability and water quality. Trying to balance the economic value of water with life-sustaining and aesthetic values has forced many Coloradans into sharp disagreement with each other. vi 910619 The fact that approximately one half of all attorneys in the U. S. who specialize in water law live and practice in Colorado reflects the extraordinary amount of legal activity here in relation to other states. Interstate compact agreements have further created a strain on regional and neighborly relations with other states. Programs Designed to Stimulate Public Involvement: The "Colorado Water" programs have not been designed to resolve existing conflicts. They provide a means for the public to gain awareness of overall water matters and to discover the different values held about water in other regions of the state. It is hoped that increased involvement can stimulate citizens to help define long-range goals for the public good and to work together to meet established goals. In addition to participating in a CEH meeting in their own water division, it is hoped that Coloradans will attend other ongoing meetings about water matters.* As a result of the CEH"Colorado Water" programs, a speaker's bureau will be formed and made available through the Colorado Endowment for the Humanities. * To mention a few: . The Colorado Water Workshop sponsored by Western State College of Colorado in Gunnison every July enables water users,attorneys, and managers to share realities and concerns regarding water matters with each other and the public. . The Colorado Water Congress, a non-profit water organization, holds many workshops throughout the state and hosts an annual convention. The Congress publishes the Colorado Water Almanac and Directory, which includes categories of water organizations,current legislative water issues, potential water projects, and the function and activities of specific water agencies. This listing includes the forty- six Water Conservancy Districts and the three Water Conservation Districts which hold regional meetings. . The Colorado Water Resources Research Institute at Colorado State University in Ft. Collins hosts an annual conference and publishes a newsletter which includes announcements of public forums and meetings regarding water. .The Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder hosts several annual meetings and publishes relevant books and papers. . The University of Denver College of Law hosts an annual conference on marketing and transfers of western water rights. vii 910619 SPONSORS AND ADVISORS "Colorado Water. The Next 100 Years - Determining Cultural and Economic Values Using an Historical Perspective" Pro iect Advisors: Dr. William Buckles University of Southern Colorado Dr. Patricia Limerick University of Colorado, Boulder Mr. Charles Patterson hydrologist and geologist Dr. Marianne Stoller Colorado College Dr. Daniel Tyler Colorado State University Dr. Duane Vandenbusche Western State College Mr. George Vranesh attorney and engineer Dr. James Wescoat University of Colorado, Boulder Pro iect Director: Ms. Barbara Preskorn Front Range Community College Community Resource Individuals: Dr. Jeris Danielson State Engineer, Department of Water Resources Mr. Richard MacRavey Executive Director, Colorado Water Congress Ms. Sally Ranney President, American Wilderness Alliance Primary Sponsors: Colorado Endowment For The Humanities 1836 Blake Street Suite #200 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 292-4458 Front Range Community College 3645 W. 112th Ave. Westminster, CO 80030 (303) 466-8811 viii 21063 Sponsors of Handbook: Sponsors are thanked for their generous support. With their help the handbook has been made possible. Aims Community College, Greeley Colorado Community College and Occupational Education System, Denver Colorado Mountain College, Glenwood Springs Colorado State University, Fort Collins Front Range Community College, Westminster Lamar Community College, Lamar Metropolitan State College, Denver Otero Community College, La Junta Pueblo Community College, Pueblo Red Rocks Community College, Golden Western State College of Colorado, Gunnison ix 91061:9 +n µ.QA > � � ,,,— ; a. , ‘' rY d 'Je ,... Y ...y. .. yit n =4 w. _�F Y , B ~�:d ID to S g,, .�y m.A11 ik ..v, Rejuvenation at hot springs pool next to Colorado River, Glenwood Springs 910619 I. DEFINITION OF TERMS As the following terms are used in the text, they will be followed by an •. A basic understanding of them before the text is read will make the reading easier. Abandonment of Water Right The abandonment of a water right results from an intent to abandon, coupled with an act evidencing that intent. A conditional water right may be terminated by the water court for failure to pursue a completed appropriation with diligence. The non-use of a perfected water right for an extended period may itself be evidence of an intent to abandon. Adjudication The judicial process through which the existence of a water right is confirmed by court decree. Adverse Use Using decreed water owned by another appropriator. Adverse use for a continuous period of eighteen years may result in loss of ownership by the decreed owner and allow subsequent usage by the adverse user. Appropriation The capture, impounding, or diversion of water from its natural course or channel and its application to some beneficial use, private or per- sonal, by the appropriator to the entire exclusion of all other persons. In Colorado, the purported appropriator must have a legally vested interest or a reasonable expectation of procuring such interest in the lands or facilities to be served by such appropriation. The purported appropriator must also have a specific plan and intent to divert, store, or otherwise capture, possess, and control a specific quantity of water for specific beneficial uses. Appropriation Doctrine The system of water law dominant in the western United States under which: (1) the right to water is acquired by diverting water and applying to a beneficial use; and (2) a right to water is superior to a right acquired later in time. Appropriator The person or persons who have taken water for beneficial use. A junior appropriator is a person whose right to waters of a given stream is later in time compared with the rights of another user. A senior appropriator is a person whose right to waters of a given stream is prior in time compared with the rights of another appropriator. Aquifer A saturated water-bearing formation, or group of formations, which yield water in sufficient quantity to be of consequence as a source of supply. Basin Rank The relative seniority of a water right as determined by its date of adjudication and the date of appropriation. The Basin Rank of a water right determines its ability to divert in relation to other rights in periods of limited supply, subject to the rule of the futile call. Beneficial Application or Use Amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made. Uses recognized as beneficial are domestic, agricultural, industrial, municipal, and recreational and minimum stream flows filed by the state. California Doctrine A legal doctrine retaining aspects of both riparian rights and the principles of prior appropriation. 1 91061,9 Call The request by an appropriator for water which the person is entitled to under his decree. Such a call will force those users with junior decrees to cease or diminish their diversions and pass the requested amount of water to the downstream senior making the call. Colorado Doctrine The doctrine regulating water usage by priority of appropriation as opposed to riparian rights. See Appropriation Doctrine. Compact An agreement between states apportioning the waters of a river basin to each of the signatory states as approved by Congress. Conditional Water Right An unperfected water right coupled with right to perfect it with reasonable diligence. Decree An official document issued by the court defining the priority, amount, use, and location of the water right. Depletion Use of water in a manner that makes it no longer available to other users in the same system. Designated Groundwater Groundwater which, in its natural course, would not be available to and required for the fulfillment of decreed surface rights, in areas not adjacent to a continuously flowing natural stream wherein groundwater withdrawals have constituted the principal water usage for at least fifteen years preceding the date of the first hearing on the proposed designation of the basin, and which is within the geographic boundaries of a designated groundwater basin. Designated Groundwater Basin An area established by the Groundwater Commission. Once a groundwater basin is designated, an appropriation thereof can only be made by application to the commission. Developed Water Water that is produced or brought into a water system through the efforts of mankind, where it would not have entered the water system on its own accord. Diligence Action taken towards the perfection of a conditional water right. In Colorado, when a conditional right is granted by the court, the applicant must demonstrate in a quadrennial proceeding steps that have been taken toward perfecting that right. If diligence in perfecting an appropriation is not demonstrated, the right is lost. Diversion Removing water from its natural course or location, or controlling water in its natural course or location, by means of a ditch, canal, flume, reservoir, bypass, pipeline, conduit, well, pump, or other structure or device. Division Engineer The person charged by delegation from the state engineer, Division of Water Resources,Colorado Department of Natural Resources,with the duty of administering water flows and diversions within a specific water basin. Their offices are located in the cities where water courts are located. Effluent Discharge Disposal of water previously used for municipal and household purposes: sewage discharge. Futile Call Arises when the cessation of diversions by a junior appropriator would not result in a significant increase in water available to a downstream senior appropriator. In such cases the call need not be honored. 2 910619 Irrigation District A legal entity created by statute in order to develop large irrigation projects. Minimum Streamflow Reauirement Water right decreed to the Colorado Water Conservation Board requiring that a set amount of water be maintained in a water course for the purpose of reasonably maintaining the environment. The minimum streamflow right takes its place in the appropriation system in the manner of another junior water right, although diversion of the water is not required. Plan for Augmentation A detailed program to increase the supply of water available for beneficial use by the development of new or alternate means or points of diversion: by a pooling of water resources; water exchange projects; provid- ing substitute supplies of water; the development of new sources of water; or other appropriate means. Point Source Pollution from a specific location. Non-point source is from a general area. Priority Seniority date of a water right or conditional water right to determine their relative seniority to other water rights and conditional water rights deriving water from a common source. Priority is a function of both the appropriation date and the relevant adjudication date of the right. Riparian Doctrine A legal concept in which owners of lands along the banks of a stream or body of water have the right to reasonable use of the waters and a correlative right protecting against unreasonable use by others that substan- tially diminishes the quantity or quality of water. The right is appurtenant to the land and does not depend on prior use. Riparian rights are not recognized in Colorado. State Engineer The person charged by state law with the supervision and administration of water and the enforcement of decreed priority and legislative enactments. The state engineer discharges the obligations of the state of Colorado imposed by compact or judicial orders and coordinates the work of the division of water resources with other departments of state government. The state engineer has rule-making obligations and supervisory control over measurements, record keeping, and distribution of the public waters of the state and all employees under his direction and any other such acts as may be reasonably necessary to enable the performance of his duties. Tributary A tributary is generally regarded as a surface water drainage system which is interconnected with a river system. Under Colorado law, all surface and groundwater, the withdrawal of which would affect the rate or direction of flow of a surface stream within 100 years, is considered to be tributary to a natural stream. Water Court A specific district court that has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate water matters. There are seven water courts in Colorado, each presided by a water judge who is also a district court judge. The seven water courts are located as follows: Division 1 - Greeley Division 5 - Glenwood Springs Division 2 - Pueblo Division 6 - Steamboat Springs Division 3 - Alamosa Division 7 - Durango Division 4 - Montrose 3 81061,9 II. CONVERSIONS AND WATER MEASUREMENTS Water quantity is measured in two ways: rate of flow and stored volume. Flowing Water Water in rivers, streams, canals, pipes, culverts, etc., is measured in terms of volume per amount of time. The most commonly used value is cubic feet per second or CFS. This"flow" or discharge (Q) is commonly measured by calculating the cross- sectional area of the channel or pipe and multiplying that figure by the velocity of the flowing water. 1Velocity of flow , ../`i‘/ ✓ _ �/ -f � ...../...,—, width \ depth The calculation is as follows: Cross-sectional area (A) _ average width (ft) x average depth (ft) _ Area (f t2) x Velocity (ft/sec) = fts/sec. or CFS (cubic feet/sec) Examples of how these flows are estimated: - A skinny trickle o£ a desert stream may be 0.5 CFS. - A riverlet may be 1-3 CFS. - A babbling brook in the mountains can range anywhere from 1 to 20 CFS. - A stream of small size can be hard to stand in if Q (the flow rate) is greater than 10 CFS. - A medium-sized mountain stream, rushing and boiling along, could be from 60-80 CFS. It is possible but difficult to stand upright in this water. A larger river on a flatter gradient with a channel about 60- 80 ft. wide could be 220 CFS and it would also be hard to stand in. - The Mississippi has an average annual flow of 620,000 CFS. The Colorado River generally flows less than 100,000 CFS. Some examples of flowing volumes of water: - Water flowing at 1 CFS will deliver 448.8 gallons/minute (GPM). In one day this will deliver 648,000 gallons or 0.648 million gallons per day. - A barrel is 42 gallons, therefore a flow of 1 CFS will deliver 15,387 barrels/day (BPD) or 641 barrels per hour (BPH). - 1 cubic foot of fresh water weighs 62.4 lbs. 4 Q1 Sri 1 to, , Water in Reservo._, - Stored water and reservoir water is commonly measured in acre-feet. - An acre is a square unit 208.21 ft x 208.21 ft = 43,560.0 ft2. - One foot deep equals 43560.00 fts which is also 325,851 gallons and also 7,758 barrels. - One inch per hour of runoff from one acre equals one CFS and a flow of one CFS for one day equals 1.98 acre feet. (AF/D). - A football field is 45,000 square ft (ft2) which is just over an acre. - A small reservoir could hold a few thousand acre-feet. - Large reservoirs such as Horsetooth, Blue Mesa, and Pueblo can each hold many million acre-feet. - On an individual basis, Coloradans using 150 gallons per day would use approximately one acre-foot every six years. The average urban family uses approximately one acre-foot per year. Water Facts* It takes: 7-9 gallons per minute for a shower 188,500 gallons to make a ton of paper 770 gallons to refine one barrel of petroleum 600,000 gallons to make a ton of synthetic rubber 25,000 gallons to make a ton of steel 1,157 gallons to make one bushel of wheat 300 gallons to make one loaf of bread 4,000 gallons to provide one pound of beef 22 gallons to grow one pound of potatoes Water is: 92% of your blood plasma 80% of your muscle tissue 60% of your red blood cells 50% of most other body tissue Gallons of water needed per millon BTUs (heat units) produced: Nuclear powered generating plants 78-202 Coal fired generating plants 52-132 Coal gasification or liquefaction 13-62 Coal slurry pipeline 12 Hydroelectric dams -0- *Material from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and the Colorado River Water Users Association. 5 910619 tk, . F z r y as = nt , . # ' 9." 3 ! a ' i >. $ i . t t $ 1 r I $ r�f • fi a s 8, s t O c' ' " n a '�3 '' ,a"s c Y, 11 it, a M'YGk F'R r t K �. . .. Rtr x $$�.!m bffi 1 w ywa M4 . # $� F " adS2; r•" sf f ,� . ,• r l :µ \ W @ a �x 0 �,o- x �6sr¥'\A 3 . sa x ssTy P $ ` 'Y&6 i bga 11. ndN &. s�ISk ' .t T. iIS x..f { , At . VI Y . $.&. n k * :!k 2" 4 : 881 0Y .+ 9'$' .: Y 4g k { ' $1 88�� xXa P. • rY � F .t * Sd s , " tix " " t - a ' '� tx ,SQiu Rry.��' 1 + � TPW ' " a9Y o- '" #.rg, [ tn ",6 "".. kilt,. , .- , 1sLL # sipw$;:;,41.2:s ? ≥.w. Sailing on Colorado's reservoirs is a popular recreational activity 6 916619 III. LEGAL ENVIRONMENT A. COLORADO WATER LAW Colorado is an appropriation doctrine* state. The riparian rights doctrine* was never followed in Colorado. The distinction between the doctrines is that an ap- propriator acquires rights in tributary water by taking the water and applying it to a beneficial use; presence of water on or running across land does not in and of itself create rights, as it would under the riparian doctrine. Colorado was the first state to adopt a pure appropriation* system. This became known as the Colorado doctrine*, as distinguished from the California doctrine*, which attempted to recognize both riparianism and appropriation. The Colorado constitution declares that the unappropriated water of every natural stream is the property of the public, subject to appropriation, and that the right to divert unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied. The constitution also provides that, between those using water for the same purpose, priority of appropriation shall give the better right. These constitutional expressions of the appropriation doctrine have been supplemented by a legislative declaration that all waters of the state have always been and are the property of the public, dedicated to the use of the people, subject to appropriation and use in accordance with the law. Colorado administers surface streams and tributary* groundwater aquifers as a unified system, both being subject to the appropriation doctrine and subject to administration based upon the priorities of the stream system. Waters which are not tributary to surface streams are not subject to the constitutionally mandated system. 1. State Organizational Structure for Water Administration and Control: Engineering and Judicial Responsibility for water administration and control in Colorado is divided *See Definition of Terms 7 910619 between the state engineer•, the executive director of the Division of Water Resources of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and the judiciary. Specifically, a district court judge is designated a water judge in each of the seven water divisions of the state, as established by the 1969 act (pg. 13). The state engineer has exclusive jurisdiction to administer, distribute, and regulate the waters of the state. The water judges have exclusive jurisdiction to preside over water matters in the district courts, referred to as Water Court', within their specific water divisions. "Water matters"are those matters specified by statute to be heard by the water judges. They include determinations of amounts and priorities' on applications for water rights and determinations of rights with respect to proposed changes of rights, plans for augmentations(pg. 22), and quadrennial (every four years) findings of diligence in the perfection of conditional' rights. Neither the water judges nor the state engineer grant or create water rights. Water rights are self-initiated and are confirmed by judicial decrees. It is the responsibility of the state engineer and division engineers to administer and distribute water in accordance with court adjudicated decrees. Water matters, in addition to adjudications of claims, include all matters involving beneficial application of water or priorities of appropriation, enforcement of orders of the state engineer or division engineers, and validity of rules and regulations of the state engineer. The water judge usually appoints water referees who handle day-to-day matters and rule on water rights. Any dispute of the referees ruling is retried de novo by the water judge, that is, without regard to testimony presented to the referee. The judge's decision may be appealed directly to the Colorado Supreme Court. 2. Administration of Water Rights The state engineer is charged with administering and distributing the waters of the state. As chief of the Division of Water Resources, he is responsible to the executive director of the Department of Natural Resources. He has general & • - . if \ y \} y$ ©\ \ . \ r k � \ \\}1 6 . & f « ` . . § \ °C « w«? : .. c „ y . : m > . . f 22\ «. ®? y . a , ' y « « a wy /\ �\, r ./ y� \ Parsha1 flume on University « c_& campus 9 910619 supervisory control c . measurement, record-keeping, and re,. .ating the distribu- tion of the public waters of the state. The state engineer appoints a division engineers for each division. The actual administration and distribution of water is conducted through the division engineers' offices. Each division engineer has assistants and each division is further divided into district field offices, headed by water commissioners who are members of the division engineer's staff. A private water engineers must determine the facts and be prepared to testify as an expert witness in water matters. The water engineer must also assist an appropriator's* attorney in order to present a case favorable to the client. Administration, distribution, and regulation of the use of both surface and underground water is accomplished through the promulgation of rules and regulations, and through issuing orders to individual owners and users of water rights. Those holding junior rights wishing to divert* out of priority* from surface streams or groundwater aquifers must seek approval from the water court for a plan for augmentation*. Such a plan will require the junior diverter to come forward with reliable sources of replacement water to protect the senior rights from depletions to the stream. 3. Administration of Wells The state engineer is charged with the initial authority to grant or deny well permits. Such a permit is essential to construct a well for the appropriation of groundwater. Water withdrawn from gravel pits is also treated as a well. Denials may be challenged in water court, and whatever the court determines prevails. Wells in designated areas are treated differently and are administered by the Groundwater Management District where the wells are located. s A private engineer usually works the same way as an attorney to represent the client in court. ]0 911,1619 2 k l t d 1 Y 4 € 4 ; ' » . a ..x� �€ as m ' .� .M. .� Water well, typical farm installation Il 93_-6619 tit tat I"ti $$ t v r* � �� 4�S riiiiifft.:144H'a,V t 111 �" g v r 3 r # p; r � - a a Headgates 4. Resolution of Water Use Conflicts The basic rule set forth in the state constitution is: that between competing users of water, priority of appropriation gives the better right. Consequently, in times of short supply, the uses of persons whose appropriations are junior are curtailed; water is available to those whose appropriations are senior in time and right. The state officials who are charged with administration and distribution of water (the state engineer, the division engineers, and water commissioners) are 12 431061-9 governed by the priorities for water rights established by judicial decrees entered in court adjudication proceedings. 5. The 1969 Act Before 1969, separate adjudication proceedings were conducted for each of the state's many irrigation districts*. Supplemental adjudications were held whenever a water user desiring an adjudication of a new appropriation petitioned the appropriate district court. After a petition was filed, the proceedings were open to other users in the district to adjudicate or dispute claims for new rights that had arisen since the completion of the previous adjudication in that district. It is always important to determine whether a water right was obtained in original or in supplemental adjudications*,since water rights decreed in supplemental adjudications are junior to those decreed in previous adjudications regardless of the date o£ first use. In the enactment of the 1969 Water Right Determination and Administration Act, the Colorado General Assembly changed the procedures for adjudicating water rights. A water clerk and a water judge were appointed for each of the seven water divisions. Water applications are now accepted on a continuous basis. Each calendar year is regarded as a separate adjudication, comparable to previous supplemental adjudications. Each right filed in one calendar year is senior to rights filed in subsequent years, regardless of the actual date of first usage. Water referees are appointed by the water judges to make any necessary investigations and to issue rulings. Any person who wants a determination of a water right, conditional water right*, change of water right, plan of augmentation*, or quadrennial finding of reasonable diligence in perfecting a conditional water right, may file an application, at any time, with the water clerk of the appropriate division. Anyone who thinks he may be injured may file a statement of opposition. The application is first submitted to the referee who, after publication and investigation, may either rule on it or refer it back to the water judge. When a referee's ruling is protested, or when the referee refers a matter back 13 91-Q619 to the water judge, fok..sal hearings are held, in accordance wit,. ,he Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. In the case of a protested ruling, the water judge is not bound by the referee's ruling, but is charged with the duty to confirm, modify, reverse, or remand the ruling. In matters referred to the water judge, a hearing is held which will result in either the issuance of a judgement and decree or a denial of the application. Appellate review of decisions of the water court is provided for in the Colorado Supreme Court. The 1969 adjudication procedure is applicable to new appropriations of all waters of the state except water in certain designated groundwater basins'. Stock watering, domestic, and certain other wells not exceeding a flow of fifteen gallons per minute may, but are not required to be adjudicated, although a well permit is required. The Colorado constitution provides that whenever the waters of any natural system are not sufficient: those using the waters for domestic purposes shall have preference over those claiming for any other purpose; and those using the water for agricultural purposes shall have preference over those using the same for manufac- turing purposes. The courts have held that the preference is not self-executing, but must be exercised by condemnation and the payment of compensation by the preferred user-condemner to the condemnee whose right, though not preferred, is nevertheless senior in priority. Industrial use is last in the list of preferred uses and therefore cannot condemn either municipal or irrigation uses, but may purchase senior domestic or irrigation rights. 6. Related Agencies Although water quality questions have not been the direct concern of the water court, there is increasing activity because of water rights matters and environ- mental constraints. The state of Colorado, operating through the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, has assumed primary enforcement authority for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. 14 91.061.9 k A 4•�u + ,*slta. r „c Img.. r ewe rv",yam ` r Ranchers near Rico irrigate meadow 15 ;310619 The Water QI ty Control Commission is involved it systematic stream classification program which has a further impact on waste water returning to the classified stream segment. The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board reviews the sufficiency of water rights in the course of the permit approval process. Besides detailing the effects of the proposed operation on surface and groundwater, the operator is required to estimate project water requirements and to indicate the water rights and sources of water to supply those requirements. The Colorado Water Conservation Board was created in 1937 with the power to: (1) foster, encourage, and assist in the financing of various types of districts, mutual companies, and other agencies created under federal and state laws; (2) cooperate with the federal government and others in formulating plans and gather- ing information about water plans and projects; (3) submit drafts of proposed federal and state legislation;(4)investigate plans and activities of the federal government and other states which might affect interstate waters of Colorado; (5) confer and appear before appropriate agencies and the court to protect Colorado's interests in interstate waters in Colorado; (6) acquire real property for flood prevention or flood control with respect to federally authorized projects, (7) promote water conservation in the state in order to secure the greatest utilization of such water; and (8) contract for the construction of conservation projects inside and outside the state and perfect water rights in the name of the Department of Natural Resources. The board continuously studies the water resources of the state, including present and potential uses, and has authority to conduct state water planning under the Federal Water Resources Planning Act. The board also has the power to file claims for minimum stream flows to protect the environment to a reasonable degree. The board has pursued such filings aggressively in many drainages. 7. Method of Acquiring Rights The Colorado constitution declares that the right to divert and put unappropriated water to beneficial use"shall never be denied." There has never been 16 910619 a requirement t ake an application to an administrato r a right to appropriate tributary water, although permits are required to drill wells. No priority will be awarded in court for a well unless a well permit has been awarded. Additionally, no priority will be awarded unless there is evidence either of denial of the well permit application by the state engineer or of failure to act on an application within six months of filing. This information is presented to the water judge. ' .r. ! . . . ''' kz tqs. a } ;gkit YY�i. I t ?y.� S� y . y 1�1 y, s.'� T x s .7 '4 x Z : °s 4 h3#t , w • x ,. 2 . - '" 4.,fit Transit The first essential step of an appropriation is the actual diversion of water with intent to apply it to beneficial use. An appropriation is initiated by taking an action on the ground, such as a survey, coupled with an existing intent to apply the water to beneficial use. The existence of an appropriation is confirmed and the priority of a water right is determined in an adjudication proceeding before a water judge. An application for a water right is made to the water clerk in the appropriate division. Applications must set forth a legal description of the diversion, a description of the 17 21.0619 source of the water, the date of initiation of the appropriation, the amount of water claimed, and the use of the water. A priority date is based on the date of initiation of appropriation. No award of priority made in any one calendar year can be senior to an award made for rights for which applications were filed in a previous calendar year. An exception exists when the federal government files for water rights. The right dates to the creation of the reservation for which the water is required. Priorities may be obtained for conditional water rights in the same manner as those listed above. The appropriation date will revert to the earliest date on which the claimant can demonstrate the initiation of an appropriation. The date of initiation is the time at which an intent to appropriate co-exists with an action manifesting that intent. In order to claim and maintain an original priority date, an appropriator of a conditional water right must demonstrate reasonable diligence from that date forward in perfecting the appropriation. Once a conditional right is adjudicated, showings of reasonable diligence must be made before the water court every four years, until the appropriation is perfected. At that time an application to make a water right absolute is made to the water court. 8. Rights of Wav In Colorado, any person owning a water right is entitled to a right-of-way through the lands which lie between the point of diversion and the point of use, for the purpose of transporting water for beneficial use. The power of eminent domain is conferred on water rights owners for the purpose of acquiring such a right-of- way, but no occupied land can be subjected to the burden of more than one ditch or other structure without the landowner's consent. The shortest and most direct route practical must be selected. On federal lands, no right of eminent domain exists. Rights-of-way must be acquired under the terms of FLPMA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Though the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior departments are both 18 n i it! bound by this statute, each department has issued significantly different permitting regulations for rights-of-way on lands under their management. 9. Measure of the Approoriative Right The concept of beneficial use not only prescribes the uses for which water may be diverted, it is also the basis for determining or measuring the water right. No one may divert more water than is reasonably needed for the intended use. This amount may vary, depending on the nature, place, and time of use. Water usage is not limited to a specific season, but to the needs of a specific beneficial use, depending on the circumstances in each case. Direct flow rights and storage rights for future use are recognized but there can be no such right obtained for speculative purposes. The problem of speculation arises when an attempt is made to appropriate water for use by persons other than the claimant, where no contractual or direct agency relationship exists between the claimant and the ultimate user. Direct flow rights are measured by the rate of flow in cubic feet per second. A direct flow water right is entitled to a certain rate of flow, usually determined by the duty of water, and limited by the capacity of the ditch or canal, and applied for such periods of time as may be reasonably necessary to fulfill the appropriator's announced purpose at the time the appropriation is made. Storage rights are quantified in a volumetric manner and are usually limited to the capacity of the reservoir in acre-feet of water. Appropriators are entitled to be supplied in the order of their priorities. The most senior appropriator is entitled to be supplied to the full extent of the original appropriation,even when there is insufficient water in the river to meet the demands of junior appropriators. The uses by junior appropriators are curtailed if a senior appropriator puts a "carp on the river to the water commissioners, to satisfy the senior's lawful demand for water. The call is, however, subject to the futile call' rule: No reduction of any lawful diversion because of the operation of the priority system shall be permitted unless it would increase the amount of water available to and required by water rights having senior priorities. Junior appropriators have a right for stream conditions to be continued as they existed at the time of appropriation. No appropriator may change the manner of diversion and use of water in any way that would alter stream conditions to the injury of other appropriators. Conflicts regarding injury usually arise when application is made to the water court to change the type, place, or time of use of a water right, or the location of the point of diversion. 10. Changes, Sales, and Transfers In Colorado, water rights are treated as real property and may be sold or transferred freely, so long as such change does not injure the vested rights of others. A change of water right may be made only with approval of the water judge. An application for change must be filed with the water court in the division. The application for change of a water right must describe the water right for which a change is sought, its amount and priority, and the change. The proposed change will be approved by the court only if it will not injure other vested rights. If it would injure other rights, the transfer must be denied,unless there are terms and conditions imposed to protect the vested rights. The terms and conditions may include: limits on use of the water subject to the change; relinquishment of part of the decree for which change is sought; reduction or abandonment of other decrees used by the applicant; time limits on diversion of water, and such other conditions as are necessary to protect vested rights. Approval may be conditioned on further reconsideration by the water judge on the question of injury to vested rights, or on any other provision which the water judge deems proper in order to determine the rights and interests of persons involved. Colorado law also authorizes the substitution or exchange of water, in which either individuals or private or public entities may substitute supplies of water to 20 10619 senior appropriators to satisfy the rights of the senior. In return, the suppliers may take and use amounts of water equivalent to those supplied to the senior appropriator. A practice of substitution or exchange may constitute an appropriative right and may be adjudicated as any other right. 11. Plans of Augmentation' The most innovative plan contained in the 1969 act is the one for augmentation. This is a detailed program to increase the supply of water available for beneficial use by allowing a junior appropriator to replace the depletions to the stream at a time and place that will overcome any injury to vested senior rights. The junior appropriator may then divert water out of priority without curtailment. To be valid, a plan for augmentation must be approved by the water court. Because new municipal and industrial uses of water have the least seniority, augmentation has become useful in the effort to integrate new development into the water rights framework without causing undue disruption. Several methods of replacing water have been used. The most widely used one is the dry-up of acreage historically irrigated with water from reliable water rights: water which would have been lost to the stream system through transpiration and evaporation is made available to replace depletions caused by the new use. Transbasin return flows, where water from individual watersheds (river basins) are put into others, are also a major source of replacement water. Other sources are obtained by the development of new storage capacity and available non-tributary water. 12. Loss of Rights Colorado has no forfeiture statute where water rights are automatically lost as a matter of law. Water rights may be lost through long periods of non-use. They may also be lost in whole or in part by abandonment. Some states have statutes whereby water rights that are not exercised for a specific period of time are automatically lost. Abandonment• is defined by statute: "The termination of a water right in 5,4.0 ^ ', r 8e• a "r k m, av, `xz � d Alt8._ Y & �*$'•-� .*s•"Y^#f. 9P�&S k a P A 4 ��S - 8 �M.. fee Rain clouds near Pueblo 22 whole or in part as a result of the intent of the owner thereof to discontinue permanently the use of all or part of the water available thereunder." Ten years of non-use presumes abandonment. Abandonment of a conditional water right occurs as a result of failure to develop the proposed appropriation with reasonable diligence', or failure to file and sustain the diligence application. Water rights may also be lost through adverse use'. Adverse use by another appropriator for the statutory period of eighteen years may result in the loss of the water right. Applying the doctrine o£ adverse use to appropriative rights is limited by the rule that water not needed by an appropriator for beneficial use belongs to other appropriators on the stream. Similarly, reservoir seepage that returns to the stream system is available for appropriation, as is any other unappropriated water of the stream. No right by virtue of adverse use can arise against the stream, since under Colorado law a person has a right to take water; therefore, any such taking cannot be adverse. 13. Storage Waters. Artificial Lakes, and Pond Colorado law recognizes and provides for appropriation by storage of water that will subsequently be applied to beneficial use. Reservoirs may be constructed in the channel or bed of a natural stream, or elsewhere. Storage decrees authorize one reservoir filling annually. More than one priority may be obtained to permit more than one annual filling. The court has also awarded the right to fill and refill reservoirs under certain conditions. The state engineer's approval of plans for constructing and completing reservoirs is required by law when the height of the dam exceeds ten feet or the surface area exceeds twenty acres, or the capacity of the dam exceeds 100 acre-feet. Before 1986 reservoir owners were held strictly liable for damages arising from leakage,overflow,or floods caused by the breaking of embank- ments. After 1986 this was changed to liability for negligence rather than strict liability. 23 91061'9 Even on "over-appropriated" stream systems, water may be available for storage during various times of the year, typically during the non-irrigating season. Storage water applications are submitted to the water court for adjudication and decree in a form similar to other water rights. To protect the priority date during construction, filings for conditional rights are advised once the "first step" on the ground has been performed. reN tka r• - *�^¢...,x` ,y.� a '%�,• ,� #.aw µ `9as%4 9 pig.� p z^ m�si ` ". M t; �,s r A k Na ' e b a" ��.nW... Barker Reservoir 14. Groundwater The appropriation doctrine in the Colorado constitution applies to the "unappropriated waters of any natural stream." In general, water tributary to a natural stream has been treated as water subject to appropriation. Tributary ground- water is treated as part of the surface stream system. 24 ! �, . w . . , \ w . > \ ` J � /. � ' yy ff , } : ^ » .y ' . \flAr, .4�� _ . . ,... \ 2 . . . \ � ._ . . y . . . � . : . 2 : , >:�.1 : . \ 2 \ \. i I . \ \ \ < : \ * a ^ \ < , . { ^, j < . © Z & s y , »« -------. . a ?\ 6 i ^ ` Well pump and house J 91061.9 The status of water not tributary to a natural stream had been in doubt until the enactment of the Groundwater Management Act in 1965 authorized the creation of"designated groundwater" basins. Within these basins, designated groundwater, by definition, would appear to include all water not tributary to any natural stream, or at least not in practice a part of the source of supply of appropriators from any natural stream. Designated basins are found principally in the aquifers underlying the high plains areas of eastern Colorado. Non-tributary waters include those waters which, if withdrawn, would not affect the rate of direction of flow of a surface stream within one hundred years or more than 1/10 of one percent. Outside of the designated basins, the landowner or an assignee is allowed to withdraw one percent of the non-tributary water calculated to be in storage under the land in each year. The constitutionality of this statutory provision, and other questions regarding the status of non-tributary waters not in designated basins, was recently litigated and the statute upheld. Where significant groundwater resources are available, development is often preferred for reasons of quality and continuity of supply. Wells can be used as alternate points of diversion for decreed surface rights in some instances. In other cases, decreed surface rights can be used as a source of augmentation water to replace depletions from wells. 15. Water Organizations An in-depth analysis of the many water organizations in Colorado is beyond the scope of this handbook. This brief list can help readers obtain assistance from specific organizations. Joint ditches exist when two or more individuals take water from a single headgate. There is usually no formal charter or organization associated with this group. Users are treated as tenants in common. Mutual Ditch Companies are organized in the same way as private corporations but they are not-for-profit companies. Company assets are generally 26 210619 limited to the water rights and the ditch system. The organization's primary purpose is to distribute water to members. Carrier Ditch Companies are created by statute and organized for the purpose of distributing water to shareholders. The companies own the water rights and sell shares, presumably for profit. The number of shares determine the amount or percent of water to which the individual is entitled. Cities and Towns acquire water by one of four methods: appropriation, purchase, condemnation, or leasing. The water department is headed by an individual generally responsible for obtaining sufficient water for current and future municipal needs. Municipalities have no preferred status in obtaining water. They do have the statutory right to condemn senior water rights and pay fair compensation for the taking. Irrigation Districts are created by statute. Their primary purpose is to conduct water-related activities beyond the ability of individual water appropriators. The districts are empowered by law to construct diversion facilities, ditches, canals, and reservoirs for the use of their members. Other Organizations such as the River Basin Authority, the state government, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, water and sanitation districts, conservation districts, metropolitan districts, groundwater management districts and numerous federal agencies assist with water development in Colorado. There are also a number of other governmental and non-governmental agencies organized to assist water appropriators. A complete list can be found in the Colorado Water Congress Almanac Directory. 16. Interstate Compacts Colorado must share its water with nine other states and has entered into a number of agreements with all nine. These interstate compacts apportion waters which originate in Colorado. A compact is an agreement between two or more states that is approved by Congress. 27 910619 1tm {ht t�.ti's t 4.{'. tF4 i� G° g a �(t {�•l(4• , "'k k�ts'�( 4�W Frei .itf� 5, wJ¢ ? � P v s.ti .44 a v&a JJ₹Y2aat. � t a at ar ag ! z we ae 4 „ y ,,sr ;r„ €. a8 a4n #x #„ „x ` * e'. _... . • { Central Arizona Canal 28 911J614i \ «\\ . « «•.' J,Att2222 2 ?2222§\5»J/»«\» ? »s«222© 992 >» » a «rte QJ«\~ « . .% : z� . :\ \ . : : yf2« \\. . > y= Z . • 2 % •.y\ ®© . < ygv • . K Tributary a Little Colorado River in northern Arizo= a Si0G±9 Interstate compacts stem from the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution; Article 1 Section IV Clause 3. The nine compacts are: Colorado River Compact Nov. 24, 1922 Includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming LaPlata River Compact November 27, 1922 Includes Colorado and New Mexico South Platte River Compact April 27, 1923 Includes Colorado, New Mexico and Texas Rio Grand Compact Includes Colorado, New Mexico and Texas Republican River Compact December 31, 1943 Includes Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska Costilla Creek Compact September 30, 1944, Amended February 7, 1963 Includes Colorado and New Mexico Upper Colorado River Compact October 11, 1948 Includes Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Arkansas River Compact December 14, 1948 Includes Colorado and Kansas Animas - La Plata Proiect Compact June 7, 1969 Includes Colorado and New Mexico 30 Each of these compacts has specific terms and conditions of water allocation. For a detailed discussion See Interstate Water Compacts by Dr. Jeris A. Danielson in Colorado Water Almanac and Directory. See also Colorado Water Law by George Vranesh. 17. Indian Water Rights The federal government, in reserving public lands, may withhold water from appropriation under state law. The doctrine of federal reserve rights was first applied to Indian water rights in the landmark 1908 United States vs. Winter case. The United States is trustee of Indian reservations rather than proprietor, as they are with public lands. In the Winters case, the Supreme Court affirmed that an 1888 treaty implied reserved water rights for the Ft. Belknap Indian Reservation in Montana. Since the purpose of the reservation was to convert the Indians from a nomadic people to a pastoral people, the reservation of water was clearly necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservation was established. In 1963, the Supreme Court applied the Winters doctrine to uphold reserved rights for five Indian reservations along the Lower Basin of the Colorado River. The Court determined that in establishing Indian reservations, the United States reserved use of enough water to irrigate the irrigable portions of the reserved lands. A 1979 supplemental decree of this case determined that usage need not be limited to agricultural uses since other uses contribute to the continued development of the Indian tribes. A number of limitations are placed on federal trustee power in relation to Indian water rights. For example, ambiguities in treaties are to be interpreted in favor of the Indians. Thus, the Indians will be deemed to have reserved rights not expressly granted away. Tribes have the right to hire private attorneys to represent their claims in water matters, because, on occasion, there are conflicts of interest between the 31 21061.9 federal government and tribes. In such a situation, adequate representation of both interests by the same counsel is impossible. According to Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law, Indian tribes retain the power to regulate Indian activity on Indian lands, but their jurisdiction does not extend to regulation of non-Indian activity on non-Indian lands. The corollary to this is that the states may not regulate Indian activity on Indian lands absent the consent of Congress. Indians who historically occupied the area now known as Colorado include the Arapahoe,Cheyenne,Apache, Kiowa, Comanche,Shoshoni,and Ute tribes. With one exception, the tribes were transferred to reservations in Oklahoma or Wyoming. The only land in Colorado still held by an Indian tribe is that held by the Southern and Mountain Utes, whose reservations are located in the southwestern corner of the state. The priority date used for Ute reserved water rights is 1863, the date the reservation was established. The treaty of 1863 recognized the exclusive right of the Indians to Western Slope lands and provided goods and funds for the maintenance of the Indians and for the development of stock raising. If the date 1859 for the Lower Boulder ditch is used for the first priority date in Colorado and since the oldest rights of record in Colorado are those of the settlers in the San Luis Valley, who initiated irrigation practices in the mid 1830s; then the Ute right of 1863 possess some of the oldest water rights. Recently Congress confirmed that the Ute tribes are able to lease water downstream to water users in New Mexico, Arizona, and California. 18. Conclusion Colorado water laws are flexible and allow for innovative methods to obtain water supplies for new projects. New users and those holding junior water rights must develop management techniques which will protect those holding senior rights from injury. Such a water management program for any large project or recreational use must involve a complex storage system that can provide a sure supply 32 21 0619 of water and replacement water to protect vested rights. Protecting the stream system from injury involves the broader considerations of climate, topography, and hydrology. Specific considerations must be given to the priority, location, timing, and type of historical usage on the stream system. Only through a complex management and storage program can a sure water supply be developed for the junior appropriator,while meeting the required protection need for senior water rights holders. 33 �.tf s>4 5 Y �. •' s �01 ,f kit • ,ty # rtor r. ,Taf: t r ,,Y• . . • x' t; '• ' tx <4 4 4» Polluted water in Colorado }yam v { , • < y it t :rtt rp§4.f}}7 r.tif te,, i ' f ft et {�`� .:,:;ticis +4 r r tF S f 4 4 dl Plastic lined tailings pond 34 4 l C fil 9 B. WATER OUALITY PROBLEMS AND ATTENDANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT 1. Overview Developing a major water supply may have a significant impact upon the environment. Withdrawing pristine water from the stream system and discharging waste waters to the stream will effect water quality. It is imperative that any water quality programs be integrated with the acquisition and use of water in Colorado. The federal and state governments have initiated a number of laws, rules, and regulations in an attempt to keep streams "drinkable and fishable". The battle is never ending. Water quantity and water quality can no longer be treated as separate issues. This section highlights several important items of legislation which play a significant role in the areas of water quality and quantity. 2. Salinity The states of the Colorado River Basin, as well as the governments of the United States and Mexico, have long been concerned with the concentrations of total dissolved solids in the waters of the Colorado River. The concentration of such dissolved solids is commonly known as "salinity." Withdrawal of pristine waters for beneficial use will increase the salinity level in the affected tributaries and in the Colorado River mainstream.The Colorado River currently carries about nine million tons of salt annually as it flows to the Gulf of Mexico. It has been stated that any withdrawal of water in the upper basin would increase the salinity problems o£ the lower Colorado River. At the same time, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, P.L. (Public Law) 93-320, provides for the construction of salinity control units designed to reduce the salinity at Imperial Dam. The first four units to be constructed are designed to achieve a reduction of 48 mg/liter. This is a start, but the reduction will not materially change the quality of water. The total dissolved salts will still 35 531!-J61.9 exceed 950 parts per million (ppm). The maximum federal drinking water standards are set not to exceed 500 ppm. Further development of any new major water- consumptive industry in the project area would be at cross purposes with the attempts to control salinity in the Colorado River. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was designed to meet U.S. commitments stated in the agreement of August 30, 1973 (Minute Order 242) with Mexico and the Treaty of February 3, 1944. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), as amended by the Clean Water Act, in 1977, placed limits on effluent discharges of pollutants while also protecting ambient water quality by allowing for possible implementation of more stringent limitations. In 1961 the average amount of the salinity in water delivered to Mexico nearly doubled, from about 800 ppm to over 1500 ppm. Farmers in the Mexicali Valley complained of crop damage. Some efforts to reduce the salinity have resulted in a reduction to 1140 ppm. A more effective and permanent solution had to be implemented. The goal of the program was a zero discharge of pollutants by 1985. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L. 93-320)and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are compatible in that P.L. 92-500, as amended, (Clean Water Act) authorizes water quality standards for receiving waters, while P.L. 93- 320 authorizes the construction of four salinity control units and the study of twelve others. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in its administration of the Clean Water Act, works actively with state programs to regulate saline discharges to the Colorado River system. The state is involved in setting numeric criteria for salinity control. The EPA has announced a policy of attempting to force other governmental agencies to consider salinity control in implementing land use decisions. The importance of this policy is underscored by the fact that any new appropriation will certainly require the approval of either the BLM or the Forest Service or both for pipeline and reservoir rights of way, and for diversion facilities on public lands. 36 91.0619 9t }s4 A� _..m ..»- .«®SS :r s j. »6h . f•4 Salt intrusion d6 td" x.."k.� ,• Y �M1 £_ YyE y$5 " 41. x 43183 . " } 4 . Y # # $4t§ Yuma Salinity Plant 37 810619 3. Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act provides for technology-based effluent* limitations on the quantities, rates, or concentrations of pollutants from their point sources. The act also protects ambient water quality by imposing a stream classification system. The system may eventually result in more stringent effluent limitations. Because water is a scarce resource, for the purpose of any new appropriations of water it is assumed that discharge of waste waters will involve careful consideration of treatment cost versus the cost of recycling or non-polluting disposal. The EPA has stated that it will review industrial effluent discharges* for consistency with the approved policy for implementation of the Colorado River m. r ) "5a ® 4. 1.1 t } 4 es¢. . . Clean "blear cool water" salinity standards through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Program (NPDES). The objective of this program is a zero saline discharge wherever practical. The EPA is encouraging the usage of low-quality, high-saline waters in operations, but discouraging low-quality discharges. 31..f161.9 38 4. Clean Water Act--Dredae and Fill Permits Under Section 1344 of the Clean Water Act (FWPCA 404), it is necessary to secure dredge and fill permits before discharging either dredge or fill materials to navigable waters. It is expected that this will fully apply to the construction of dams, diversion facilities,or pipelines which are on, in, or across navigable waters, as those terms are defined by the federal government. It should be anticipated that dredge and fill permits may be required as a condition to receiving right-of-way approval for dams, reservoirs, and pipe-lines from the United States. 5. National Environmental Policv Act Any large water project will be subject to a full environmental impact statement (EIS) review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The EIS review will address potential water quality problems created by construction and operation of a project as well as its attendant water diversion and storage facilities. The EIS review must include an evaluation of alternatives to a project, in addition to considering environmental impacts and irreversible commitments of resources. The water management project should be designed to mitigate to the extent possible adverse environmental impacts. 6. Wild and Scenic Rivers The EIS will also evaluate the impact of the project on other federal environmental programs. Since the Wild Scenic River Act(P.L. 90-542) was passed, segments of almost every major river have been suggested for addition to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. Such designation may prohibit water development near the designated segment. More importantly, any diversion of water upstream from the segment would have an impact on the existing level of stream flow within the segment. In 1975, P.L. 93-621 amended the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate various stream segments for study in order to determine eligibility for inclusion. 39 21061,9 7. Rare and Endangered Species The existence of rare and endangered species in accordance with the Rare and Endangered Species Act, must also be considered. The federal endangered species list includes the bald eagle, an occasional winter resident along major waterways in Colorado, as well as the Colorado squawfish and the humpback chub, both found in the lower stretches of the Yampa and the Colorado River. Two other species listed by the state of Colorado as threatened and endangered include the humpback sucker and bonytail chub. t7 ' a yy!!��-�i hf*t'2M^rt,drt"s.'''a^ 44:\ 4411+ Colorado Squawfish (Courtesy of Colorado Division of Wildlife) 8. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1970) requires that wildlife conservation receive equal consideration and coordination with water resource development. The act requires federal agencies involved in such projects to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and with the head of the state agency that administers wildlife resources. This requirement applies directly to agencies exercising their permitting and licensing powers, and is expected to be a consideration in shaping future permit approval for water acquisition, storage, and transport facilities. 40 910619 , :.. ; z 4. ' i • .i ltbet • .. _ +aIle .. ....>. .�' . .w ' Y 3*V {kVI-4: $gb Rd �R�.}.$57 Ik.. it: tv: 'fa IS •� C 'g, .i9a' @etPNFL4Lb'. “4 °X �$ S I �R.�'S' "&` SY:SY Tbo Vwv. ws b Mr, .J£ 3' t","'*.. - p5 "e Deer crossing Yampa River 9. Impact of Wilderness Designations The Bureau of Land Management has recently surveyed roadless areas for study as possible wilderness, in accordance with a directive contained in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. A similar survey by the Forest Service resulted in the designation of over one million acres of new wilderness areas in Colorado. The location of wilderness, even remotely near a proposed project, could affect the likelihood of receiving necessary federal approval and the tenor of EIS review. Water diversion features would not be allowed in such areas. 10. Air Duality Problems Construction of a major water system project is not expected to have a long- term impact on air quality. Large-scale construction activities may, however, result in a significant deterioration of air quality within the area of the EPA's permit program. Such activities may require that fugitive dust emissions be lessened during construction phases of a project.Because any major water program is expected to fall within the EPA's program, the permitting process should be initiated well before construction begins. 41 91061-9 II. Resources Conservation and Recovery Act Though not directly related to water diversion, waste disposal activities, including disposition of spent shales, fall under the guidelines of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, P.L. 94-580. RCRA concerns itself with the disposition of solid wastes and with the production and disposition of hazardous wastes. RCRA has had a marked regulatory impact on runoff and groundwater leaching from waste water. 12. Toxic Substances Control Act Depending on the nature of the waste streams produced, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, P.L. 94-469 may also have an impact. * r , t r , #, xv, 4 ;tee-: . s, q a Leaking drums Designed to control substances that pose an unreasonable risk to public health or the environment, the act regulates wastes not controlled under other acts, such as 42 910619 the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or the Safe Drinking Water Act. Other federal environmental laws may effect any large water operation. The overall water management plan must focus on acquisition as well as quality constraints and state and federal regulation. C. Right-Of-Way Problems Water planning requires the acquisition of extensive rights-of-way for reservoirs, ditches, pipe lines, and related facilities. Rights-of-way over private lands can be acquired by traditional methods of purchase or condemnation. Where public lands are concerned, acquisition procedures have undergone significant changes. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 repealed almost all legislation regarding the grant of rights-of-way on the public lands. Title V of the act (Sections 501-511) established new procedures for granting such rights-of-way, including those for reservoirs. By its terms, the act applies to lands managed by both the BLM and the Forest Service. Both agencies have issued regulations in this area, with significant variations in language. 1. BLM Procedures The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, issued new regulations on July I (effective as of July 31) 1980. The regulations established new procedures for preapplication and application. The purpose of the preapplication is to identify potential constraints associated with the right-of-way grant, to evaluate the application's consistency with the area land use plan, and to schedule processing of the application. Among several factors to be considered in the preapplication stage are anticipated cost reimbursement requirements, environmental and management issues, and the need for additional on-the-ground investigations. Ideally, the preapplication process will be used to coordinate activities with federal, state, and local agencies. Besides demonstrating financial ability to complete the project, the applicant 43 910619 must reimburse the government for all work involved in the processing.This includes preparing environmental analyses and any necessary environmental impact statements. Charges for engineering surveys, resource inventories, and detailed land use analysis must also be reimbursed. After the right-of-way has been issued, the applicant must reimburse the United States for all costs involved in monitoring the construction, operation, and maintenance of the right-of-way. Presently, no time limit is imposed on the government for processing an application. Several grounds exist for denying the right-of-way, including public interest factors. If the right-of-way is issued, rental fees are payable in advance on an annual basis, based on the fair market value of the rights granted. The regulations contain detailed guidance for determining the appropriate area to be occupied by the right-of-way and the time period for which the right shall remain effective. The secretary of the Department of the Interior may impose certain conditions on the grant including, but not limited to, a requirement that the right-of-way be restored, revegetated, and rehabilitated upon termination. The secretary may also impose bonding requirements to insure that funds are available to complete such rehabilitation. Conditions designed to prevent damage to scenic, aesthetic, cultural, and environmental values may also be imposed. The Interior Department right-of-way process involves a detailed procedure with a significant chance of imposing substantial costs and time delays upon the applicant. 2. Forest Service Procedures Theoretically, the regulations issued by the Forest Service on June 6, 1980 (effective July 7, 1980) parallel those of the BLM. The Forest Service has chosen to retain its traditional special use permit process, however, as modified to fit the regulations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 44 Sifei619 + } f � • ,„4 ,41. ,4 • Er __am +� �. g__ a S±0G±9 Like those of the BLM, the Forest Service regulations have a period of preapplication and consultation. During this phase possible conflict of land use can be analyzed. The extent of fees, charges, and bonding requirements can also be determined, and any environmental problems likely to occur can be anticipated and discussed. If temporary use of the land is required in order to perform activities that relate to the application, temporary use permits can be authorized. Unlike the BLM, the Forest Service presently does not require reimbursement for the cost of process- ing the application, which may also include later supervision and monitoring activities. Approval of an application by the Forest Service may be conditional, based upon the applicant obtaining any other necessary documents or water rights. After the application is submitted, a Forest Service officer will assess the applicant's qualifications and complete the required environmental analysis. This can be either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. In order to solicit input, federal, state, and local agencies and the public will be given adequate notice that the application has been submitted. The application may be denied for nearly the same reasons as those in the BLM regulations, including incompatibility with existing land management objectives, the public interest, and federal or state laws. The application may also be denied because the applicant cannot demonstrate financial responsibility or technical competence. All rights not expressly granted by the approval are retained by the Forest Service. The area of land where occupancy is permitted is generally limited to the amount necessary for construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facility. Land size may also be limited to protect the public health, safety, and environment. As with BLM regulations, the duration of the use may be limited by several factors, including the life span of the facility, public benefit, and project financial arrangements. 46 91.0619 The regulations outline terms and conditions of use. Specifically authorized are terms and conditions relating to minimizing the damage to scenic and aesthetic values, fish and wildlife habitat, and other environmental aspects. Compliance with state standards may be mandated where those standards are more stringent than the federal guidelines. The authorized officer may require that bond be posted to assure compliance with the conditions imposed by the special use authorization or any applicable law, regulation, or order. Rental fees are charged commensurate with the market value of the use authorized. Though the regulations issued by the Department of the Interior appear to be more detailed and mechanical than those of the Forest Service, the true measure of fairness and workability will depend on the spirit and manner in which they are implemented. It is clear that the acquisition of rights-of-way will be subject to the scrutiny of an environmental impact statement review, most likely in conjunction with review of the project as a whole. Right-of-way acquisition should be coordinated with water rights filings to avoid needless federal opposition. 47 .91b61.9 114'„ �r �d��s��esst r �>aae�� aa� es ffik!8°&nkk�re ?�xx9z $.qit's.p. 9 %dkR f N hmB yaka ' $rEP ki. kY, earx� a 3 $ , hL&�4R£ P Y `R$.@$.'$ . 3x 9rt3 : s i a f 3��>��$$9'A 4X98�A�aY • j r�*,a. ,x d.... v r - + S& .... ..+re a. l .'� b "4' fdl 'F ✓i .. t "f8, N • • 5 6.Si. ,I 1• F•3s. i y _ ��-.(. 3 } ,_ ✓ ,cx ti Y9, .ra k s.h.q : k, FY .... tiR'x y. ♦ x`.i f, a4x: 4 1 ,. �t,*✓.y.,a L'ki t x.% n,+a rx e.A'F.n+ . F:{ t.�;y„. ' R / - f' "55'J•l #��n'Y�'' .$'J ZB*rd B�ay :'04 Y.. ... Corn field, northeastern Colorado 48 IV. WATER SUPPLY AND ACOUISITION OF GROUNDWATER' The potential for developing a water supply for any large project can exist in one source or a combination of sources. These sources are the groundwater aquifers underlying deeded, patented, and leased land, as well as surface waters. The use of each source has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Under Colorado water law, groundwater is either tributary or non-tributary. Shallow aquifers are almost always considered tributary. Only a detailed engineering analysis can determine whether the deeper aquifers are non-tributary. It is a legal presumption that all groundwater is tributary until proven otherwise. Another category of water may also exist beneath certain properties. This water is considered to be partially tributary if it is connected to surface streams in a marginal manner. Withdrawal of partially tributary water may affect the rate or direction of flow of a surface stream, but the overall depletions to the stream system cannot equal the total amount of water withdrawn. Theoretically, the augmentation (replacement) requirements needed to match such depletions would be less than the total usage from the aquifer. The replacement requirements for such water is presently four percent of the withdrawal. Whether or not water can properly be classified as being partially tributary requires hydrologic analysis. As discussed, tributary groundwaters are not necessarily limited to the rate at which they can be withdrawn. But since new groundwater withdrawals are quite junior in the priority system, depletions to the stream system during times when there is a call on the river must be replaced in order to prevent injury to senior appropriators. The usual way to accomplish such protection is a plan for augmentation. As noted in the previous paragraph, if water can be successfully classified as partially tributary, the total replacement might be less than the total depletion. 'Refer to designated groundwater and designated groundwater basin in Definition of Terms. 49 ✓161.9 In certain instances, water which is not tributary to a stream system, but which has been made available to the stream system, has been classified as developed' water. It is not yet clear how the courts would regard developed water, since the concept seems to be at odds with Senate Bill 213. This bill limits the rate of withdrawal of non-tributary water from aquifers. It also requires the consent of the landowner as a prerequisite to making groundwater withdrawals. 50 $H : Ilex wI !avalr, y t $± :8 # 8a7.rck as 1r � f'iyI ,,*IA •t , py /"1/ W F ♦ qy �qml hli iiy •8 jY ,. '`; . 4y s ,. s,s i 1 , ay " ., 1 ' � :�e y «, s a �� ay t V ,1 4 # µ tv I+ t x x 1 '4'7f.°C Cattails along eastern Colorado canal 51 Q i"fj 6:1.9 g . e #e ta: d9.. aµz fl S. s � _ x #$8 ' e me 2fFgx {,i4' a} d . erg , . .a. a :;`*14,48, d_ �47 z.11"'r,+{ i .;s a`a t t r{ ,.es aid oa t r eaNa" r �s 4.. * 8Ai. s �4 'i . }} �r 9 . .srea �psv"'. * t tt...gym �a < %tergt � a t hvr s R € m tkbg:,pt ^yg �� ' 'merry°"$ . 'e " a The dam at Pueblo Reservoir 52 01 (.1619 V. ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS OF WATER LAW Water law encompasses many disciplines. A water lawyer must understand the law as well as engineering fundamentals associated with water law. Generally speaking, a lawyer does not fully understand the engineering requirements and an engineer is not versed in what is needed in court. In order to contain costs, a lawyer should do just enough to prevail in the litigation. It is a lawyer's responsibility to understand what the water engineer is required to prove. 1. The Office of Water Records A number of records may affect the outcome of a specific water right. An engineer must be aware of and become familiar with them all. Sources of information may include: the offices of the state engineers, division engineers, and water commissioners; U.S Geological Survey; U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Soil Conservation Service; and other state and federal agencies. 2. The State Engineer's Office The state engineer's office is located in Denver. The state enginee,is directly responsible for documenting the flows of all the rivers of the state, for regulating diversions of all the ditches and reservoirs within the state, and for overseeing the fulfillment of compact requirements. The state engineer is responsible for regulating groundwater as well as surface diversions. There are some 25,000 wells in Colorado under his supervision. Since the Colorado Supreme Court has determined that the Colorado water priority is an integrated system, water rights, including tributary wells, are regulated according to their priority date. 3. The Adiudication* Process In order to determine the priority date that will be enforced by the state engineer, an applicant must file in water court to firm up the right. The adjudication process has been in place since 1891 and has evolved to the present system of water courts under the 1969 Act. 53 91 1 9 4. Calls* On The River Water officials regulate calls on the river throughout their divisions. If a call is in conflict with other divisions, they coordinate the diversions so that the most senior call on the river gets its appropriated amount before juniors can take water. There are exceptions. The senior must place the water to beneficial use and the call cannot be futile. That is, water must reach the senior in sufficient quantity to be beneficially used. It does not matter what type of crops the senior is growing. The farmer is entitled to sufficient water for that crop up to the decreed quantity. A farmer will at times change the type of crop being grown and use the allocation of water later in the year when there is less water in the stream. This change is generally permitted,provided the other conditions remain constant. Enlarged irrigated acreage is not permitted. 5. Tabulations Water rights in Colorado are tabulated according to priority date. Tabulation of water rights is coordinated by the state engineer. The priority date and quantity decreed for each water right is tabulated in each of the water divisions. The tabulation list indicates whether a specific water right is junior or senior to other competing water rights on a stream. Copies of the rulings of the seven water courts are sent to the state engineer. This office coordinates and tabulates priority numbers for each right. These records are available for inspection or purchase by anyone who wishes to determine priority and quantities of entitlements of water diverters. It is often a function of a water engineer or water attorney to obtain such information for a client. 6. Abandonment' A water right may be abandoned by declaration of the owner or by non-use for the statutory period of eighteen years. Generally a non-use of ten years is a presumption of abandonment. The water court however, makes the final 54 ✓1.thSi n determination. In a contested proceeding a water engineer must supply appropriate data to assist a water judge in making the appropriate ruling. 7. Conditional Water Rights' Sometimes a project is too large to be completed within a specific time period. In order to protect its priority standing, an appropriator may ask the court to decree a conditional water right. This action establishes a quantity and a date. The appropriator must then appear in court every four years to prove that there has been diligent effort toward completing the project. It is often the function of the water engineer to make a factual determination of the extent of diligence and to testify accordingly. Whenever the water is put to a beneficial use, the appropriator* must come into court to show the actual use. At that time the right can be decreed absolute and no longer subject to court scrutiny as to diligence. 8. Iniury Any change can be made to a water right--change in time and place of use, change from one use to another--so long as there is no injury to the vested rights of other users. This is the basic premise for flexibility of Colorado water law. Any such change, however, must be brought before the court. Any water user that may be injured must file a protest. A trial before the court will determine the extent of injury, if any. If there is injury, the change will be denied unless terms and conditions can be imposed by the court to prevent injury. It is a water engineer's function to determine injury or non-injury. If there is injury the engineer must be prepared to propose specific terms and conditions to the court that will remove the injury and allow the transfer to take place. 9. Historic Use The amount of water used at the original place of use is the limiting factor for transfer to the new use. Historic use is defined as the amount of water in cubic feet per second and acre-feet per year diverted at the original headgate. It is a water engineer's function to determine the first day and last day of 55 91,0619 diversions. These generally are limits for the new use. An engineer must also determine the historic consumptive use and the historic return flow in acre-feet per year. These also are limitations on the amount of water allowed to be used at the new place of use. A water year is defined as a twelve month period between October 1 and September 30 of each year. The water commissioner's records are kept according to a water year. The process is complex and requires a great deal of study by the water engineer. It may even require the use of modeling to reconstruct historic and future uses. 10. Value Of A Water Right Water rights must often be appraised for value. A water right can be sold separately from the land, since it is an interest in real property, unless such a sale is prevented in the by-laws. Each water right has a specific value depending upon its location, priority date, quantity, historic use, and intended new use. The water right may be represented as a diversion from a specific ditch, shares in a mutual ditch company, shares in a carrier ditch company, or units in a federal project such as the water associated with a conservation or conservancy district. A water engineer must make a factual determination from which to ascertain the value of the specific water right. 11. Water Oualitv Water quality is becoming more important in water transfers. Return flow must be examined for water quality. Generally the waste water and return flow water at the new point of discharge cannot exceed pollution limits established at the original place. 56 $ t: fLo n wvx� 1 '4F a"" easeaalri ;7‘. % �6"a, *4' 44%. 'a '1/21041A1/24:3„ &041 F4 a S 444.1 4 1P4.'b"..a «�. . b h k .:.K & t a. L a' 4 a $ .9 \ 1 'w 9. al&F 0 a$tSx xa 8; # W %5R� 0n�'4Rl xh 4' e col act A� $ p%bF4. [ a K b L k b y tt 'ay 4+}O bYvfl T��Y,� 8 'ffi ID'SA 'a $ . W A. {'1/21/21/2VA:W44«***e 4; *tea "V $ ' � **14 71/2 41,1,4 4414 k 41/2* 11/4 Wetlands 57 °1 061 9 yY.f ... .A .. •in • i Y it8'¢r�4 kT Z ieseSe ill 1::.v«. 4 yam, .1 \y T i .. fi • . 1 z i- fi • k {}. ,41 Y .. k}8 a K±# $ •• 4.1341".". �I f x "alr " . ¢x{* x7 ' 't*i. }, �t 4 Z. >. • 4S�# Y . ., y' s'15 Y 3 . 4, 3.4 41 '°15. V* , T y { # i . i x 4*4434'# 4. . 4'C+4ix';a. ..11CCL`., ', y t 4.... • Fun at Water World, Thornton 58 9106 `.) VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Water rights in Colorado have been, for the most part, already appropriated for specific projects. There is strong competition for water among municipalities and agricultural and industrial operations. On paper at least, every river system is over-appropriated. The value of each subsequent right is dictated by the needs of senior appropriators*. However, not all decreed* rights divert at the same time, nor are all decreed rights assured of a safe yield of water under existing conditions. A determination of total water availability is clouded by uncertainty. State water laws change with each session of the legislature and with each decision of the Colorado Supreme Court that relates to water. The farmer and irrigator have large stakes in water matters. It has been said on more than one occasion, "Take my money--take anything I have--but leave my water alone." Environmental concerns will arise in regard to every aspect of water acquisition and development. Expert teams made up of water attorneys and engineers are needed in order to properly perfect a water right. They are needed to provide effective means of water management. It is interesting to project what the next one hundred years will bring to Colorado water law. During the past one hundred years water usage has changed from meeting mostly irrigation needs to meeting increased municipal and industrial demands. The next one hundred years will most probably see an increase in this trend. Court cases involving environmental concerns will most probably bring about additional adjustments in thinking about how water is used and managed. 59 CONSTITUTION OF COLORADO ARTICLE XVI Mining and Irrigation Section 5. Water of streams public property. -The water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated, within the state of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject to appropriation as hereinafter provided. Section 6. Diverting unappropriated water-priority preferred used. -The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied. Priority of appropriation shall give the better right as between those using the water for the same purpose; but when the waters of any natural stream are not sufficient for the service of all those desiring the use of the same, those using the water for domestic purposes shall have the preference over those claiming for any other purpose, and those using the water for agricultural purposes shall have preference over those using the same for manufacturing purposes. Section 7. Right-of-way for ditches, flumes. -All persons and corporations shall have the right-of-way across public, private and corporate lands for the construction of ditches, canals and flumes for the purpose of conveying water for domestic purposes, for the irrigation of agricultural lands, and for mining and manufacturing purposes, and for drainage, upon payment of just compensation. Section 8. County commissioners to fix rates for water when.- The general assembly shall provide by law that the board of county commissioners in their respective counties, shall have power, when application is made to them by either party interested, to establish reasonable maximum rates to be charged for the use of water, whether furnished by individuals or corporations. 61 1u61.9 <_,•y 3 it-•. .+4 • - �YtX�a $ a •,•,x z, °SFki p't. A do sad f RMX . 4 �y�� 1 � 1`4�..��i ��( �•k 5 I4a Y .S�•r'i .\ 'ar67 y�` Y l ` 3 ' fifeY� A b�S t >f S hs it • }-F _ i i Rr . gj b 9 '� 4 4 w . �ID rZ �~ 9 �..N/. F A „SiJJ R$"If. r x�4 Wt— fft'f v' s :�. F. T .i.. x r.�. • rp... Vranesh giving a lesson in geology 62 OifitZig VITA GEORGE VRANESH P.O. Box 4632 Boulder, CO 80306 Legal Employment: Active from 1961 to 1987 in the practice of law. Was senior partner of the law firm of Vranesh and Raisch, Boulder, Colorado. Practice generally limited to natural resources law; represented clients in water transfer proceedings, water acquisition matters, obtaining decreed water rights, mining matters, and land use matters. Presently retired but involved in update of three-volume treatise on Colorado Water Law. Education: University of Colorado School of Law (LL.B, 1961) Colorado School of Mines (E.M. 1951) Professional Affiliations: American Bar Association, Member of Council of the Natural Resources Section Colorado Bar Association American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical & Petroleum Engineers Colorado Mining Association, Past Director Professional Engineer, State of Colorado Selected Publications and Presentations: "Water Contingency Planning or What Happens When the Well Runs Dry," a talk presented to the National League of Cities. San Francisco, California, December, 1977. "Water for Oil Shale Development in Western Colorado," a paper presented at the Colorado School of Mines,Golden,Colorado, 10th Oil Shale Symposium Proceedings, p. 34, April 1977. Coauthor, "Geothermal Resources: Water and Other Conflicts Encountered by the Developer-An Alternative Energy Source Which is 'Gathering Steam', 13 Land and Water Law Review I (1977) Previous Employment: 1961-1963 Project Engineer, Legal Counsel, Stearns Roger Corporation Denver, CO. 1959-1961 Design Engineer, Office of Research Service, Physics Department, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 1953-1961 Partner, Ouray Uranium Company, Moab, Utah 1952-1953 Mining Engineer, Idarado Mining Company, Ouray, CO. 1951-1952 Engineer, Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Burbank, CA. 1951-1951 Engineer, Great Northern Iron Ore Prop., Hibbing, MN. 63 .916619 Sponsors of Colorado Citizens' Water Law Handbook Aims Community College, Greeley Colorado Community College and Occupational Education System, Denver Colorado Mountain College, Glenwood Springs Colorado State University, Ft. Collins Front Range Community College, Westminster Lamar Community College, Lamar Metropolitan State College, Denver Otero Community College, La Junta Pueblo Community College, Pueblo Red Rocks Community College, Golden Western State College of Colorado, Gunnison 91.0"n -1 r Kip R.White,P.E. KRW CONSLILTING, INC. ( President 7! 0: n i - - - • 1 t June 14, 1991 _, t11� 7 1 1991 Weld County Planning kid Co. 915Mtutll WARMS am 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Rod Allison Subject: Gustayson Associates Report Submitted by Janice Wayland During Public Testimony at the Environmental Recycling and Disposal Planning Commission Hearing on May 21, 1991. Dear Rod: The purpose of this letter is to offer rebuttal to the subject report. The Gustayson report attempts to cast doubt on the geologic suitability of the proposed Environmental Recyling and Disposal (E.R.D.) facility based on its location "in a densely faulted and earthquake prone region." The Gustayson report was submitted to the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) during their review of the proposed facility Design and Operations Plan. The review and approval of the suitability of the site by Austin Buckingham, Geologist for CDH is a strong rebuttal to the Gustayson report. In addition, Weld County submitted the E.R.D. proposal to Jeff Hynes, Geologist for Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) who also gave his approval of technical merits of the site and design. These two geologists have effectively been charged with evaluation of the site suitability and protection of public health and welfare with regards to potential geologic hazards. Their approval of the site suitability is therefore considered adequate rebuttal to the Gustayson claims. In addition to the review and approval of the E.R.D. proposal by CDH and CGS, we have reviewed Gustayson's report and have prepared the comments below regarding inaccuracies of several statements in his report where he attempts to convince the reader that the site is unsuitable for a landfill. The following responses to Gustayson's statements are presented based on their location by page and paragraph in the Gustayson report. The Gustayson report has been attached for your ease of reference. Pace 2 Paragraph 3 Gustayson states that the Valmont Fault is active. This statement is false. There have been no events recorded on the Valmont Fault. Kirkham and Rogers (1981) call the fault potentially active. The important fault for this discussion is the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) fault, because it is active and is closer to the site than the Valmont Fault. Gustayson states that rock stresses extend from the basement to the surface along the RMA Fault. This is not documented and is probably not true. All earthquake events on the RMA Fault have been basement events. It is also interesting that Gustayson does not mention that the earthquakes on the RMA Fault were induced by deep well injection of liquid wastes at the Arsenal and are not necessarily associated with natural rock stresses. - — -- --- ------- -9011 630 Ammons Way • Lakewood,Colorado 80215 • (303) 239 • (�q n C5) Qi:j619 rLk (( t ea. & jaP - - - 8912-04 Gustayson Rebuttal 6/14/91 page 2 Gustayson states Anomalous geomorphic features within the area of Rocky Mountain Arsenal also indicate Quaternary fault activity (Kirkham, 1981)." This is an inaccurate representation of the information presented in Kirkham, 1981. Kirkham actually references De Voto, 1968. De Voto's paper states that these Quaternary geologic features "may be a result of pre-Wisconsin faulting...these features, however, could have developed by geomorphic processes without being affected by any surficial fault displacements. In any case, evidence of Recent (last 5,000 years) surface fault displacements has not been observed in the Rocky Mountain Arsenal area (emphasis added). De Voto further states "...the fault zone was probably quiescent during the Recent until man's injection of fluids into the Arsenal well. This statement was based on an intensive search by DeVoto for evidence of faulting within a 200 square mile area around the RMA injection well. Paragraph 4 Gustayson states "Many other earthquakes have been experienced in the region northeast of Denver and in particular within an area surrounding the proposed landfill." He insinuates that these "other earthquakes" are other than the RMA earthquakes. This, however, is not true. The 200 earthquakes which he goes on to refer to are the RMA earthquakes which were induced by injection of fluids into the Arsenal well. Gustayson references a felt earthquake of modified Mercalli(MM) intensity of up to VII in an area east of Lafayette. It should be noted that the earthquake which was felt here did not occur near Lafayette. This earthquake occurred in 1882 and was also felt in Wyoming and West of the Front Range. According to McGuire and others (1982), as referenced by Warner(1985), "A recent evaluation of data pertaining to the earthquake of 1882 places the epicenter in northwestern Colorado..." It should also be noted that the MM intensity of VII assigned to this earthquake is based mainly on newspaper accounts. Gustayson misstates the definition of the MM VII intensity. The definition from Richter (1958), as referenced in Kirkham(1981), is: "Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D*, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at the roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices, unbraced parapets, and architectural ornaments. Some cracks in masonry C*. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged" (emphasis added). *Note: Criteria for various grades of masonry construction described below. Masonry C. Ordinary workmanship and mortar;no extreme weaknesses like failing to tie in at corners,but neither reinforced nor designed against horizontal forces. Masonry D. Weak materials such as adobe;poor mortar; low standards of workmanship; weak horizontally"(emphasis added). It is important to note that ground motion, as indicated by the MM intensity, does not equate to ground breakage. SiGfi19 8912-04 Gustayson Rebuttal 6/14/91 page 3 "alai Paragraph 1 There is no evidence that coupled rock stresses exist at the site as Gustayson insinuates. Paragraph 2 Gustayson seems to imply from this paragraph that the post Cretaceous faults in the area of the site broke the Quaternary. There is no evidence that this has occurred. Paragraph 3 In this paragraph Gustayson seems to be saying or at least is trying to make his readers believe that the E.R.D.report states that no other faults exist in the landfill area. No such statements were made. In fact on page 49, Section 4.5.6, the Landfill Plan states, "Where sandstone bedrock forms the base of the excavation,or if fault scars are encountered in the excavation, the area will be over-excavated by a depth of one foot, and the liner shall be four feet in thickness." Paragraph4 It is important to note that in this paragraph, Gustayson agrees that the site which marks the boundary of the coal mine immediately west of the landfill area is a growth fault (i.e. it is non-tectonic in origin). Paee 4 Paragraph 1 Gustayson says that the Landfill Plan states that the two prominent northeast trending faults which, more or less, border the proposed site act as barriers to groundwater movement within the proposed landfill area. In the Landfill Plan, under section 3.5.2.5 Laramie Fox- Hills Aquifer, we state, with reference to this aquifer, that " Faulting which occurs both on the east and west sides of the proposed site appear to act to some extent as groundwater barriers" (emphasis added). Page 5 Paragraph 2 Gustayson states that the proposed landfill is located in an earthquake prone region. One should ask, "Earthquake prone relative to what?" Every place on earth has some seismic activity. A quantitative measure of seismicity is derived from the probabilistic acceleration maps of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS). These maps present the horizontal acceleration expressed as a percent of gravity with a 90 percent chance of not being exceeded in 50 years. By comparing the probable accelerations from different areas of the country one can readily see that Erie, Colorado is not in an earthquake prone region relative to most of the rest of the United States. The importance of these accelerations shown below is not the actual numbers but their relative values. 910611 8912-04 Gustayson Rebuttal 6/14/91 page 4 Erie, Colorado 5% Boston, Massachusetts 11% Charleston, South Carolina 11% Lincoln, Nebraska 11% Seattle, Washington 15% St. Louis, Missouri 19% Salt Lake City, Utah 21% Socorro, New Mexico 30% Helena,Montana 38% San Andreas Fault Zone, California 60% In summary we present the following facts regarding seismicity of the site: 1. There is no record that earthquakes have occurred on the proposed E.R.D. site. 2. Earthquakes which have occured on the RMA fault south of the site have not caused ground breakage in the immediate vicinity of that fault and certainly have not caused ground breakage at the proposed E.R.D. site. 3. Future RMA fault activity is not likely to cause ground breakage at the E.R.D. site and it is even less likely that breakage of the clay liner or sump liners would occur as a result of RMA fault actitivity as these structures will be very plastic in nature. 4. The evidence indicates that faults and fractures which exist at the site are the result of non tectonic(i.e.non earthquake related)growth fault activ- ity which occurred during the Laramide Orogeny 75 to 135 million years ago. These faults are not the result of tectonic related rock stresses. If you have any questions relating to this letter or the Gustayson report please feel free to call us. Sincerely, Kip R. White, P.E. cc. Ted Zigan, Environmental Recycling and Disposal, Inc. 91"+.x619 8912-04 Gustayson Rebuttal 6/14/91 page 5 Bibliography Buckingham, A. N., 1991, Colorado Department of Health Letter of Recommendation to Weld County Commissioners DeVoto, R.H., 1968, Colorado School of Mines Quarterly, Volume 63, No. 1 Gustayson, J.B., 1991, Letter Report to Concerned Citizens of Erie Hynes, J. L., 1990, Letter to Rod Allison, Weld County Planning Commission Reviewing the Landfill Design, Operation, and Closure Plan for the Proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility in Southwestern Weld Couty, Colorado Kirkham, R.M. and William P. Rogers, 1981, Earthquake Potential in Colorado, A Preliminary Evaluation: Colorado Geologic Survey, Department of Natural Resources Bullitin n. 43 Warner, L.A., 1985, Geotectonics of Central Colorado: Implications for Stress Distribution and Seismic Potential, Geologic and Seismotonic Investigations, Third Interim Report,Geotechnical Advisory Committee, Denver Water Department White, K.R., 1990, Landfill Design, Operation, and Closure Plan for the Proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. Facility in Southwestern Weld Couty, Colorado 910619 GUSTAVSON ASSOCIATES G E O L O G I S T S • E N G I N E E R S February 12, 1991 Donald and Marylyn Brand, Chairpersons Concerned Citizens of Erie 8897 Baseline Road Lafayette, Colorado 80026 Dear Donald and Marylyn: Gustayson Associates, Inc. has been authorized by Concerned Citizens of Erie to conduct this study for the purpose of providing a geologic review of the soundness of the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. (ERD) landfill, particularly in view of its location within a densely faulted area. We have further been advised that the report will be used by the Client at public hearings, to which we give our consent. Likewise, should this case proceed into litigation, we herewith give our permission for the use of our report in such litigation, and also express our willingness to provide expert testimony, if so requested. Gustayson Associates, Inc., as represented by its principal, Mr. John B. Gustayson, Certified Professional Geologist y#2637, fulfills the requirement of"professional geologist" as defined in the statutes of the State of Colorado. Mr. Gustayson's certification is by the American Institute of Professional Geologists. The opinion provided herein is independent inasmuch as Gustayson Associates, Inc. and its principal, Mr. John B. Gustayson, are fully independent and hold no financial interest, either directly or indirectly, in Concerned Citizens of Erie, the properties being examined, or any properties in the vicinity of the proposed landfill. A mtmber of professional publications as well as published data have been used in the examination of this property. They are listed in the following, "References Used" attachment. The publications have been found to be readily available, mostly from the Colorado Geological Survey, or in repositories thereof, such as the libraries of the University of Colorado and the Colorado School of Mines. The data is neither very new nor obscure; therefore, any prudent geologist can readily gain access to exactly the same data which formed the basis of our opinion. 5757 Central Ave. Suite D Boulder. Co. 80301 O03)443-2209 Fax (303)443-3156 Telex 5101008402 31_0619 -2- This Consultant has examined available data from the public literature and studied the parts of the report relating to the geology of the proposed landfill site which was prepared for ERD by Kip R. White. We have subsequently formed an opinion which is as follows: The region about which the proposed ERD landfill is located within a region where faults or crock fractures exist. It is highly possible that faults or fractures exist in the proposed ERD landfill area which have not yet been discovered or mapped. In addition, the area is within a seismically active region where earthquakes have been experienced which could cause displacement of faults or fractures. Displacement of any faults which may exist in the proposed landfill area could cause failure of the disposal site liner. A number of groundwater areas currently exist in the proposed site area and, according to the excavation plan, will be exposed prior to the emplacement of the lining of the landfill. Failure of the liner could subsequently cause contamination of groundwater (of the Laramie/Fox Hills aquifer). Our opinion is based on a number of facts, each of which will be summarized below. Our first premise is that the area of the proposed landfill is within a densely faulted region which has been referred to in the literature as the Boulder-Weld fault zone (Davis and Weimer, 1976). A map of the area is enclosed with this letter. The proposed landfill area is geologically characterized by regional and local, structural features which trend in a northeasterly direction. These features include faults, folds and blocks. Faults in this region consist of three types; basement, growth and antithetic (Davis and Weimer, 1976). All of these faults may extend up to 3 to 4 thousand feet or more into the subsurface and are sometimes expressed or exposed at the surface. Two very deep basement faults which are seismically active exist in the region. The northeast trending Valmont fault, discovered in 1957, is approximately seven miles west of the proposed site. This fault is not expressed at the surface but is now exposed along a road cut on 75th Street (Kirkham, 1931). The southeast trending Rocky Mountain Arsenal fault is located approximately three and one half miles south of the proposed site. In 1962, a series of earthquakes which continued for years occurred along the Rocky Mountain Arsenal fault and its related fracture zone (Kirkham, 1931). The fact that this fault has been active recently suggests that rock stresses which extend from the basement exist in the area. Such stresses are relieved through earthquakes which can effect fractures, faults or weaknesses in the bedrock or substratum. Anomalous geomorphic features within the area of Rocky Mountain Arsenal fault also indicate Quaternary fault activity (Kirkham, 1931). (26", c, “ hcJOEo Many other earthquakes have been experienced in the region northeast of Denver and in particular within an area surrounding the proposed landfill. Over 200 earthquakes of up to 5.3 mb (mb or bodywave magnitude as defined by Gutenberg and Richter, 1956) have been centered in an area northeast of Denver (Kirkham, 1935). An area just east of Lafayette, Colorado has felt earthquakes with a modified Mercalli intensity of up to VII (Kirkham, 1931). This intensity is defined by the American Geological Institute as: .311‘1619 -3- "difficult to stand...noticed by drivers...furniture broken...damage to masonry, including cracks...fall of loose bricks, stones, tiles...concrete irrigation ditches damaged...small slides and caving along gravel banks" (Dietrich et al., 1982). The region where the proposed site is to be located is a densely faulted and fractured area. A number of small southeast to east trending faults intersect the main northeast trending faults. This kind of fault or fracture pattern is commonly associated with coupled rock stresses (Billings, 1972). Therefore some of the normal faults in this area are likely to have been caused by basement stress or mild tectonic activity (earthquakes) in contrast to the numerous non-tectonic mechanisms responsible for the growth faults which exist in the area. The fault density of the Boulder-Weld fault zone is in the range of 2 to 5 faults per mile (measured perpendicular to the main northeast fault trend pattern as shown on the enclosed map). The faults mapped in the immediate vicinity of the proposed landfill have density of about 2 or 3 per mile. These faults are mapped with certainty (that is they are exposed and/or expressed at the surface) everywhere the Cretaceous age Laramie Formation outcrops. Laramie outcrops are found mostly to the west and southwest of the proposed landfill. Where the Laramie is covered by unconsolidated Quaternary deposits, the faults are mapped as being "concealed". Concealed faults are known to exist from surface anomalies, trends, or seismic or borehole data. Because most of the proposed site is covered by unconsolidated Quaternary deposits, any faults that exist in the area would be concealed, or not expressed at the surface and therefore could not be mapped without subsurface data. Davis and Weimer (1976) studied much of the Boulder-Weld fault zone with seismic data but they had no such data for the south half of Township 1 north, Range 68 west which encompasses the proposed landfill area. Any statement or claim to the effect that faults absolutely do not exist in the proposed area could be false. Such a statement based on regional evidence is made accurate by the qualification that "none have been mapped, they may or may not exist". Actually a few faults do exist in Section 28, one of which trends to the northeast and apparently dies out about 100 feet to the southeast of borehole 38 (refer to Plate 1, Kip White, 1990). Since many of the northeast trending faults extend for miles, it is not inconceivable that this fault could continue further beneath deposits which conceal it. This particular fault, a splay off a major growth fault, (controlling fault for previously mined coal deposits to the west) may continue along a direct northeast trend through the proposed landfill where it could join with a mapped "concealed" fault present in section 22 (see enclosed map). Another fault is mapped in the southeast part of section 28 which continues, concealed, for several miles to the northeast. The second premise to be discussed is the presence of shallow or perched groundwater in areas which are faulted. Groundwater is of extreme importance here because it moves or migrates in the bedrock or in aquifers, rising and falling with the annual cycles of rain and 4310619 -4- snowfall, as well as being forced laterally along the piezometric gradient. Consequently, should waste fluids from the landfill mix with the groundwater in the area it could contaminate the Laramie/Fox Hills aquifer. White (1990) states that the two prominent northeast trending faults which more or less border the proposed site act as barriers to groundwater movement within the proposed landfill area. This may be true in a horizontal or perpendicular direction to the faults, but faults and even more so fractures are known to act as groundwater conduits. Groundwater could enter a fault plane or fracture zone and travel along that zone until it reaches a permeable bed or the surface. Six ground water areas have been mapped areas by White (1990), see enclosure. Five of the six areas either are cut by faults or are within 250 feet of a fault. Groundwater area 1 which apparently was not studied outside of section 23 to the northwest is very close to where two faults are mapped. The only groundwater area which has not been associated with a fault is area number 2. Groundwater area number 2 is also completely covered by unconsolidated Quaternary deposits which often conceal faults. Evidence that faults may act as a conduit is found in the center of section 29, one half mile to the west of the proposed site. A surface spring exists at this location which is intersected by a northeast trending fault. Anomalous groundwater samples have been taken in the area of the proposed landfill. Samples taken at boreholes number 1,11,19 and 20 have anomalously high concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved manganese. Sample 4 and 15 also show increased levels of manganese (see enclosed map). Such concentrations might occur in water sources deep in the ground and/or water that has migrated along fault planes. The high concentrations of organic carbon and manganese may suggest that the groundwater is sourced from an oxygen poor or reducing environment (coal seams). These particular elements are commonly biodegraded (as in organic carbon) or oxidized (as in manganese). It is noted that borehole 1,4,19 and 20 occur near mapped faults. The anomalous groundwater sample at borehole 11 is in an area where no faults have been mapped (an area where unconsolidated Quaternary deposits exist at the surface). It is therefore possible that the groundwater in sample 11 may have migrated from a deep source along a fault plane or fracture zone which has not been mapped. Topographic features and anomalies such as lineaments, drainage patterns, escarpments and ridges are used by geologists and geomorphologists as evidence of faults and fractures. The drainage patterns in the vicinity of the proposed landfill site generally trend northeast and northwest, the same trends exhibited by the faults in the area. Strong northeast trending drainage patterns exist in the north and northeast parts of the proposed site. Drainage areas which exhibit the same trends, southwest of the proposed site, arc often close to or parallel mapped faults. The proposed landfill excavation will strip off most, if not all, of the unconsolidated Quaternary deposits. It will also excavate below the groundwater level in area number 3 in the center of the proposed site. The likelihood that these groundwater areas and i.1, 61.9 -5- potential aquifers will be breached by the excavation is good. The potential for groundwater contamination would increase should faults be discovered below the unconsolidated Quaternary deposits. Because this area is a topographic "high" runoff contamination is also likely should the landfill liner be breached by fault movement or earthquakes. Finally as stated by White (1990) the time of travel from boreholes 19 and 20 to the nearest residence is only 18.3 years. Boreholes 19 and 20 are within 250 feet of a mapped fault. The published literature, reports and maps point to the fact that the proposed ERD landfill site is located in a densely faulted and earthquake prone region. Although geologic maps show few, if any, faults within the proposed site boundary, evidence suggests that faults might exist which have not yet been discovered. It is therefore the opinion of this Consultant that considerable research and field studies should be performed which would undeniably confirm the absence of and/or fractures at the proposed site. However the area's propensity for earthquakes may preclude such research since any recent or future tectonic activity could result in bedrock or substratum failure, rendering the proposed site an environmental hazard to groundwater and nearby residences. Sincerely, GUSTA N ASSO ES, INC. F A 73\ " T • i J n B. stav on, President ertified r essional Geologist #2637tr. at r�� 11r n'kkt � � uf Enclosures w'?i. ,5 •b`*, " d. 0 k el��. 91)1a619 REFERENCES USED Billings, M.P., 1972, Structural geology, third edition: Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 606 p. Colorado State Government, 1989,Solid wastes disposal sites and facilities: Colorado Revised Statues, C.R.S. 30-20-101-112. Colton, R.B., and R.L. Lowrie, 1973, Map showing mined areas of the Boulder-Weld Coalfield, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map MF-513. and L.W. Anderson, 1977, Preliminary geologic map of the Erie Quadrangle, Boulder, Weld and Adams Counties, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map MF-882. , 1978, Geologic map of the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley area, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map I-855-G. Davis, T.L., and R.J. Weimer, 1976, Late Cretaceous growth faulting, Denver basin, Colorado: in Professional Contributions of the Colorado School of Mines, Studies in Field Geology, v. 8, p. 280-300. Davis,T.L., 1985, Seismic evidence of tectonic influence on development of Cretaceous listric normal faults, Boulder-Wattenberg-Greeley area, Denver Basin Colorado: in The Mountain Geologist,.Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, v. 22, n. 2, p. 47-54. Dietrich, R.V. et al., 1982, AGI data sheets, for geology in the field, laboratory and, office: American Geological Institute, 61 p. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258 - Solid waste disposal facility criteria: Federal Register v. 53, n. 168, p. 33314-33316, 33332-33335. Goldfarb, W., 1981, Three important court decisions: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 17, n. 6, p. 1097-1098. Kirkham, R.M. and William P. Rogers, 1981, Earthquake potential in Colorado, a preliminary evaluation: Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources Bulletin n. 43, 171 p. Kirkham, R.M. and William P. Rogers, 1985, Colorado earthquake data and interpretations, 1867 to 1965: Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources Bulletin n. 46, 106 p. S j61.9 Rogers, W.P., L.R. Ladwig, A.L. Hornbaker, S.D. Schwochow, S.S. Hart, D.C. Shelton, D.L. Scroggs,-and-J.M. Soule, 1974,Guidelines and criteria for identification of geologic hazard -- - - and mineral resource areas: Colorado Geological Survey, Special Publication n. 6. White, K. R., 1990, Landfill design, operation, and closure plan for the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. facility in southwestern Weld County, Colorado: Project No. 8912-04, 82 p. White, K. R., 1990, Plates 1 through 8 for Landfill design, operation, and closure plan for the proposed Environmental Recycling and Disposal Co. facility in southwestern Weld County, Colorado: Project No. 8912-04. Tweto, O., 1976, Preliminary geologic map of Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-788. 210619 CO •••• --- l 1. 0 • w �) M ;;:. o 1 O I f , 0 V, � i p� O d ii�', I �® 1 i ? Q$N NIL 0 `m E V '. . gIlb • \ vF z d O N 13 dd mr. . *f s f N≤ 7 x or -1 c d CC 4d J W d d d \ , ^ f r / Q�S v o 0 a ' d N O d d E / I • • / f 7NA 4 Y d N 44.011I • ), �. O N'' a U is N C "f I` 1 a \ d N O O 1ir• /II ' I Zn.ji-i . 7 ® 1 1 ccl ID yN W GI I 1\/f �" U V a) 1/4.---1....\ • r•bl.• \ \. J. W o W O C oo ' U .� ao .$ io w, O \ � < \ `an -t0 \ • yr W- 0- [� f•_ dN / INN �I `ryl CM ` .� cc I cc J' k. O to 3 N I • A Ct rTh40 --K(7 t:.5:,?' 2 Q 4 .. / O J rh E- 3- 7 � cv. a 1 << .. �.. 0 1 �� r= i ► t \.., o CO NNtrn _ p C. 0, '. �ol 'ids h�,� Srs \ JW MI� dt. N� 7' \ gy/.aciat 0° 10 3/,p N • -o iWON•"� �,_ ( �f�llra .•'•► `Y+v\�`��•' �i C {1'v r 44CW irT � 0� � - may_ el x - ` L r- c tla� ii, �_ •dc's. dd�_ \ rl T � gp �! �.krA d .! r•A4fl, - -I- —' �' ®fir \ �, o ti i -/ ".f J 1l/. Zoo '/r �` .:. �'� "',. . � ,' r.' .w`s-"�`" -'_ Jib. 5 / , ��' �\ �rw- i �- _ gg p - - - r N/,aAM_ /4,N LH!©)� INCNAVNrN-InN� ASBOt Airl v �• 1525 Rue DeTrust Erie, Colorado 80516 July 8 , 1991 Weld County Commissioners P .O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80631 v, RE : Proposed E .R . D . Landfill in Southwestern Weld County . Parkland Estates opposes the establishment of another landfill in the concentrated area of existing landfills currently located near our community . We feel that there are several important reasons for denial of this application. They are : Concern for the environmental impact to the surface and subsurface resources that are important to future uses of this area. Loss of property values of nearby communities due to traffic , appearance, and lack of community growth potential . Decreased quality of life for communities in close proximity to the landfills due to increased heavy traffic , noise , blowing debris , and night activity . We believe that the current Weld County Zoning Ordinance has correctly identified the land uses that are to the benefit of Weld County and its citizens . We urge you to protect and preserve this area for the future. Respectfully, Jim Denly President Parkland Estates 910619 Parkland Estates —A Residential Air Park e6A J� ...__._.__ _. i lI I JUL 12 ' I Turnipseed Photography v GREELEY. COLO. 44.11-1 10/19 1 3: LOSI& Cb C 1 s-1.WO RV. RAzifizavzQ c P.D . Lott ,:m Soutaut,t,t, Gagick0 eat ak. 3a.mi-,ii -,t ic .,......ekuutp,5 Atedisate,„Lath _soa, ki,„ A. ynizzyultaby ism Gati,3 uciii . (>('n ar.ayv/lml cuc .6-cull- &WC /4„4O 3 04,9 .,cue, And 12/0D . aim d a4126 910 - ,1 WM_ . *E)�48 94 la tot a, aciatD 71ke netiv aka teet te, -fat-0 ,r) C' i)Liiii Znia -fl° a1 gia4n ar 4«;v l\x,, `EBs. oak L .c,(,. &Am Vain/4 4,0 berm u„ )a ci-vite, #0424 Pt .e«,� 9� it a tar- 4owm. � a �3.41911-P� ail -c,47 /O,/o, cao- eve '/�a_ nOn^J newecti SAM- (1St VeleiA0/40 .04,040 �� 1 tua � ham. � b�Q cie `E� (AA v m `(-cto. p att ) (r, `tks C - , rte. � �a, 4 S b cum/ p�,�,,� co.� ,.�, !, rick . � A ,.<Q b� " , �.auna�L Jo hi °�, °/`�e l:5 Asi an Rm4D.�� `1 c � etm c� '\- 1_ .1-R.fsl ca viz f ' o • �wa I p�arc, CO ��. A. \ -034.A)-9.. Oc ' , ��,� u)� Qup s�� tu.). 4 ,J\ v-4 mv.k &J3 raft � • A maa A 'wit a J �c),L4) %._ ll,m (AN cm.. bnaClami) , Rhonda Cleland 3406 WCR 7 Erie, Colorado 80516 (303) 828-3513 91061-3 C9td.14.,6-tx 14-K-- _ - PD a TurnipseedtlIS Photography Comm mm 6:14) Le,Yw‘ 4b e(A st kio a. law.. ,o�, 4- .4m u Cti-iwu cfPt9A.n, w�A�e Vat. ,t. , A s„.v._ �� p ` but -a favrtt- o, la- k%,n a, ado K.WaAYAVG\ 0, 0 umni) im AQUA load* lUt - riA, %Cg'K'Q‘ � , N�oA,, ,a.. . ..vit - „et . . . .th . . ` WissN.) a... `A`Dd wiv,iA r aaSn m L.ut.k.a/J.o �/ Os) off►"W & A � ode � c „o�--Ria n%&61•0. �'� . J earl, IS)-9A43° "A.Q Lia-Um&P 64 c4 .., s -, o S ai, °AA w t \ C �, ` •6- \ --tom , az A la�� \� � w`� -�� 1�Q�cc, vax,� AAAk9, c� wc � .� suvAsk a +.1„,z_ cc---iV % Qs_ Civ\ii) Rhonda Cleland 91G619 3406 WCR 7 Erie, Colorado 80516 (303) 828-3513 _f ` \\r‘vs \S -tr, v\ Ck V�1e \\etc, ,-..15v\v\ Tv\e_ _) C irk lav (II 1,k ® AC Public Information Meeting Q g Q Response to Questions April 6, 1989 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE CONCERNED CITIZENS Question 1. Are the uninspected early cells near monitoring well 103A and B possibly the source of the volatile organic compounds leaking onto Union Pacific land to the north? All of the cells were inspected before any refuse was placed. In addition, all excavations were made to design grade using standard earthwork level survey control. T•jie4, pothesized release'' `of volatiles from 'the`' " 111 n IWOas'-''leakage° through ' the -diner: This is evidenced- the absence of volatiles in the bedrock ground water at the site boundary. Therefore, if the volatiles were released from the fill , the`trelease must :have =occurred' 'as leakage 4-throughanthe sidewall4 not the liner. Question 2 . Does this plume of chemicals near the 103 wells indicate the clay liners are not able to contain material effectively? Please refer to our response to the previous question. Question 3 . What is the likely original source of the chemicals found in wells 103? �\O-k-e. ° The zr chemicals "found , in the samples from ..the 103 , wells:r.were 3' likely• introduced 'in the fill , as : very . small ..quantitieswfrom r householdifetitiiiine'sses. " The chemicals ;rare. constituents 2 of degreasing 4.solvents, •insecticides, .- paint <rremovers,:wf,aer_osol ;a. ` propellants `;ai�edry»;cleaning :fluids.; In .addition, ,they,,can ,be created :My microbial digestion of municipal ,refuse s„during;, methane generation. Question 4 . Are these types of compounds allowed in the landfill? Household hazardous wastes are allowed in all municipal landfills. C191 21)-p S rza-on' o „4_,L y OJUl 12 19q ; ( ) -11- L3 l✓ /. tad GREELEY. COLD. 91(1619 ... e\ld.lA Pj13r LL -„--.� ..11...._41.... . .J22 ) ri i it JUL la. Iggi 11 July 3, 1991 _� To: Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within 1 mile of residential areas. ) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a i mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, .4, c C, ±3OD 4,,..„-,,.._ _, � _ (� � �� .. iC) N- nr. . _ -yyr -� lam' ..�. _. JUL 1 2 July 3, 1991 :GREEI.EY. COLD. To: Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within 1 mile of residential areas. ) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a 1 mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. 00,1e, - /oQ/7</o5 ///�� 6 c e rJ Lys fefiC Respectfully submitted, � �� T�� / o,6_ (a c�� ooa 6 Qi 6 .3 ra r7:A al May 17, 1991 3O- 1 2 To: Weld County Ccmmissioners Y, coLo' GmezLE Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which are causing - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated -Unsightliness of operaticn near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. Ranch Eggs Estates and Leisure Living subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions , of Erie are slightly over a mule. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. _ These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, lutit5intiCv ELLON y. �+. vNILSON), '1LG 1.9 �C1S7 P-11G July 3, 1991 JUL 1 2 To: Weld County Commissioners GREELEt GOV,. P.O. Box 758 -- Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within 1 mile of residential areas. ) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a g mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfull ubmmittedgia,Y4lAltAA- .�6 6 S4 fro F-frt r sT. . .R( , r o , gPst Csz W41l\ pnndN f^"' cci�"74RS July 3, 1991 1111'"e JUL 1 2 To: Weld County Commissioners E_— Cdr' G P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within Z mile of residential areas. ) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a 'd mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, too n .J .�>19 fir: e Or, (c), r)�2 � e_ 5/0 > a.:,.n June 24, 1991 `I c°1"°.To: Weld County Commissioners ' Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within 1 mile of residential areas. ) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this development and has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, �7�� ezd a 'to l�J/CLt y S10619 T_ P. O. Box 204 r,- Erie, CO 80516 r... July 9, 1991 Weld County Commissioners P. O. Box 758 -- Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, CO Dear Commissioners: We have a desire to let you know that we are opposed to the above proposed landfill/recycling facility. You are already aware that there are operating landfills in this area, and therefore the residents of this area should not have to shoulder the effects of any more if they oppose such development. We live on Road 3 , and it has become quite apparent in recent years of the problems caused by landfills: Increase of heavy truck traffic Tremendous amount of scattered trash on site and on route of the trucks Road damage Lights and Noise caused by operation of the equipment on site Possible extensive water pollution Ugliness of site near residences Ruination of lifestyles in the area Discouragement of growth, residential and commercial We have lived close to the current landfills and feel that we have borne enough of the problems. We ask you to please consider denying the proposal , for the same residents will have a new set of problems with which to contend. Perhaps the citizens of this area have not had their interests protected in the past as they had expected from our elected officials , but that can change. Since Weld County does not need this facility, we do not feel that we need to be the dumping ground for the metro area. We have done our part---now let' s quit this type of development and make Southern Weld County a proud and positive place in which to live; not to have to apologize for the negative direction it has drifted into in years past. Let' s turn around the trend of devaluation of home values. We moved here almost 17 years ago, believing that this would be a community in which to raise our family, one in which our interests would be protected. Another such development would erode that protection. We ask only for your careful scrutiny and to ask yourselves the question, "What would my decision be if I lived within sight, sound and smell of this type of facility; if everything I had worked for was here, too?" Respectfully submitted, -mot/ 91061.9 Ev-0, 64 r rrN ,5 July 3, 1991 To: Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice our opposition to this proposed 200 acre landfill and recycling facility and bring to your attention some of our concerns. We had hoped to see an end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area-Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within mile of residential areas.) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and the proposal is definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Broomfield is opposed to this develop::entland has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residential section within a g mile. These landfills serve the entire metro area - not just Weld County, as you well know, and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the entire metro area. The area has better potential, too much population and valuable, hard-earned home values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, 19z 8 Mtn OA/ `64' : 1.0619 CLLI et July 3, 1991 To: Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Re: Proposed E.R.D. Landfill in Southwestern Weld County, Colorado We would like to voice opposition on t of this proposed concerns 200 acre had landfill and hoped to see recycling an facility and bring to your attention end to the landfills in this area which will continue to cause - -Increasing dangerous truck traffic on all surrounding roads in the area -Damage to roads in the area �, -Blowing trash from site on hill and trash hauling trucks -Lights from equipment operated -Noise from equipment operated and truck traffic -Unsightliness of operation near residences -Air pollution - small quantities emitted with methane gas -Water contamination likely, as shown by the old and current landfills nearby -Loss in potential Denver metro growth spinoff -Decreased property values for Town and County taxes -Decreased property values for individuals -Difficulty selling properties -Increased bird populations endangering pilots at two nearby airparks -Manmade mountains to obstruct views -Loss of quality of life - rural lifestyle and residential lifestyle (Area is within z mile of residential areas.) Many of these problems constitute substantive reasons for the Commissioners to deny the proposal. In addition, a 24 hour operation with 100 employees would cause another disruption of residential lifestyles. Ranch Eggs Estates, Carol Heights and Leisure Living Subdivision are residential developments and farms less than 1 mile from the development. The residential portions of Erie are slightly over a mile. The Town of Erie is opposed to the E.R.D. proposal and thehepr this development l is definitely vis definitely within Erie's Urban Growth Boundary. Bromfield is oppose has other plans for this area. They have zoned a residentialsection ect County, as well within a These landfills serve the entire metro area - not j ust Weld and we feel our burden has been borne. The facility in not needed for Weld County residents and certainly has questionable need for the an entire metro hard-earned home The area has better potential, too much population values. One negative does not justify the next, but it does encourage it - just as positives can beget positives. We do not want to see this area continue to develop in this manner. Please fulfill your obligation to protect the citizens' interests in this area. We are sure you will all carefully deliberate a proposal with such tremendous current impact on the citizens and future impact on the use of the land and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, t N0.01 �---2 .rIL '619 Eichibi -1- OD Hello