The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About690191.tiffAPPROVAL OF SITE COMMERCIAL FEED LOT MONFORT FEED LOT, INC.: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Wednesday, May 21, 1969, at 2:30 P. M. in the District Court Room, Weld County Courthouse, Greeley, Colorado, for the purpose of hearing the petition of Monfort Feed Lots, Inc., Greeley, Colorado, requesting approval of site for a commercial feed lot operation on the following described property, to -wit: Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado, including other adjacent properties in the immediate vicinity that may be included into a contemplated general feed lot operation, and WHEREAS, the petitioner was present and represented by counsel, and WHEREAS, there was some opposition to the change opposition was represented by counsel, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard and statements from those present, and of zone and said all the testimony WHEREAS, the said requested commercial feed lot operation is in an agricultural zone as set forth by the Planning Commission of Weld County, and WHEREAS, according to Section 3.3 (3) (a) (b) (c) of the Zoning Resolution of Weld County, said commercial feed lot operation may be auth- orized upon the approval of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, and WHEREAS, the Weld County Planning Commission has recommended that this commercial feed lot operation be approved by a Resolution dated May 7, 1969. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Monfort Feed Lots, Inc., Greeley, Colorado, is hereby authorized to operate a commercial feed lot operation on the following described property, to -wit: Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado, including other adjacent properties in the immediate vicinity that may be included into a contemplated general feed lot operation, and as provided by Section 3.3 (3) (a) (b) (c) of the Zoning Resolution of Weld County, Colorado. The above and foregoing resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote: AYES: DATED: JULY 16, 1969 /lea C/r2Tlet->lW THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PL0774 690191 May 21, 1969 I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated May 7, 1969 and duly published. A public hearing was had for a commercial feedlot operation as requested by Monfort Feedlots Incorporated, at the time and place specified in said notice. The evidence presented was taken under advisement. ATTEST: (, nnit !J��y J COUNTY CLEyR AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD 'CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 2 -7171t - May 28, 1969 I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dateiMay 7, 1969, requesting a Commercial Feedlot Operation by the Monfort Feed Lots Incorporated is hereby withdrawn by the petitioner's attorney, ?gpert Ruyle. ATTEST: (l✓7Lv:/21el COUNTY CLERIUAND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD 'CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO o/ / NOTICE A public hearing will be held in the Office of The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Court House, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the proposed location for a commercial feed yard operation are requested to attend and may be heard. DOCKET NO. 13 Monfort Feed Lots Inc. Box 1290 Greeley, Colorado DATE: May 21, 1969 TIME: 2:30 P. M. REQUEST: For approval of commercial feed yard operation on the following described property, to —wit: All of Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., Weld County, Colorado, except the East Half of the Southeast Quarter (EZ,SEf), containing 560 acres m/1 DATED: MAY 7, 1969 Publish May 9, 1969 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: ANN SPOMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD 4/3L/69 /69 Monfort feed Lots, Inc. cox 1290 Greeley, Colorado Gentlemen: Your application for approval of a site for a cattle feeding operation south and west of LaSalle will be reviewed by the :field County Planning Commission, Monday, kay 5, 1969 at 4:15 P. E. in the Planning C1+mmlssion office, Services building. Sincerely, Dorothy Hill, Secretary c)Al the -feed lots in the best possible condition. Mr. Watson '7/ asked about the Union Ditch. fir, Oliver stated the holding pomi would be above it and they would pipe under the ditch for excessive ' over flow. Mr. Ruyla stated this will be treated like sewage. Mr. Bean asked about the 660' requirement on set —backs. Stated the proceedure in the past has been fcr the Plnnntng Commission to make a recommendation to the County Ceamissiors-s at the request of the County Conissionere. Mr. !oa;:ort stated he would project a useful Lii. e of 25 to 30 years. RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval of the site for Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. to the County Commissioners for the follow - in reasons: The request conforms to requirements stated in Sec III (3) Uses permitted in the "A" Agricultural District (A) Commercial feed yards shall be located at least 660 feet fro* any resident on another lot, from any public place of assembly, and from any E., R, H, NH, T, B, or S, zoning district boundary line; (b) Commercial feed yards shall be located at least 660 feet from any State or Fed- eral Highway right of way. 2. It is located in a general area which now includes a number of commercial feed lots. 3. In view of the location on the south side of the river, the su.'rronnM ng area is not or likely to be in the future a concentrated area or prime resident- ial area. 4. The site has unique features in being adjacent to a railroad line, has adequate Water supply and access to essential public utilities and adequate drainage can be provided. 5. The app- licants have indicated conformacy and ability to install essential essential health protection measures, buffer zones in the proper manner. 6. The request does not conflict with any previously adop- ted long range plans or established comprehensive plans. Motion by Mr. Heitra , second by Mr. LePore. Vote was 4 to 1 in favor, 1 abstained. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Niwot Sanitation District SUBJECT: Sewage Treatment Facility LOCATION: Sid Sec 7 T2 R68 APPEARANCE: DISCUSSION: Wayne Irelan and Howard Morton, John Hc21ab, Attorney Mfr, Irelan statecthe Niwot Sanitation District had been formed to provide domestic sewage and treatment south and west of Longmont. They asking approval of the site, This ;s the logical location. It would be an aerated lagoon sized for a population of about 2500 people. The existlrg population in the area is no where near 2500. Will take care of the growth for 5 to 7 years. The plan has been reviewed by the City of Longmont, by the State Water Pollution Board, .and by the Federal water Pollution Control Commission and have given their approval. Mr. Paul asked why they couldn't put this in Boulder County. The only reason is that is the confluence of the drainage that we have our main trank line. Mr. Bartel asked Mr. Irelan to tell them why it's much better than in Boulder County. "At this site we can pick up further areas from Longmont and from the north side of the river. Ken White Company prepared a master plan for the City of Longmont, this is one of 3 sites that they proposed for a proper loc- ation for a sewage treatment plant." Thought it might be the site of a mechanical plant in the future. Mr. Bean inquired about the surrounding property owners. Mr. Morton stated the nearest house is about 600'. The purpose of locating here is in their long range plan. • DISCUSSION: Mr. =enfold snoested mobil: home for father. , MOTION: By Mr. Bowles to deny request — does not rieet reg nations. Second by hr. LePore. A unanimous vote of "Aye".. Motion carried. SUBJECT: Land Ilse Study DISCUSSION: Trafton i3ean would 1i e to Co ahead with work on the Land Use Study. The contract for the "701 Comprehensive Plan has not been signed with the state. 45000.00 of the 1969 budget was allocated toward this. 422CO.00 has been ;aid to the state. LOTION: B Mr. Heitman that the amount allocated in the 1969 budget be used toward this study. Second by Mr. Nix. A unanimous vote of "Aye". Motion carried. SUBJECT: Regional Planning Commission DISCUSSION: Mr. Bean has been contacted to contact Larimer County and set a meet- ing date - possibly July 21, 1969. SUBJECT: Election of officers MOTION: By Mr. Heitman to elect Ben Nix as chairman for the coming year and Philip Bowles as Vice -Chairman. Second by Mr. LePore. A tiranirnous vote of "Aye". Motion carried, APPLICANT: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NUMBER: Z-93 RESOLUTION: By Board of County Commissioners to approve a change of zone from fl1" to "A"- had been granted as conditional zone for 18 months. Dated July 16, 1969. C. APPLICANT: Monfort Feed Lots , /� _C; 1 CASE NUMBER: Rec 021 RESOLUTION: By Board of County Commissioners to approve site for commercial t operation. Dated July 16, 1969. APPLICANT: Chas. Kinder — Curt Bailey CASE NUMBER: S-61 RESOLUTION: By Board of County Commissioners to approve ded of R/W and plat for filing for Jo -Ann Subdivision. Dated July 16, 1969 APPLICANT: A. E. Pi,lking ✓on CASE NUMBER: S-66 RESOLUTION: By Board of County Commissioner to approve ded of R/W and plat for filing for Sunny Acres Subdivision. Dated July 16, 1969. APPLICANT: Jeea Martin - CASE NUMBER: S-67 RESOLUTION: By Board of County Commissioners to approve ded of R/W and plat for filing for Martin Subdivision. Dated July 16, 1969. APPLICANT: George Hoecher CASE NUMBER: S-52 RESOLUTION: By Board of County Commissioners to approve ded of R/W and plat for filing of Pinnacle Park Subdivision 2nd Filing. Dated July 16, 1969. Respectfully submitted, Dorothy Pill Secretary MILLER AND RUYLE ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW DAVID J. MILLER -ROBERT A. RUVLE-WALKER D. MILLER Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Weld County Court House Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: TELEPHONE NO. 352-9467 1004 A NINTH AVE. 90.60X749 GREELEY, COLORADO 8O631 July 14, 1969 Re: In the matter of the appli- cation of Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. for approval of location of a commercial cattle feed lot. On May 27, 1969 I withdrew the application of Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. for approval of a part of Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Weld County, Colorado for consideration as a commercial feed lot. Since that date, the Monforts have reconsidered the withdrawal of their application, and have advised me to initiate such action as the Commissioners desire for the reconsideration of our original application. It is our desire that the Commissioners consider the original application based upon the previous proceedings before the Weld County Planning Commission and the public hearing held by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. The Company expects that the initial construction will be deferred pending new financial arrangements. We would appreciate having your approval of the location at the present time so as to enable us to move forward with our plans. If there is anything further which you desire of the Company, please advise me at your convenience. Very truly yours, et -LA - AZ -4 (-44,4-/ Robert A. Ruyle RAR/cc cc: Weld County Planning Commission 9th Avenue and 9th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Mr. James H. Shelton Attorney at Law 1025 - 9th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Mr. James W. Heyer Attorney at Law 1700 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80202 Mr. Samuel S. Telep County Attorney, Weld County First National Bank Building Greeley, Colorado 80631 Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. P. O. Box 1290 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attn: Kenneth W. Monfort BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF COLORADO Case No. Rec. #21 In re Application of MONFORT FEED LOTS, INC. for Approval of a Proposed 100,000 head Cattle Feeding Operation in Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West, 6th P.M. PETITION TO VACATE RESOLUTION AND FOR A REHEARING Petitioners, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully request the Weld County Planning Commission, and each and every member thereof, to vacate its Resolution adopted May 7, 1969, which favorably recommended to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that they approve the application of Monfort Feed Lots, Inc., to locate a 100, 000 head commercial cattle feeding operation in Section 9 and adjacent areas of Township 4 North, Range 66 West, 6th P.M.; and Petitioners further pray that a re -hearing be had upon said application at a date and time certain, affording petitioners a reasonable opportunity to be heard in opposition thereto, for the following reasons: 1. Petitioners are citizens of the United States residing in the City of Greeley, its suburban areas and in other nearby communities of Weld County in the State of Colorado, who have formed an unincorporated association known as "Operation Fresh Air, " R. K. Hart, Chairman, for the purpose of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the people of Weld County, their property rights and their right to free enjoyment of fresh air in an unpolluted atmosphere as guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution of the United States. Petitioners act for themselves individually, as well as in a representative capacity on behalf of all residents of Greeley and its environs who are and will be similarly aggreived. 2. According to the "Official Zoning Resolution," revised September 19, 1968, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for land use within certain unincorporated zoning areas of Weld County, Colorado, the principal function of the Weld County Planning Commission, as an advisory board, is to "aid in the preparation of plans and standards for future growth, " applying a "common sense division of business residential, and industrial areas" in the best interests of "the public health, safety and welfare." As illustrative of this purpose and function, the Introduction, page 1 of the official resolution, recognizes that "a new business unit will wish to locate ... away from industrial nuisances." 3. Petitioners urge that the enormous commercial cattle feeding operation proposed by the applicant is an industrial nuisance and will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare if allowed at the location intended. Applicant itself recognizes this on page 2 of its proposal where it states that: "The placement of this facility will predictably cause a few problems ... There will undoubtedly be a few close neighbors who would rather not have a new big industry move in the area." 4. Although a cattle feed lot meeting the conditions set forth under Sec. 12.2 (9) (a) -(c) of the Official Zoning Resolution might well be a permitted "farm use" (depending upon its location) in an "A" Agricultural District, a commercial operation of the magnitude proposed by the Applicant is wholly industrial in nature, and constitutes a public nuisance if located in close proximity to residential areas of a community. To the extent that the Official Zoning Resolution of Weld County allows Applicant's feed lots as a "permitted use" at the location proposed, the same is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and, to the extent that the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County recommend or tolerate the same, such approval is unlawful and unconstitutional pursuant to the Ninth Amendment. No body can legislate away the rights of petitioners, or the fact that the operation proposed will constitute an abatable "public nuisance." -2- • 5. It is obvious, from Applicant's own written proposal submitted to this Planning Commission on April 29, 1969, that the most important consideration (being the public health, safety and welfare) has been relegated by Applicant to second position, behind its own selfish economic interests. In order of their importance, Applicant lists on page 1 of its Proposal, the two major considerations as being "First, we naturally wanted to be as close to the present Packing Plant as possible, keeping in mind that the transporting of some 700 head of finished cattle to the plant would be a daily task and expense for years to come. This will, with time, involve literally millions upon millions of tons. "Secondly, and opposed to the first consideration, we want the new lots to be so situated geographically and far enough away from the City of Greeley to avoid any furtherance of the problems we have had with the community. We feel the prpposed site will satisfy both of these criteria." Applicant recognizes that these two considerations are incompatible, yet at an ex parte, non-public meeting before this Planning Commission on May 7, 1969, Applicant succeeded in convincing some members of the commission that the site chosen will satisfy them both. 6. It is equally obvious from an examination of the reasons given by the Planning Commission for recommending approval of Monfort's proposal, that the following factors essential to consider in any determination of what may or may not be in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare, were either not considered, or if considered were ignored: a) That the sickening, nauseating and highly offensive odors which will flow over, upon and permeate the City of Greeley and adjacent communities, will further endanger the health and welfare of residents thereof by -3- causing nausea, sleeplessness, and revulsion, thereby imposing a physiological and psychological burden on persons subjected thereto; b) That the foul and noisome odors and fumes rising daily from the accumulation of feces, urine, filth and dust of 100,000 cattle, will cause a malodorous pollution of the air over the Greeley area which will adversely affect business conditions, property values and will impede industrial development; c) That the increased truck traffic necessary to carry feed and transport 700 cattle daily to the Monfort Packing Plant in Greeley, will pose a hazard to the safety of children and residents of the Greeley community; d) That since production will double at the packing plant if this proposal is granted, pollution of the waters of the Cache la Poudre River will increase accordingly, from twice as many 6 -inch diameter rancid greaseballs coming from the Monfort Packing Plant, a condition which the chief sanitarian for the Weld County Health Department has already found to exist; e) That large swarms of flies, mosquitos, and other insects, breeding and multiplying in piles of offal and filth, and in pools of urine and contamin+ water, will spread over Greeley and adjacent areas enhancing the risk of disease to the petitioners and others; f) That such odors and the pollution of water and atmosphere will be also the cause of mental distress detrimental to the health of this community and will deny to petitioners and others, their common-law, constitutional and statutory right to enjoyment, benefit and use of their property. 7. If the Board of County Commissioners should approve the location proposed by Applicant as recommended by this Planning Commission, petitioners and all in the class whom they represent, shall have been deprived of due process of law. Respectfull JAMES W. HEYER Attorney at Law 1700 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80202 mitted, S H. SHELT ney at Law 5 - 9th Avenue Greeley, Colorado ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS -4- L/ 7 � JAMES H. SHELTON ATTORNEY AT LAW FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 July 15, 1969 Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado Weld County Court House Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: Re: In the matter of the application of Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. for approval of location of a commercial cattle feed lot. I have received today a copy of the letter dated July 14, 1969, of Mr. Robert A. Ruyle, counsel for Monfort Feed Lots, Inc., addressed to you, which advises that Monfort requests reconsideration by you of the original appli- cation of Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. for approval of the location of a Proposed 100, 000 Head Cattle Feeding Operation in Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., in Weld County, Colorado. As you know, Mr. James W. Heyer and I represent certain persons designated as Protestants opposing the granting of said application. Mr. Heyer and I wish the record in this matter to show that the Protestants object to your reconsideration of said original application. If you do choose to reconsider the original application, then and in that event, we respectfully request that you apply all testimony, all exhibits, all argument and the legal brief we supplied to you (in other words the complete record heretofore made) as still being asserted by said Protestants in opposition to the granting of a permit for said proposed location. We assume from the tenor of Mr. Ruyle's letter to you that he does not propose to appear personally before you, but simply to have the matter decided on the basis of the existing record. If you desire that any of the legal counsel, or any of the parties involved, should appear before you, we will do so. fncerelyp(�// �Q� /j ^`(Z��cc��'lo mes H. Shelton JHS:ibm cc: Weld County Planning Commission 9th Avenue and 9th Street Greeley, Colorado Miller and Ruvle Attorneys at L.Zw P. O. Box 749 Greeley, Colorado Mr. Samuel S. Telep County Attorney, Weld County, Colorado First National Bank Building Greeley, Colorado MARSHALL H. ANDERSON. CHAIRMAN 2412 ETH AYE., GREELEY, COLO. GLENN K. BILLINGS, CHAIRMAN PRO-TEM RT. 2, BOX IET, GREELEY, COLO. HAROLD W. ANDERSON, MEMBER RT. I, JOHNSTOWN, COLO. SAMUEL S. TELEP COUNTY ATTORNEY ANN SPOMER, COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF BOARD PHONE 353-2212 EXT. 21 OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7/'A; Received this first day of August, 1969, the following listed exhibits from our file LHR 474; Commercial Feedlot Operations, Monfort Feedlot, Inc. Applicant's Exhibit #2 " #1 " #5 y _ MILLER AND RUYLE ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW DAVID U. MILLER -ROBERT A. RUYLE-WALKER D. MILLER Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Weld County Court House Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: TELEPHONE NO. 352-9467 1004 A NINTH AVE. P. 0. BOK 749 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 May 27, 1969 Re: In the matter of the application of Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. for approval of location of commercial cattle feed lot. On behalf of Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. we respectfully request that the application of the Company, now pending before the Commission for approval of a part of Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Weld County, Colorado for a commercial feed lot location, be with- drawn from further consideration. We wish to express our appreciation to the Commissioners and to the Planning Commission for their prompt attention to our application and the courtesies extended to the Company for the considerations given to the application to date. Very truly yours, Robert A. Ruyle RAR/cc cc: Weld County Planning Commission 9th Avenue and 9th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Mr. James H. Shelton Attorney at Law 1025 9th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Mr. James W. Heyer Attorney at Law 1700 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80202 Mr. Samuel S. Telep County Attorney, Weld County First National Bank Building Greeley, Colorado 80631 Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. P. O. Box 1290 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attn: Kenneth W. Monfort BOULDER COUNTY ASSESSOR P.O. Box 471 BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 Telephone 442-2991 May 21, 1969 James Shelton Attorney at Law 205 1st National Bank Building Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Jim: NAOMI I. STOFFLE Assessor Boulder County As requested in our phone conversation this morning the assessed values for Boulder and Longmont are as follows: 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Boulder Longmont $ 75,480,150. 81,767,520. 84,990,550. 90,473,750. 101,589,880. 111,179,910. $24,326,660. 26,965,220. 28,568,280. 30,051,590. 33,266,220.* 36,590,850. *amended valuation for 1967 in Longmont. If we can be of any further assistance please don't hesitate to call. CLM/js Sincerely yours, Carol L. Musser Chief Clerk Boulder County Assessor's Office GEORGE E. BARBER ASSESSOR DOROTHY M. ALLEN DEPUTY COUNTY ASSESSOR G.R'E E LEY, CO LO. 80631 y c i �irce._L, HiarLer e1 t.� I:_S,r LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF ASSESSOR May 21, 1°69 Mr. James H. Shelton Attorney _ at -Law 205 1st National Bank Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sir: TELEPHONE 482-7006 The following is a list of the assessed valuations for the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins for the years 1963 thru 1968, which you requested by phone May 21. We hope it is what you needed. Ft. Collins 1963 $36,419,740 1964 39,500,520 1965 44,337,310 1966 48,574,670 1967 52,162,120 1968 56,501,610 Loveland $18,281,620 20,240,800 21,423,920 23,164,440 24,945,060 26,360,620 We hope this will be of help to you. Very truly yours, t O /I JHB:1l James H. Buchanan Larimer County Assessor BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STATE OF COLORADO Case No. Rec. #21 In re Application of MONFORT ) FEED LOTS, INC. for Approval ) of a Proposed 100,000 Head ) Cattle Feeding Operation in ) Section 9, Township 4 North, ) Range 66 West, 6th P.M. ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO LOCATION OF PROPOSED MONFORT FEED LOT Counsel for protestants hereby respectfully submit the following Memorandum of Law in support of the arguments of protestants acting individually and on behalf of all those citizens and residents of the City of Greeley and its environs, who being entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of an unpolluted atmosphere without diminution and degradation, will be aggrieved by the emission of noxious and nauseous odors and substances from the premises chosen by Applicant in his proposal: 1. Constitutional Right of the Citizens of Greeley to Fresh Air and a Clean and Healthy Environment. It is the fundamental constitutional right of all people to the enjoyment of an unpolluted air supply and to an environment undiminished in quality by noxious and harmful substances. For ecological reasons, the emission of noxious and noisome substances and odors from the location selected by Monfort will violate this fundamental right which is guaranteed to all citizens of this community under the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, .. nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ... " "... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Further, the fundamental right is superior to any right which Monfort may assert under the Zoning Resolution of Weld County or any resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant thereto, because the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Article VI, section 2 thereof, so provides as follows: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." A condition which endangers health is a danger to life and the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Congress has also recognized that air pollution is a danger to the public health. In enacting the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C.A. Secs. 1857 et seq., it concluded that "the growth in the amount and complexity of air pollution brought about by urbanization and industrial development ... has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare" because, inter alia, there is "strong evidence that air pollution is associated with a number of respiratory ailments." See legislative history to Section 1857(a)(2), Staff report to the Senate Committee on Public Works, A Study of Pollution --Air. See also United States v. Bishop Processing Company, 287 F. Supp. 624 (D.C.Md. 1968), footnote 12 at page 630. -2- The Bishop case settles the question as to whether non -visible or "odorous pollution" is pollution of the air sufficient to endanger the public health. The complaint in the Bishop case alleged that "the malodorous pollution consists of sickening, nauseating, and highly offensive odors ... Such noxious, malodorous air pollution endangers the health and welfare of the persons in the town of Selbyville, Delaware and adjacent and contiguous areas. It causes nausea, sleeplessness, and revulsion, thereby imposing a physiological and psychological burden on persons subjected thereto; and it adversely affects business conditions and property values and impedes industrial development." supra, p. 631. Defendant argued that "offensive odors" do not constitute "air pollution." The Court held in the Bishop case that such offensive odors as those emitted by defendant's plant constituted "air pollution" because "we are dealing in this case with the movement of foul or unclean 'physical molecules of matter' whose presence is recognized by their odor." Supra, p. 632. It should be carefully noted that the offensive odors in the Bishop case were emitted from defendant's cattle rendering and animal reduction plant. 2. Constitutional Right of the Citizens of Greeley to the Use and Enjoyment of Property. There exists not only a common law but a constitutional right to the use and enjoyment of one's property, and to cause pollution of the atmosphere and air above one's land is to deprive him of the use and enjoyment thereof. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States prohibit such deprivation without "due process of law." Due process of law means more than the simple exercise of a power which the Board of Commissioners may feel exists under the Weld County Zoning Resolution. The constitutional guarantee of due process was not intended to prohibit -3- government regulation for the public welfare, but the due process clause does condition that the exercise of such power shall be for the public safety. A constitutional principle, vital because essential to peace and safety, is that all property is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it will not be injurious to the community. Property rights are not absolute and one may not use his property to the detriment of others. Ronade Associates v. Department of Conservation, 72 A 2d 355, 7 N.J. Super. 132 (1950) 3. Monfort's Feedlot at the Location Proposed Will Violate These Constitutional Rights. Insufficient evidence was presented before the Board of Commissioners at the public hearing held May 21, 1969, to justify a finding that the feed lot proposed will not be inimical to the public health and safety. Testimony that its design conforms to State standards does not relate to the important problem of its proximity to this community. Mr. Paul's opinion that it would not constitute a health hazard fails to take into consideration the serious medical, biological and ecological consequences involved, concerning which he is unqualified to speak on. Protestants have shown through qualified, scientific testimony, that the feedlot at the location proposed will be injurious to the public health, and we offered to prove by other expert testimony that the same will constitute "an environmental health hazard, " a "mental health problem from a psychological and psychiatric standpoint, " will "affect the respiratory system" in some people, and will cause a "serious environmental deterioration" of the community. We respectfully urge that it was a denial of due process of law to refuse protestants a reasonable opportunity to present such evidence on a matter of such importance, and it will be a further denial of due process of law if the application is approved. -4- 4. Any Resolution Approving the Location Proposed Will be Contrary to Law. a) As a Public Nuisance. Simply from the standpoint of interference with the comfort of the citizens of Greeley, the proposed feed lot will constitute a nuisance. "In order to amount to a nuisance, it is not necessary that the corruption of the atmosphere should be such as to be dangerous to health; it is sufficient that the effluvia are offensive to the senses, and render habitation uncomfortable. "The right to pure air is incident to the ownership of land, and is entitled to the same protection as any other valuable right. However, the right to pure air means pure air consistent with the locality and nature of the community. The pollution of the atmosphere as far as is reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of life and indispensable to the progress of society is not an actionable interference with the rights of others, and accordingly the pollution of the atmosphere does not always constitute a nuisance." 66 CJS 776, Section 23, Nuisances. The same is true with respect to smell. "Members of the public have the right to be free from annoyance by obnoxious odors, and it is well established that noxious smells or odors may constitute a nuisance, although they are not unwholesome or injurious to the health but merely offensive and unpleasant. However, every disagreeable smell is not an actionable nuisance; and, in determining whether unpleasant odors constitute a nuisance, it is not only proper, but necessary, to take into consideration all the surrounding circumstances of the case, such as the extent of the injury or annoyance and the locality." 66 CJS 778-779, Section 23, Nuisances. (Underscoring ours.) 39 Am. Jur. 285, 286, Sec. 8, Nuisances, defines a "public" nuisance as: "A public nuisance has been defined as the doing of or the failure to do something that injuriously affects the safety, health, or morals of the public, or works some substantial annoyance, inconvenience, or injury to the public, and as a nuisance which causes hurt, inconvenience, or damage to the public generally, or such part of the public as necessarily comes in contact with it." The Colorado Supreme Court has held that a slaughter house was a continuing nuisance because of the sickening odors which reached a residence in the vicinity. Wright v. Ulrich, 40 Colo. 437, 91 P. 43. There, the Court said: "It may be laid down broadly as a general rule that any act, omission, or use of property which results in polluting the atmosphere with noxious or offensive effluvia, gases, stenches, or vapors, thereby -5- producing material physical discomfort and annoyance to those residing in the vicinity or injury to their health or property, is a nuisance." In Krebs vs. Hermann, 90 Colo. 61, 6 P. 2d 907, the maintenance of dog kennels to the continuous annoyance and discomfort of adjoining property owners from offensive odors and noise was held to be enjoinable as a nuisance because their sleep was interrupted and their reasonable use and enjoyment of their property was disturbed. Even though disinterested and competent health officers, both of the state and local government, testified that the kennels were models of their kind, clean and well ventilated, the Court held that "in the very nature of things, offensive smells and odors arise therefrom." In Seigle v. Bromley, 22 Colo. App. 189, 124 P. 191, it was held that although the keeping of swine is a lawful business, to maintain a place offensive from odor and detrimental to the health and comfort of the public, is both a public and a private nuisance. Protestants have, of course, their right at law to sue for damages as well as the equitable remedies of injunction and abatement. However, this does not justify the Board of Commissioners giving approval and sanction to that which threatens the health of citizens and constitutes a public nuisance as well. b) As an Unlawful "Industrial" Use. An enormous cattle feeding operation such as that proposed by the Applicant, is an "industry," as Applicant itself admits. It was never intended that the Zoning Resolution of Weld County should allow a feed lot of such magnitude as a permitted use in the "A" Agricultural District, within 660 feet from residences, and mingled with fairgrounds, studios, theatres and places where food and beverage are served. If the Zoning Resolution is construed by county officials so as to allow the Board of Commissioners to approve this proposal, then such code is unlawful and any approval by the commissioners is an abuse of discretion. -6- It has generally been held to be no defense to a railroad in an action against it for the creation of a nuisance in the form of a stockyard, that it was specifically authorized to maintain such a structure by its charter or by statute. Thus, in Burrows v. Texas & N.O.R. Co. (1932, Tex Civ App) 54 SW 2d 1090, error dismissed, the railroad was enjoined from maintaining a stock pen and dipping vat near the residence of the plaintiff in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance, the court saying that although the law permitted and required railroads to erect and maintain stock pens, it could not be assumed that the legislature intended to legalize a nuisance and to allow them to be arbitrarily located in residential portions of a city. And the defendant's erection and maintenance of stockyards on its right of way adjacent to the plaintiff's residence was held to constitute a nuisance so as to subject it to damages, in Anderson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. (1902) 85 Minn 337, 88 NW 1001, notwithstanding the railroad's contention that the statute authorizing it to furnish facilities for that purpose gave it the right to select any place on its right of way for the maintenance of yards for reception and shipment of stock, the court saying that this authority did not authorize the erection and maintenance of a nuisance to the injury of adjacent property owners. "As a general proposition, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary interests, or a convenience to the defendant." 39 Am Jur 471, Sec. 195, Nuisances. In the City of Phoenix vs. Johnson, 75 P 2d 30 (Ariz., 1938), the City of Phoenix had a sewage disposal plant and this was a lawful activity and a necessary activity on the part of the City, however, the Court found no fault with the following instruction given by the trial court: "You are further instructed that even though you may find the defendant's sewage disposal plant to have been properly constructed and efficiently operated, if notwithstanding these factors, such plant constitutes a nuisance to the plaintiffs, the manner of construction and operation constitutes no defense to plaintiffs' cause of action." -7- And in the City of Phoenix vs. Johnson case there was no claim that the nuisance was illegal, that is, there was no claim that it was a public nuisance, the case being tried on the theory of a private nuisance. However, the case does definitely hold that the operation of the plant in the manner in which it was operated constituted a private nuisance and that the defendant was liable therefor. The fact that the operation of the sewage disposal plant was lawful did not relieve the city of liability. "While it is true that a sewer system is, indeed, a vital necessity for the maintenance of health in any large municipality, even that necessity does not authorize the municipality to injure the person or the property of another without responsibility therefor." City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra, at page 37 in 75 P 2d. The Board of Commissioners cannot, by simply giving the stamp of approval to Applicant's proposal on the theory that the Zoning Resolution allows it as a permitted use, legislate away the common-law and constitutional rights of protestants, nor will such approval alter the fact that the feed lot proposed is an "industry," a health hazard and a public as well as private nuisance. ectfully submitte S H. SHELTON orney at Law 1025 - 9th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 JAMES W. HEYER /Attorney at Law 1700 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80202 ATTORNEYS FOR PROTESTANTS P. 0. Box 86 Gilcrest, Colorado 80623 I6ay 22, 1969 Weld County Commissioners Weld County Court House Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sirs: The members of the Gilcrest Planning Commission would like to express our approval of the proposed Monfort feed lot to be built 2ti> miles north of Gilcrest. Sincerely, Art Pendergraft Sec. Gilcrest Planning Commission Gil.crsst, Colorado .. �. 21, 196? Commissioners ': ield County Greeley, Colorado Dear Sirs: At the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Ton of Gilcrest on May 12, 1969, unanimous support was expressed on behalf of the proposed feedlot to be constructed by Monfort of Colorado two miles north of. Gilcrest. In addition I have been authorized to s;eak for the Town cf Gilcrest in favor of the proposed feedlot if it seems that such support would be needed. cerely, Dean Crosier Yayor Pro Tem 'tl BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STATE OF COLORADO Case No. Rec. #21 In re Application of MONFORT FEED LOTS, INC. for Approval of a Proposed 100,000 Head Cattle Feeding Operation in Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West, 6th P.M. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Robert A. Ruyle, Attorney at Law, do hereby certify that on the 4th day of November, 1969, I mailed a copy of the Motion in the above captioned to James H. Shelton, Attorney at Law, 1025 - 9th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631, and to James W. Heyer, Attorney at Law, 1700 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80202, by depositing a copy thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to them at their respective offices. MILLER AND RUYLE By: Robert A. Ruyle Attorney at Law 1004A Ninth Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Telephone: 352-9467 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STATE OF COLORADO Case No. Rec. #21 In re Application of MONFORT FEED LOTS, INC. for Approval of a Proposed 100,000 Head Cattle Feeding Operation in Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West, 6th P.M. MOT I O N COMES NOW Monfort Feed Lots, Inc., a Colorado corporation, by and through its attorneys, Miller and Ruyle, and moves that the Weld County Board of Adjustments set the Appeal on file with it in this proceeding for hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Official Zoning Resolution of Weld County adopted October 5, 1964, Section IX, 9.2. Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. further moves that notice be given by the Weld County Baord of Adjustments to the respective parties as to the time, date and place for such hearing and that notice of the hearing be published as required by the Weld County Zoning Resolution. Dated at Greeley, Colorado this 4th day of November, 1969. MILLER AND RUYLE �a.Gce�Zhe/. A Robert A. Ruyle `� By: Attorneys at Law 1004A Ninth Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Telephone: 352-9467 at. ORL THE WELD COUNTY BOARD Of COUNTY GOkl.MvMISSIONER.E.: ST.ATE, OF COLORADO case No. Rec. #21 In re tippiication of .vMLiNFORT i'LrrLJ L.Li b , INC:. for Approval o'. a Proposed 103, 000 riead E.:attle l eeding Operation in Section 9, Township 4 North, Range: 66 vl est, 6th P..;,... 1-. P L h L. l.Oi;... NOV:.till: ... �;', iiaat$, by and threuy:i L•rl,;ir Lidersiy.ied court .'!, and hereby rc spectfuilr <. peal Lae decision of t.:... ... _..,anty Pia►,r►it.y ,:;ominission as atfirmac ..y ,;es.oiution of tat. oLr:. •J. J:• dAty .rO_nlr,ibsso,L.r:;, eld County, Colorado, on July h, 13b9, wher,oY .ntort read Lots, Greeley, :;olorado, watt authorizGci to operate a comeicrciel teed lot opei'.:Liorl on Section 9, Township North, Kange btu 'rL est of tn: iL z F..w. , dv e1Ci ,� panty, Colorado, including otL r ad;ac :nt properties iii cae itl li..l:tate vicinity L�.dt may be included into a contemplated general iee.i ,or. ok.) :taboo. Protestants wo'uio snow unto the board oi: t.cl;us;A.ent ut '.y aid L.ounty, Colorado, as follows: (I) That appellanis are persons agcsrievedw. ..1;, officers and acencies i:a.sed upon or trade in . the i.icitriitiistraticiii ar t,nlorcement of the ?:.:orliny Resolution, and said; aplieeti is made under tnc: provisions of 1J6-2-17, 1963 and Section 14, tticial Zoning Resolution of County, Colorado, Planning Commission, revised September 19, 1966. (2) That appellants are the protestants who appeared on May 21, 1969, dt the hour of 2:30 p.m. before the Board of County Commissioners, veld County, Colorado, in the District Courtroom, Third Floor, Courthouse, Greeley, Colorado. (3) That the appellants filed a Motion for Continuance of Public Hearing s' scheduled by the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, for 2:30 p.m., May 21, 1969, and said Board of County Commissioners arbitrarily denied said lviotion for Continuance, thereby denying appellants the opportunity to research the law on the subject matter, to gather evidence, and to present witnesses, particularly witnesses expert in the field of the subject matter of said Hearing, thereby denying appellants due process or law as provided by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado; and that the Board of County Commissioners, old "ounty, Colorado, committed terror in denying said v., otion tor c;ontinua nce. (,) That the cr-)rrnau.s commercial cattle teeclinoperation proposed by !'aed Lots, In::. , Greeley, Colorado, is an industrial nuisance and wilt detrimental tc trk. nur)lfc health, safety, and wf.:tiare it allowed at the location intended; and, that the Board ot County Commissioners, •Vv eld County, ...,olorc'do, committed •:.rrur in. noL denying the applicatioki of :viontort head Lots, Inc., Greeley, ,.('lurado, upon said grounds. (5) That althouc,n a cattle teed lot meeting the; conditions set torth under �e,ction 12.(;'-c) ci the ufticial coning ;resolution of aid County, �el(-;r?d.o, might well _,,, a :)ermitted "farm use" (depending upon tne location) in P gricultural .:iF,tr)ct, a commercial operation ok. tile magnitude proposed oy , : nr:;+rt reed mots, is , _; . ,r ley , c,oloraao, is wslutiy industrial in nature, and constitutes a public; ,,.� :kc& v. located in close proximity to residential ands of a community; and t:). allowance ot such application of . ontort's feed �ots, Inc., Greeley, '...,c'lorado, at the proposed Location is unconstitutional under the Fifth, Ninth, and i'ourteenth :amendments to tne Constitution of the United States; and, that the hoard of County commissioners, v► eld County, Colorado, thereby coin fitted error in granting the application of iti,oniort's red Lots, inc., Greeley, Colorado. -2- C. ,t (6) That the odors, dust, and filth of said proposed feed lot will pollute the air over the city of Greeley, Colorado, and over the property owned by appellants thereby adversely affecting property values, and said pollution of the air together with the pollution of the waters of the Big Thompson River and South Platte liver by said proposed feed lot will adversely affect the health of appellants and all in the class whom they represent, thereby denying appellants and others their commcu-law, constitutional, and statutory right to the enjoyment, benefit, and use of th.<.ir property free from the intrusion upon appellants' lands �y ss-ie pollutants trout said proposed feed lot; and tnat the Board of county e weld n, , ,niorado, committed error in failing to recognize _:)�:lfiil.. Sion` rS, '1t _.1C+ ,-=��•r , snob 7,,•}h.ition and hazards to wealth and in tailin,; t:, deny the application of onlort's feed Lots, Inc., _;rr_eley, Colorado, upon said bases. ;. Hi;rct 1'Gfil;, apo.i Hants request that the Board of Adjustment of weld ,,;-,«nty, Colorado, con id:.•r toe matters contained herein and upon proper notice hold a hearing in cone- ction therewith; and that said Board of Adjustment overrule the Resolution of the Board of county Commissioners, veld County, '..;olorado, entered Jun.,; i;, 1363, and that the A.oplicetion of ivionfort's feed !..-.its, inc., Greeley, , .,,1orado, for Approval of a Proposed 100,000 Head Gatti .+, Township 4 Nortt,, ,-tin:,._ 66 Vest, 6th P. • : ounty, L olored;• Attorney at baw 1025 - ..4th Avenue Greeley, culorado 836.31 , in Attorney at Law 1700 Broadway Leaver, Loloraan 8020.4 ATTCRNiA !'��R . PF1 LLM'ITS -3- Gilcrest, Colorado MMy 20, 1969 Chairman. Weld. County Commissioners Greeley, Colorado Dear Sir: In behalf of the Gilcrest Volunteer Fire Department we urge you to vote in favor of the proposed Monfort Feed Lots to be constructed north of. Gilcrest. We feel this business would benefit our community and we would welcome the opportunity to have it in our area. Sincerely, D. R. Kline Secretary Gil. crest volunteer Fire Department DK/hk Gilcrest, Colorado Ma.y 20, 1969 Chairman Weld County Commissioners Greeley, Colorado Dear Sir: At the May 13 meeting of the Gilcrest Parent-Te cr)er Association, the group voted unanimously to write to you asking for your support in favor of the Monfort Feed Lots being built in our School District RE -1. We would appreciate anything you can do to bring this business to our community. Sincerely, Violet Simants President Gilcrest PTA V.S /hk Colo. wy1 ]92 The Poard Of eid Couetv Coenjssioners ..ree:ey, Co'or;edo .entle'ncn: As 9t ie resident o". the ttev=17 ie Free � "eei . to=2t 1stoke here to express my oniw1on on cny Future tui]d- lrT of ev7 s`sell1 n: c the feebler - yard. d of the Nrczor i.ioas that .ionforts wish to build north of here. You, Ice fount:, ioncdssjuners, h,ne sure',? been e�-osec to the r ea]ts in tee -reelev ores end north. �I am sure there are very few h r with r vle.r to brcnthe et, ep and iiv_ati; this odor. As a far„er wvse'f, 1 beer � -�, ardse a=nst s:ria'1 eecers, the odor of which stays in a sho71 oree, hut 1 h v. no S7 frothy tor hi2e coruc otions whc would cove into e c hhun.ity, t > _ 3:,.it the will ., o_ Ito L�.,ens end -,a e the - eir to bcce ne urr'it to breathe, 1 trust thnt ..he Board Cf . "County Dw11y SSnpeYB Wes' co 7e rsc e or the citizens here anandre:ect the o to _:,lid=;ti onfor is anti on: future bui.cin_ feedlots. zncerel: yours / �n.et" A. I. Horell , Le' he] d County 3onrd of Com•eissioners 9reelev, Col credo Jentle den fhe 3cardg For t : last few hears, •. Jh_ h ve ' =vec a , -th of }reel e J'e co'ulr9 sit here and f'ee1 sorry fthe oeco7 - nor th o£ town who ve had to hive with what lust be an unbesrshle prob] en, feed] at odor. Now we find curne]vthre°tened with the sane fate. If there was no other niece then one _orulated is td 1? one is there ' sane excuse f9r the constr• 7ation of a feed n chera ti on the size of .onforts but in ny opinion it 3hculc with I zi;able {or th,-• hoard of county coHmie_loner s to alt w _ ee bus f- rees of n. cattle din .. _�e hit(' 's ve.]'ey. ::h. ,6^'t 80 -oeth.--ir- being done to zone some unpopulated area for cattle fee'dine feeding and let his, who were here _first, live our 1hues in the ki no of a. tnoeshiere that .we chose when we settled here 1 feel i t is the duty of the count, r _ ,.,, ,nitre o to protect the hooeowners who can not lust let fne iov sway froda on odor nrchlea that is difficult to tolerate. ;e are b" fear t:° ,,,iority �. here anour wishes shop. not he treq Le d i;-hti;; The frohgan arnunc .1ree1 ev s --r1• have aces it very clear to ;ou, the cc .ntv oon?:esiciers, that the ..,.fort `eeck''o exnei nnon ohcu'd rh zoned far enoua-fron tie reelarea and towns surroand- ina, to assure the pearle that they will not be saddled with this type a" he"] th and odor problem. Yours sincerely Pl£ittevi.]le, Dio] orah° Pte, 1931 18th Avenue Greeley, Colorado May 18th, 1969 Weld County Commissioners County Building 9th Street at 9th Avenue Greeley, Colorado Gentlemen: I should like to go on record as being against the expansion of the Monfort feedlots. I feel that it will create additionalodors, in the air, and the water, than it now does, (and that is plentiful), and that nothing other than words will be done to corniest the situation. Were Monfort to GUARANTEE AGAINST both the smelly air and the water pollution in the new feedlot and to show something more concrete than words in his present one, then I would retract my NO vote. But such a guarantee would carry penalties, and would be costly. Would Monfort provide sueh? I am sure other areas of the country have similar problems, and have solved them by action on the part of the feeder, and forcefulness on the part of the local authorities. 1f y tx'uly yours, / 1.. J. H. Holzer .1 ttevi'!'_e, Colo. :ee 1 7 , ] 969 The Poor Cf ',iel= ,Jo, rcic;, C..lor^..o .,.. ' r 3 1 r9 The 0000 •ff "n�ortp feet of c.m+r9_on .2O..25 29 I bock_ '^�. 1 `fee] ₹'eit C:, _ ..i re to s ton oyice oee for , t' e '1±,le:,:ao of new l r ife iced yir:s of ore? �k'n: here. 1'] T'P tEo -Jenrfl ,ve 1 e 2Cc oor •tir he - corn no re nod core,. yfF _' or -=:il - led ice. let Is try r:d 1,eco thi� afloe v_f;eit eerie. ct ror cc- 6o1 to `Eve. /e 9 fl _ ,C good d de.:11dy d .en. :ne t to L.. I:three tre arc rc-3 that 9me''_17thi'i, Ike whyt ae fine oor o reeleo. 9t I ev.. ..-.tw Cone; __ .. _ n ;`:e re:_.eot9 er n r.re :n= the ge . .tip or _ic^fort feed lot corestrooL'o?. `iS: i.t_v;-.'e, WELD COUNTY REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT RE 1 GILC REST, COLORADO May 15, 1969 Board of County Commissioners Weld County Court House Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: The Board of Education of School District RE -1, Weld County strongly endorses the construction of the proposed "Monfort Feed Lots" to be constructed north of Gilcrest. There are many individual and collective reasons why we favor this proposal but as members of the board of education we feel that educat- ionally and economically the students, teachers, and patrons of RE -1 will benefit greatly from the construction of such a facility in School District RE -1. We also feel that the taxpayers of RE -1 will receive financial aid in the form of reduced, or at least no larger increase in taxes. With inflation and constantly rising cost, increased valuation or new sources of revenue are sorely needed by not only School District RE -1, but all school districts in Weld County. Therefore, we urgently request your favorable consideration of the Monfort of Colorado proposal. Respectfully yours, MY E. MILDRED SARCHET, Secretary MARTINSON, President r i 4,- E. RUCKER, Vice -President BLAIR F. l�> ✓C'i'7.L FRANK Treasurer .11161-7-etr4.%1 DT, Director GLAS HERTER, ,0i/rector ART WATSON, Superintendent • Platt le, Colorado iMay 1 , 969 Weld County Planning Commission 3reeley, Colorado Dear Sire: It has been brought to my attention that the Weld County Planning Commission has approved an application for expansion of Monfort feed lots, near 3ilcrest. It is my opinion that any member of the Board, who voted for approval of this expansion, used extremely poor judgement. This is a populated valley that has a good chance for some decent kind of developement. The stench of more large feed lots is some— thing the people in this area can do without. I feel that there are surely some lees populated areas with necessary facilities for feed yard operations, that could be zoned for such. I am amazed that the Planning Commission cannot clearly see that this populated valley has reached a saturation point in feedlot stench. If we are to preserve any chance for futu e growth in the type of developement that can be accepted by the c tizens of this area, there must not be any greater expansion of ommercial feedlot operations here; Sincerely L. D. Farley L. D. F: jf Platteville, Colorado 80651 Yl e.ttevii.i Colorado May l , 1969 The Board Cf oield County Conwissioners '3reel.ev, Colorsoo Lear Sirs: It appears t:.at .tie, The Citizens .3outh C.f ireeley, are faced farther contamination of our sir is the name of the enlargement of the .donfort seed lots. c.c,o)1e _ clear to tae County 0omnissiooere, by now, that, the stench „ stile feed lots have reseed the saturation point in this populated area; Many of us were vi is this area ]on_ hefore we ever hears of the 2onfort ca_t'e ''e inc business and fee] that it is an infringement on our right to breathe sone decent, clean sir. I at a ainst, an" feelthat the County c-rulis,si ,ncr e should also be assinst any further luilcins or farce feed lots of any kind, in this o sl sted yflliey. ihere are surely less popul•.--�ted cress anere there arc the necessary facilities for feedine r:er- ntions that cou?d he honed for such. I have no quarrel with the 8,-911 feeder who ia making living by feedins cattle, rim he is dcini little to destroy community within which we live. L L . L. Fe. r r ey IEF:jf t'latteville, Colorado RCC51 the Ex. Ad AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO ) . ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) Dote No. MIKE LEHAN, being first duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: 1. He is now the President of the LaSalle Development Foundation, Inc., a non-profit corporation formed for the pur- pose of promoting the recreational, educational and business development of the area in, around and adjacent to LaSalle, Colorado. 2. The LaSalle Development Foundation, Inc. presently has forty individual members in good standing, and all of these in- dividuals have been contacted within the last thirty-six hours to determine their feelings and opinions, as members of the Foundation, as to the request of !Aonfort Feed Lots, Inc. to locate a commercial feed lot approximately five miles west of LaSalle, Colorado. 3. The statement attached hereto and marked Exhibit A is a true and full list of said forty members ^f the Foundation, with an indication of the desires and opinions of each individual member regarding this proposed cattle feeding operation. The word "Yes" opposite a name indicates that the individual is in 2 favor of having the operation located at the proposed site, and the word "No" indicates opposition to the location. 4. As disclosed from the attached statement, thirty-nine out of the forty members are in favor of the ronfort proposal. Thus, 97.5 per cent of the individual members of the LaSalle Development Foundation, Inc. feel that the proposed new cattle feeding operation will benefit the wi !'e public interests which the Foundation seeks to support. Dated this 21st day of may, 1969. Mike Lehan Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of "ay, 1969, cv Mike Lehan. r, mycommission a Ttrea per. 4,19;m My commission expires: C_- Vofary bubl i c LA SALLE DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC. P.O. BOX 537 LA SALLE, COLO. - 8O645 Swede Ehrlich Mike Lehan Ben Reichert Ken Heinle Roger Alexander Stan Bedan Dale Harvey Melvin Reichert Marsh Freeman Leonard Prothe Dave Clarkson Les Adams James Noel Wayne Norman Warren Wolford Robert Anderson Doug Herbs ter Gene Freeman Chuck Bollig Bob Hergert Ed Kelly Al Knespel Swede Hemple Noble Love Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No EXHIBIT A PRESIDENT. MIKE LENAN VICE PRESIDENT. BEN REICHERT TREASURER. DR. ROGER ALEXANDER SECRETARY. KEN HEINLE Bob Clift L. D. Billings Rich Mc Mahan Mac Mc Mahan Harold Peppier Lyman Steffens Vic Steffens W. S. Fisher Doh Larson Ken Headly Rob Sandau Darrel Johnson Ed Tanhery Eugene Woodi n Dale Norris Duane Schaefer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes des Yes Yes Yes PR -2 SIGNIFICANT VECTOR PROBLEMS IN THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN Ex. A Date No. WYOMING NEBRASKA KANSAS RECEIVE[) WAY VON U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, REGION VIII DENVER, COLORADO MARCH 1965 SIGNIFICANT VECTOR PROBLEMS IN THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service Region VIII Denver, Colorado March 1965 Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control South Platte River Basin Project Denver, Colorado and Communicable Disease Center Disease Ecology Section Greeley, Colorado SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN PROJECT U. S. Public Health Service Background and Objectives On July 18, 1963, the Governor of Colorado requested the Secre- tary of Health, Education, and Welfare to assist the State in deter- mining sources of pollution and quality of waters of the South Platte River Basin within the State of Colorado. The First Session of the Conference in the matter of Pollution of the South Platte River Basin was held in Denver, Colorado, on October 29, 1963, under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 466g). It was established at this Conference that a study would be undertaken by facilities of the U. S. Public Health Ser- vice. Findings and recommendations from this study would lead to a program of pollution abatement to be developed jointly by the South Platte River Basin Project, Public Health Service, and the Colorado State Department of Public Health. The long-range goals and objectives of the Project are as follows: 1. Determine the legitimate water uses and locate the sources of pollution having an adverse effect on those uses. 2. Through field investigations determine the physical, chemical, and biological responses of the River to pollution and evaluate the previously located sources of pollution with respect to the conditions in the River. 3. Compute the waste load reductions necessary to obtain desired water quality and recommend water quality control measures needed to effect the desired waste load reductions. Organization The South P associated profe quarters offices has been establi Denver, Colorado Water Supply and U. S. Department Colorado. latte River Basin Project consists of engineering and ssional and clerical personnel. The Project Head - are located in downtown Denver and the Laboratory shed at the Colorado State Department of Public Health, . The Project is administratively attached to the Pollution Control program of the Public Health Service, of Health, Education, and Welfare, Region VIII, Denver, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following agencies for their assistance and cooperation extended in the preparation of this report. Denver, City and County Department of Health and Hospitals Division of Environmental Health Denver, Colorado Inter -County Regional Planning Commission Denver, Colorado Tri-County District Health Department Adams City, Colorado U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Region VIII, Public Health Service Communicable Disease Control Services Denver, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES ii SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1 INTRODUCTION 3 GENERAL DISCUSSION Mosquitoes 4 Domestic Rats 6 Flies and Miscellaneous Vectors 9 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - 1964 Mosquito Production in the North Denver -Barr Lake Area during the 1964 Season 11 Observations of Rat Populations in the Denver Area 15 FIELD STUDIES: 1944-1962 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY 20 i LIST OF TABLES Number Page I Mosquito Larvae Collections 13 II Mosquito Light Trap Collections 14 LIST OF FIGURES Number Following Page 1 Basin Map 22 2a Summer Infection Chain for 5 Western Equine Encephalitis 2b Summer Infection Chains for Urban 5 St. Louis Encephalitis 3 Geographical Distribution of the 5 Arthropod -Borne Encephalitides in the United States 4 Insect Vector Study Area - 1964 14 5 South Platte River at Denver -Adams 16 County Line 6 Feed Corn Washings in South Platte 16 River 7 Rat Burrows Along South Platte 16 River 8 Rat Harborage in South Platte 16 River 9 Denver City Dump Along Clear Creek 16 10 Private Dump Along Sand Creek 16 — ii SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Essentially the vector problems within the Basin involve mos- quitoes, rats, and flies. Flies occur widely throughout the Basin and transmit a wide range of enteric diseases. Certain serious diseases are transmitted by mosquitoes and rat fleas (i.e., encepha- litis and plague, respectively), and are of considerable public health significance. Aside from their disease -causing potential, mosquitoes, rats, and flies are responsible for substantial economic losses and require considerable expenditures for their elimination and control. Ideal mosquito breeding grounds exist throughout the Basin. Im- proper irrigation practices create many seeps and standing pools of water in which mosquitoes breed readily. In addition, the many sloughs and backwaters along the river bottoms provide ideal areas for mosquito production. 'The presence of heavy organic pollution from sewage and industrial wastes in many of these waters enhances the environment for excessive production of those species of mosquitoes associated with the transmission of encephalitis. Encephalitis has occurred sporad- ically in the Basin with the most recent outbreaks of note occurring in 1957 and 1964. Certain areas within the Basin have serious rat infestation problems. The most notable of these is the concentration of a large _ rat population along the banks of the South Platte River and its tributaries in the northern sector of Metropolitan Denver. Rats are actually semi -aquatic by nature and adapt readily to life along river banks, particularly where brush and trash along the banks provide good cover and harborage. In this case, an excellent food supply is readily available from the heavy load of floating organic pollution present in the South Platte River and its tributaries. The presence of this highly concentrated rat population constitutes a potential plague threat to area citizens. Several species of biting and non -biting gnats and black flies breed extensively in the waters of the Basin. These insects cause severe human annoyance and occasionally are involved in disease transmission. ',The presence of organic pollution in the breeding waters creates a favorable larval environment and results in increased pro- duction of these insects. The most serious house fly problems in the Basin stem from the extensive breeding of flies in the accumulated manure piles associated with cattle feedlots and stockyards and in the garbage spread for the feeding of hogs at various hog farms. These substances all provide the type of warm, moist, organic environment required for fly larvae development. Many of these farms and feedlots are in close proximity to Basin streams. Significant vector populations of mosquitoes, rats, and flies exist in the Basin and constitute a serious public health hazard. These vectors, especially mosquitoes and rats, are directly associ- ated with the organic pollution present in the waters of the Basin. This pollution is instrumental in creating and supporting the present high population levels of disease -carrying vectors, particularly in the Denver Metropolitan area. Future vector population levels will remain high as long as significant quantities of organic pollutants are discharged to the waters of the Basin. Reduction or elimination of present vector populations will best be accomplished through the abatement or elimi- nation of the gross organic pollution now being discharged to receiv- ing waters throughout the Basin. 2 INTRODUCTION The objectives of this study were to determine the nature and extent of the significant disease vector problems within the South Platte River Basin and to evaluate the effect of water pollution on vector population levels. The South Platte River drainage encompasses 24,300 square miles, of which 19,450 is in the State of Colorado and 2,050 and 2,800 square miles respectively, in the States of Wyoming and Nebraska. The South Platte River originates on the east side of the Continental Divide in central Colorado, flows northeast across the State, and joins the North Platte River at North Platte, Nebraska. Principal tributaries of the South Platte River are Bear Creek, Cherry Creek, Clear Creek, St. Vrain Creek, Big Thompson River, Cache la Poudre River, Crow Creek, and Lodgepole Creek. A general map of the South Platte River Basin is given in Figure 1, following page 22. Surface water resources in the Basin have been greatly over - appropriated for irrigation use. In summer, very low flows occur at many points on Basin streams where agricultural diversions may use all, or nearly all, of the available streamflow. The 1960 population of the Basin was approximately 1,210,000 persons, of which 92 percent was in the State of Colorado, and four percent each in Wyoming and Nebraska. The population has increased at a very rapid rate. From 1940 to 1950 the population increased from 660,000 to 840,000 with an estimate for 1964 of 1,410,000. (1) The population growth of the Denver Metropolitan area has been particularly remarkable with an increase from 1950 to 1960 of 499,000 to 804,000, and a further rise to approximately 1,000,000 persons as of 1964. The Denver Metropolitan area contains about 70 percent of the total Basin population and is an extremely important manufacturing and trade center for a large part of the Rocky Mountain Region. Other centers of population in the Basin as of 1964 include Boulder, 46,000; Fort Collins, 30,400; and Greeley, Colorado, 31,600; as well as Cheyenne, Wyoming, 52,000. (1) The approach used in respect to this evaluation was to review those reports on file at the Disease Ecology Section, Communicable Disease Center, Greeley, Colorado, which dealt with the vector studies conducted by CDC and other health agencies within the Basin. Also, a mosquito survey and other field observations were made within the Denver area by South Platte River Basin Project and CDC personnel during the summer of 1964. The above information, supplemented by information of a general nature, has been used to present an overall picture of the present-day vector problems within the Basin. 3 GENERAL DISCUSSION Mosquitoes Mosquitoes are the vectors of principal public health signifi- cance in the Basin. Several species of public health and socio- economic importance are produced in large numbers in areas where environmental conditions are favorable. Viral encephalitis, commonly known as sleeping sickness or brain fever, is now the most important mosquito -borne disease in the United States and in the South. Platte River Basin. This should not be con- fused with the dread African sleeping sickness (Trypanosomiasis) which is transmitted by the tsetse fly and caused by a microscopic parasitic protozoan. The reservoir for viral encephalitis is thought to be the blood of wild birds and domestic poultry. Mosquitoes obtain the virus by feeding on infected birds and transmit it to horses and humans while obtaining subsequent blood meals, as shown in Figures 2a and 2b. There are no effective chemotherapeutic measures for the prevention of or treatment of human cases and some individuals, particularly children who recover from the disease, often suffer permanent mental disability. Three types of viral encephalitis are commonly recognized in the United States: Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE), Western Equine Encephalitis (WEE), and St. Louis Encephalitis (SLE). The geographical distribution of the three virus types is given in Figure 3. Both EEE and WEE produce clinical disease in man and horse alike, while SLE produces clinical disease in man only. Of the three virus strains, WEE and SLE are endemic to the Basin. Encephalitis has occurred in horses throughout the Basin for the period of record dating back to 1939. Human cases have occurred sporadically and intermittently with the more recent outbreaks of note occurring in 1957 when over 100 cases were reported, and in 1964 when 30 were reported, including three fatalities. Members of the genus Culex are the most significant mosquitoes in the transmission of encephalitis in the Basin. Entomological investi- gations have shown that these mosquitoes occur in great numbers through- out the Basin and have considerable impact as a nuisance problem aside from their disease -carrying potential. Culex tarsalis is the single most important vector of encephalitis for man and horses in the Basin. The mosquito feeds readily on birds, horses, and man, with some preference indicated for birds. An interest- ing explanation for the C. tarsalis-bird association is given as follows: DEAD -ENO HOSTS (APPARENT OR INAPPARENT) PRIMARY ENDEMIC VECTOR Culex tarsalis PR/MARY RISERS/LYRE SECONDARY VECTORS SECONDARY HOSTS? OTHER MOSQUITOES C-' 1' 9441 St, 71 ♦_\�% �- Culex tarsalis PRIMARY SYLVAN VECTOR DOMESTIC BIRDS WILD BIRDS DEAD -ENO HOSTS (INA PPA RENT Ai DOMESTIC SOME WILD MAMMALS BIRDS MAMMALS Figure 2a: Sumner infection chains for western equine encephalitis. (The chains for rural St. Louis encephalitis are similar except that horses are inapparent rather than apparent hosts.) Hess and Holden, 1958. DEAD—END ROST (APPARENT OR INAPPARENT) AND/OR ? AN RFNOfM/C 'Tfrl %'INFECTION PRIMARY M PRIMARY CHAIN l�7 1 PR/MARY PRIMARY RESERVOIRS SECONDARY VECTORS SECONDARY OTHER \HOSTS% MOSQUITOES iAt ENDEMIC VECTORS \ MAMMALS SYLVAN VECTORS Culex pipiens complex 9^�\ ` Culex pipiens complex oo AND/OR 494,'CM 0 BIRDS L V DEADRENO HOSTS iONAP+RENT)T SOME DOMESTIC MAMMALS SOME SOME BIRDS WILD MAMMALS Figure 2b: Summer infection chains for urban St. Louis encephalitis (chains for rural SLE are similar to those for WEE). Hess and Holden, 1958. EASTERN ST. LOUIS LEGEND REPEATED HISTORY . OF VIRUS ACTIVITY WITHIN THE STATE HISTORY OF O ISOLATED OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE STATE Figure 3. The geographical distribution of the arthropod -borne encephalitides in the United States. Total virus activity in man and in animals. Hess and Holden, 1958. Many birds nest in trees, going to roost about dusk, which coincides with the most active feeding period for C. tarsalis. The foilage of the trees gives off an excess of carbon dioxide at night when photo- synthesis has ceased. C. tarsalis is attracted by carbon dioxide and is brought into the sphere of the roosting birds at the time when it is most active in seeking a blood meal. (2) Since birds also act as the reservoir for the encephalitis virus, all the elements for trans- mission of the disease are brought together in time and space. C. tarsalis larvae develop in a wide variety of aquatic environ- ments, and are frequently found in waste water associated with improper irrigation practices. They also breed in artificial containers and structures including cesspools. Waters containing large quantities of organic matter from human wastes are often preferred. Dispersion studies have shown that adult C. tarsalis will fly as far as ten miles, but the majority of individuals probably remain within one mile of the original larval habitat. (3) Culex pipiens and Culex quinquefasciatus are of importance in the transmission of urban SLE in human populations, particularly in the Midwest. Within the Basin, C. pipiens and Culiseta inornata are con- sidered to be of particular significance in the transmission cycle of encephalitis among bird and wild mammal hosts, respectively. C. pipiens and C. quinquefastiatus breed profusely in practically all types of artificial containers and in polluted ground pools, cesspools, open septic tanks, and effluent drains from sewage treatment plants. (2) C. pipiens in particular is often associated with grossly polluted water and will breed readily even in undiluted sewage. The presence of ideal breeding sites and mosquito problem areas within the Basin is well documented by various reports on file at CDC, Greeley, and by field observations by CDC and South Platte River Basin Project personnel. In addition, field studies conducted during the summer of 1964 indicate extensive production of C. tarsalis and C. pipiens in the sewage -laden waters northeast of Denver. The mosquito vectors of encephalitis would undoubtedly be present to some degree in the Basin even if no water pollution were present. However, the presence of organic pollution from sewage and industrial wastes in certain of the waters, particularly the South Platte River, leads to increased production of these vector mosquitoes. Not only is the water enriched in terms of larval food supply, but existing predator populations are generally intolerant of this pollution. The resulting increase in adult mosquito populations often creates increased competition for the available supply of blood meals. The mosquitoes then range more freely in search of food, thus increasing the possibility of contacting a bird or mammal infected with encepha- litus virus and subsequently transmitting the disease to man. 5 A close scrutiny of the Basin topography helps to explain why encephalitis is common within the South Platte River Basin. A great portion of the area consists of rolling plains cut by meandering streams which create uncounted backwaters and sloughs along their bottoms. As previously explained, the presence of organic pollution in many of these waters enhances the production of vector mosquitoes. Climate and topography limit the only significant concentrations of trees in the Basin to the stream bottom land. As birds generally re- quire trees for roosting and nesting, a large avian population is con- centrated along the stream bottoms. These conditions establish an ideal environment for the perpetuation of both host and vector popu- lations. Several species of the vicious -biting Aedes mosquito occur in the Basin area. These species are produced in great numbers in temporary surface pools associated with irrigation and in ponds or reservoirs having shallow, vegetated areas subject to fluctuating water levels. Overflow pools along streams also provide favorable larval habitats for these highly pestiferous mosquitoes. Concentrations of these mosquitoes may create public health problems by interfering with the normal outdoor activities of both children and adults during the summer months. Children frequently require medical attention and even hospi- talization for treatment of secondary infections and allergic reactions from mosquito bites. IIn addition to their public health importance, large numbers of biting mosquitoes also cause severe economic losses by reducing the efficiency of agricultural and industrial workers; by reducing the vitality of farm animals and thereby lowering meat and dairy production; by interfering with outdoor recreation and entertain- ment; and by lowering real estate values. In the form of more tangible losses, considerable expenditures are made each year by municipalities and individuals for chemical controls and screening to provide partial protection from mosquitoes. Domestic Rats While the South Platte River Basin provides a suitable environ- ment for several wild rodent species, the rodent of greatest public health significance is Rattus norvegicus, the Norway Rat. Because of its strict dependence on man, this rodent, although essentially wild in nature, has come to be known as the domestic rat. Domestic rats are reservoirs or vectors of several diseases, among which are murine typhus fever, plague, salmonellosis, hemorrhagic jaundice or Weil's Disease, rat -bite fever, and trichinosis. (4) Of these, plague, which is endemic to the Basin, is of greatest significance to this area because of the nearly always fatal nature of the disease and the public health controls required when outbreaks occur in local rodent populations. 6 Plague, the "Black Death" which once was responsible for millions of deaths in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and which has occurred in the coastal cities of the United States, is an acute infection running a rapid, severe course. There have been no serious outbreaks in the United States since 1924, although five cases have occurred in the Western United States since 1956, three terminating fatally. (5) A plague reservoir exists in the blood of many of the wild rodents of the Western United States. The disease may be transmitted from wild rodent to domestic rat to man by the bite of parasitic fleas associated with these rodents. The disease is usually fatal to the rodents and fleas as well as man. Contact between rats and other rodents most frequently occurs in the area of a common food supply such as an open dump, or along waterways, particularly those polluted with organic solids. During such contact the parasitic fleas often change hosts, thereby transmitting the disease from rodent to rodent. It is generally accepted that rats will readily infest such areas as open dumps, produce markets, farms, and stockyards, etc. Rats will just as readily infest the banks of a stream if the stream is carrying a heavy load of organic solids which will serve as a food supply. Rats require water daily and if, as in the case of most polluted streams, they can obtain both food and water from the same source, they are more than willing. They can usually find excellent cover and harborage among the jumble of rock and brush found along most stream banks. In essence, the stream is furnishing the rats with three of the basic requirements for life --water, food, and shelter. The fact that rats are semi -aquatic by nature and will readily "swim for their supper" is well documented by the following passage from a report by Cottam. (6) "An example of the Norway rat's adaptability was recently brought to my attention at the U. S. Fish Hatchery Station at Leetown, West Virginia. Despite the fact that several buildings and food storage bins are kept reasonably free of rats from 50 to 200 yards distant, a surprisingly large colony was found living in earthen banks adjacent to the fish ponds and stream courses where concentrations of fish are kept. The spawn, fingerlings, and adult fish --primarily of species or varieties of trout and bass --are fed horse meat daily as well as other prepared foods that are equally acceptable to the rat colony. Undoubtedly bits of food accidentally dropped on the bank in feeding operations accustom the rats to that type of diet. It is obvious that an inadequate food supply occurs on the land, and the rats have learned to obtain it from the water. In their competition for food, the young and small fish at all hatcheries concentrate in enormous numbers when food is thrown into the water. Consequently, 7 food is available for a very short period only. The rats as well as the fish have learned this. Therefore, at this hatchery these normally nocturnal rats have synchronized their feeding time to correspond with the feeding of the fish. When food is thrown into the water, the rats have no hesitancy in competing for it. They swim well and rapidly. After the food in the water is consumed, they then seek tidbits inadvertently dropped on the bank. "Apparently low temperature is no serious deterrent to the rat's aquatic activity. On the day of my visit, December 10 1947, the temperature was considerably below freezing, and an unpleasant sleet and snow storm was in progress; even so, a dozen rats were observed in the water,and part of their runway extended through small areas of the stream. While omnivorous rats avidly consume all kinds of fish food, it was a surprise to find that they are not at all averse to preying on young fish. On a number of occasions the rats have been observed catching the fingerling fish and taking them into their ditchbank runways or burrows." Identical observations have been made at the White Trout farm at Paradise, Utah, by personnel of the Logan Field Station, CDC, Logan, Utah. Unfortunately, the overall rat problem throughout the South Platte Basin is not well documented. Problem areas have been reported in the vicinity of Boulder, Longmont, Fort Morgan, and Brush, as well as Denver. Current information is available on the Denver area and there is no question as to the problem itself or as to the association of rats with pollution in the South Platte River. Rat infestation is extremely heavy along the South Platte River and the Burlington -O'Brian Canal in the Northern Metropolitan area. A rat eradication program conducted by the City and County of Denver during 1963 in this area has done much to improve the situation. However, a significant rat population still remains, particularly in adjacent Adams County. The problem is further compounded by the easy paths of migration available to the rats for reaching the heart of the city itself. Should plague appear in the rat population along the river, it might then be easily and rapidly spread throughout the Metropolitan area. Although Denver is the only area to be documented by current observation, it is also the site of the greatest population concentration within the Basin. Furthermore, on the basis of the published literature available and observations by CDC, Greeley and the Denver City and County Health Department, one can logically expect to find medium to heavy rat infestation along the banks of the Basin's streams wherever wide- spread organic pollution exists. 8 Flies and Miscellaneous Vectors While several species of flies are present within the Basin, including some biting flies, the one of greatest public health significance is the common house fly, Musca domestica. The house fly is important because of its ability to transmit disease -causing organisms. Flies carry these organisms in five ways: 1) on their mouth parts, 2) in their vomitus, 3) on their leg and body hairs, 4) on the sticky pads of their feet, and 5) through the intestinal tract by means of fly feces. Diseases transmitted in such manner include typhoid, paratyphoid, cholera, bacillary dysentery, infantile diarrhea, amoebic dysentery, pinworm, roundworm, whipworm, hookworm, tapeworm, anthrax, and tularemia. (7) The life cycle of the house fly begins with the egg and goes progressively through three larval stages to the pupae and finally to the adult. In rural areas the most common breeding medium is manure, although almost any warm, moist, organic material is used. Unprotected garbage is usually the source of most house fly problems in urban areas. Within the Basin a serious house fly problem does exist in the manure piles adjacent to many of the cattle feedlots and at hog farms where garbage is fed to the hogs. Many of these feedlots and hog farms are closely associated with Basin streams. House fly breeding is also associated with many areas along the Basin stream bottoms where the soil is heavily contaminated with sewage and industrial wastes carried by the streams. In the Denver area, very extensive house fly breeding occurs in the sludge -drying beds at the Denver Northside Sewage Treatment Plant. Several groups of insects may be produced in sufficient numbers in aquatic habitats to create public health and economic problems. Deer flies and horse flies (Tabanidae) are produced along the margins of impoundments and in marshy seeps. These insects are vicious biters of both man and livestock and are sometimes involved in the transmission of diseases such as tularemia and anthrax. Some species of small gnats (no-see-ums) of the family Heleidae (=Ceratopogonidae) are also vicious biters and often cause severe reactions and vesicular lesions. In certain areas, black flies (Simulidae) plague both men and livestock with their irritating and painful bites and large swarms of these flies can kill an animal rapidly. (6) The small, non -biting midges (Tendipedidae) and the phanton midges (Chaoborinae) are another group of pestiferous insects which may be produced in both flowing and impounded waters. These insects are attracted to lights in tremendous numbers and may cause severe human annoyance. Thriving populations of the above groups of gnats, black flies and midges are produced in moderately -polluted water where they feed on suspended microscopic organics. Waters enriched by organic pollution may produce excessive algal mats which support abundant populations of many genera. 9 One family of flies, Syrphidae, variously known as Hover, Flower, and Bee flies breeds in sewage and is the adult form of the rat -tailed maggot. Such flies are primarily a nuisance organism, but members of the genera Tubifera and Helophilus may cause human intestinal myiasis. (7) Terrestial arthropods of public health significance include ticks, mites, and fleas. These are often vectors of several human diseases, including Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Colorado tick fever, tularemia, relapsing fever, tick paralysis, typhus, typhoid, and bacillary dysentery. In addition, the bites of these arthropods cause considerable irritation, discomfort and annoyance. Little association is known between these vectors and water pollution, except as they occur as parasitic forms on rats associated with pollution. 10 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - 1964 Mosquito Production in the North Denver -Barr Lake Area During. the 1964 Season A field study was conducted during the summer of 1964 to deter- mine what species of mosquitoes, if any, were breeding in the sewage - laden surface waters northeaSt of Denver. A map of the study area is given in Figure 4. Fourteen larval sampling stations were selected in the Barr Lake area. Stations 1 through 7 were situated on the lake itself. The remaining seven stations were situated in a four -mile radius from the lake. All sampling was done in polluted water except for Station 12, which was fresh water seepage. Five larval sampling stations, numbers 15-19, were set up in North Denver, principally at seepage areas along Sand Creek and Clear Creek. These two tributaries of the South Platte River are both heavily loaded with organic pollution from sewage and industrial wastes. Larvae were collected from their natural habitat with a one - pint dipper. They were then placed in water -tight containers and taken to the CDC laboratory at Greeley where they were killed, identified, recorded, and preserved. A New Jersey type light trap was set up and operated at both the North Denver and Barr Lake areas. Each trap was equipped with a killing jar partially filled with potassium cyanide pellets, which killed the adults shortly after collection. Specimens from the traps were sorted, identified, and recorded at CDC, Greeley. Larval collection stations were sampled at weekly intervals from May through mid -August and then at bi-weekly intervals through Septem- ber 4. Light trap collections were made twice weekly at the two sta- tions through mid -August and then at weekly intervals through Septem- ber 4.. The species of mosquito larvae collected during each month and the percentage composition of each species are shown in Table I. A total of 993 larvae, representing five species of mosquitoes, was collected from the representative mosquito -producing habitats during the study. Aedes vexans and Aedes dorsalis were the dominant species during the month of May, comprising 61 percent of the specimens collected. Culiseta inornata and Culex tarsalis comprised 21 percent and 17 percent of the specimens, respectively. 11 From June through the remainder of the study, C. tarsalis, C. pipiens, and C. inornata comprised 83 percent of the total mosquito production in the study area. C. tarsalis and C. pipiens are both primary vectors in the transmission of viral encephalitis to humans, while C. inornata is a suspected vector in the transmission of the disease to animals. On the basis of larval collections in the study area, over 93 percent of the total mosquito production recorded occurred in waters associated with heavy organic pollution. While this figure corres- ponds directly with the percentage of sampling stations located in polluted water, it does indicate the willingness of mosquitoes to breed in these waters. .Moreover, members of the genera Culex and Culiseta, which comprised over 80 percent of this production, are the primary vectors of viral encephalitis. Such high production of these vector mosquitoes constitutes a definite public health hazard particularly in view of the large resident human population concen- trated adjacent to the mosquito -producing area. It is significant to note that 83 percent of the mosquito production occurring in the clean water sampling point was of the genus Aedes. The Aedes mosquito has considerable nuisance impact, but is regarded as having little or no importance as a vector of viral encephalitis. Light trap collections of adult mosquitoes, as shown in Table II, indicate that A. dorsalis was the predominant species for the months of May and June. From July through the end of the study, C. tarsalis and C. pipiens became dominant with C. pipiens of particular significance in September. It was also noted that C. pipiens were more prominent in the North Denver area than they were at Barr Lake. Future production of vector mosquitoes in the sewage -laden waters northeast of Denver will remain at a high level so long as the present levels of pollution persist. These vector populations can best be reduced through the abatement or elimination of gross pollution now present in these waters. 12 TABLE I Mosquito Larvae Collections Type No. of 1964 of Speci- Aedes Aedes Culex Culex Culiseta Month Habitat mens dorsalis vexans pipiens tarsalis inornata May Borrow Area 45 19 0 0 14 12 Seepage 38 0 32 0 0 6 Totals 83 19-23% 32-397 0 14-17% 18-21% June Borrow Area 41 4 1 0 34 2 Reservoir 78 53 2 0 20 3 Seepage 113 3 25 1 31 53 — Lake Shore 1 0 0 0 1 0 Marsh 4 0 0 0 4 0 Fresh Seepage 13 13 Totals 250 73-29% 28-11% 1-1% 90-36% 58-23% July Borrow Area 111 0 0 5 106 0 Reservoir 76 0 0 0 69 7 Seepage 143 0 0 0 110 33 Marsh 19 4 2 0 13 0 Lake Shore 40 0 0 0 40 0 Fresh Seepage 38 29 0 0 9 0 Totals 427 33- 8% 2-<1% 5-1% 347-81% 40- 9% August Borrow Area 74 0 0 4 70 0 Reservoir 35 0 7 0 28 0 Seepage 50 0 0 0 30 20 Lake Shore 12 0 0 0 12 0 Fresh Seepage 11 11 0 0 0 0 Totals 182 11- 6% 7- 4% 4-2% 140-77% 20-11% September Borrow Area 51 0 0 24 26 1 Totals 51 0 0 24-47% 26-51% 1- 2% Grand Totals 993 136-14% 69- 7% 34-37 617-627 137-14% 13 TABLE II Mosquito Light Trap Collections Type No. of Aedes 1964 of Speci- Aedes nigro- Aedes Culex Culex Culiseta Month Habitat mens dorsalis maculis vexans pipiens tarsalis inornata May Barr Lake 11 5 0 0 0 2 4 Denver 0 Totals 11 5-45% 0 0 0 2-18% 4-37% June Barr Lake 16 5 0 0 0 6 5 Denver 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 Totals 19 7-37% 0 1-57 0 6-32% 5-26% July Barr Lake 385 2 0 7 9 346 21 Denver 53 1 2 2 31 15 2 Totals 438 3-<1% 2-<1% 9- 2% 40-97 361-83% 23- 5% August Barr Lake 264 6 0 61 38 153 6 Denver . 164 2 0 4 141 17 0 Totals 428 8- 2% 0 65-15% 179-42% 170-40% 6- 1% September (One collection) Barr Lake 11 2 0 4 1 4 0 Denver 23 0 0 0 21 2 0 Totals 34 2- 5% 0 4-12% 22-65% 6-18% 0 Grand Totals 930 25- 2% 2-<1% 79- 8% 241-26% 545-59% 38- 4% 14 FIGURE 4 Observations of Rat Populations in the Denver Area On April 2, 1964, in conjunction with the Denver City and County Health Department, a survey was made to ascertain the extent of the rat problem in Denver, particularly along the waterways. The area along the South Platte River from 46th Avenue north to the city limits has long been the focus of serious rat infestation in Denver. As a result of a plague scare in 1963, the Denver City and County Health Department conducted an extensive cleanup campaign along the South Platte River in this area. Using county prisoner help, the river banks were cleared of the trash and dense brush which previously had given the rats excellent cover and protection. In conjunction with this program, an extensive poison bait campaign was waged and still goes on today. The results have been very rewarding. Where there were once literally thousands of rats thriving along this section of the river, there now remains but a trace of the former population. Unfortunately, just across the city line in Adams County the stream and banks remain in poor condition, as shown by Figure 5, and continue to support a thriving rat population. The survey included a visual inspection of the cleared area. With the brush and trash now gone it could be seen that the banks were literally honeycombed with old rat burrows and runways. One area in particular presented a very desirable habitat for the rats. About 300 yards upstream from the point where the main trunk sewer to the Denver Northside Treatment Plant crosses the South Platte River, there is an outfall from a storm sewer draining the Denver Union Stockyard area. At this point a delta composed of feed corn washed from the stockyards has developed in the South Platte River with an accumulation of corn on the order of six feet deep. This excellent food supply for the rats, along with the good shoreline harborage once made this area extremely attractive for the rats, and still supports a reduced rat population. These conditions are illustrated by Figures 6 and 7. The problem upstream from the Denver Northside Plant is further compounded by the juncture with the South Platte of many storm sewers draining downtown Denver. When dry, these sewers offer excellent paths of migration for the rats into the heart of the city. Another possible path for the rats would be progressive migration from the stockyard area through the rail yards into the fruit and vegetable wholesale houses and finally into the city proper. Observations were made downstream from the Denver Northside Sewage Treatment Plant at the junction of York Street and the South Platte River. In this area the river banks are choked with brush and debris providing ideal harborage for the rats. The stream at this point was loaded with scum, offal, and other floating organic matter, providing an excellent food supply for the rats. In essence, the rats 15 have only to come and take their meal from the river. The poor situa- tion is further compounded at this location by a diversiondam across the river. The river is obstructed by a jumbled mass of rock, broken concrete and debris protruding above the water as shown in Figure 8. Not only does this dam offer excellent rat harborage, but it acts as a huge strainer which traps and retains organic solids floating in the river, thus providing a ready food supply for the rats. Rats were actually observed here scurrying about in broad daylight. More rat infestation was observed in south Adams County in the vicinity of Clear Creek and Federal Boulevard, where the City of Denver operates a modified sanitary landfill dump. One face of the dump fronts along Clear Creek, affording excellent harborage for rats, as shown in Figure 9. The stream also contains a considerable amount of organic pollution from sewage and industrial wastes, offering a ready food supply to the rats. Additionally, the marshy area surrounding the dump appears to be an excellent mosquito breeding ground. These waters are likely polluted with seepage from the dump and would offer an attractive environment for the breeding of C. tarsalis and C. pipiens in particular. A privately owned dump, shown in Figure 10, was observed along Sand Creek in the vicinity of the Jorgensen hog farms. Wastes from the hog farms, including an occasional dead hog, are dumped here, affording a good food supply for rats. The rat problem along the upper reaches of Cherry Creek has never been of great importance, probably because upper reaches of this stream are normally dry. Below the Denver Country Club, where ground water recharge and surface drains contribute significant flow to the stream, rats begin to appear. Illegal waste connections to the surface drains in this area are known to exist. Many rats have been observed by Project personnel near the confluence of Cherry Creek and the South Platte River on various occasions. Future rat populations along the streams in the above areas will remain at or above their present levels as long as the present pollu- tional levels and harborage conditions exist. These rat populations can best be reduced through the elimination of the present sewage and industrial waste discharges to the streams and through the elimination of those conditions along the stream banks which provide good harborage for the rats. 16 Figure 5: South Platte River and Burlington Ditch Diversion at Denver -Adams County line. Notice well -cleared banks in Denver, but heavy brush and trash along the banks in Adams County providing good rat harborage. Figure 6: Delta of feed corn washed into the South Platte River by drain from Denver Union Stock- yards. Just upstream (300 yards) from Denver Northside Sewage Treatment Plant. GPO 847-223 Figure 7: Rat burrows along east bank of South Platte River in vicinity of corn washings from Denver Union Stockyards. Figure 8: Excellent rat harborage in jumbled rock across South Platte River near York Street bridge in Adams County. Figure 9: Denver City dump facing along Clear Creek just east of Federal Boulevard. Figure 10: Dump along Sand Creek in back of Jorgensen hog farms just east of Dahlia Street. Excellent rat harborage. FIELD STUDIES: 1944-1962 The following reports taken from the files at CDC, Greeley, are presented here in summary form as a supplement to the foregoing pres- entation. While many of these reports have furnished the foundation for the previous discussions on rats and mosquitoes, not all of them have direct bearing on the situations of today. They do, however, provide insight into the history and nature of the vector problems within the South Platte River Basin. "Report on the Fly and Rat Problem in North Denver and Adams County Areas during 1952" (8) Recognizing that a serious fly problem existed in the northern Metropolitan Denver area, several health agencies conducted a general survey to study the problem in 1952. Three hog farms and two fertilizer plants were checked periodically from May through September. These studies indicated the most serious problem was the breeding of flies in the paunch manure piles at the fertilizer plants, with the hog farms being of somewhat secondary importance. Little or no breeding took place in hog manures, but there was extensive breeding in the garbage being spread out to the hogs for feeding. In conjunction with the above studies, an extensive rodent control study was also conducted through the summer of 1952. Observations were concentrated in the Washington Street -Platte River area and extending about one mile north beyond the Denver city limits into Adams County. General rat infestation was found throughout the area in association with feedlots, packinghouses, stockyards, dumps, fertilizer plants, manufacturing companies, retail outlets, truck farms, and others. It was also noted that the heaviest infestation was observed along the South Platte River and the Burlington Ditch. The report states that: "As would be expected, heavy infestation was observed along the Platte River and Burlington Ditch, where both waterways provide nesting sites and where gross pollution supplies the rat population with food needs. These watercourses are also used by the rats for paths of migration." "A Reconnaissance of Domestic Rodent Control and Related Environmental Sanitation Problems at Sterling, Colorado" (9) Domestic rodents had constituted a problem in and around the city of Sterling for a number of years and in 1959 the Northeast Colorado District Health Department requested assistance from the U. S. Public Health Service in evaluating the problem. An initial reconnaissance 17 was made in June 1959 and a full review of the area was made in November 1959. Light infestation was generally found within the city, while medium to heavy infestation was found in the rural areas adjoin- ing the city. The problems involved poor refuse storage and premise sanitation which provided both food supply and harborage for rats. "A Preliminary Evaluation of the Fly and Mosquito Problems in the Brush -Fort Morgan Areas of Colorado - June 27, 1957" (10) On June 27, 1957, representatives of CDC, Greeley, and the Washington and Morgan County Health Departments made a spot survey of the fly and mosquito problem in the Brush -Fort Morgan areas. These two communities are located in the South Platte River Valley about sixty miles east of Greeley, Colorado. The fly problem was associated with poor sanitation practices. The most extensive breeding occurred at the various feedlots in accumulated manure. The sewage effluent from Brush collected in pools on a flat area adjacent to the South Platte River. Numerous rat -tailed maggots were observed in the effluent pools and the adult Syrphid flies were common. However, these flies appear to have little public health significance. A spot survey was made of mosquito breeding habitats within the town of Brush, in the irrigated areas around Brush, at the Brush sewage outlet, and in the South Platte River bottom area near Fort Morgan and Brush. The primary location of mosquito breeding was observed to be the polluted seepage and flood water pools throughout the river bottom area. Mosquito larvae were collected from several locations, and were subsequently identified. Several species of Culex and Aedes mosquitoes were observed both in the larval and adult stages. The most prevalent mosquito was C. tarsalis, the primary vector of encephalitis in the Basin area. It was expected that heavy Culex breeding would be found in the pools of effluent below the Brush sewage outfall, but this was not the case, probably due to a recent "flushing" of the area by high water. The report states that: "The pools of effluent appeared to be ideal breeding sites for Culex pipiens and possibly C. tarsalis where the contents were more dilute." "Mosquito Survey - Longmont, Colorado, June 21, 1961" (11) The significant waters included in this survey were the St. Vrain Creek, which flows just south of Longmont; Calkins Lake, which is to the east of Longmont; and several swampy areas to the south of the city lying just north of St. Vrain Creek and adjacent to the Burlington railroad tracks. While both Aedes and Culex mosquitoes were found, those of greatest significance were C. tarsalis, which is a vector 18 of encephalitis. C. tarsalis was found to breed heavily in the Calkins Lake area, particularly along the fringe in pools somewhat isolated from the main lake by heavy vegetation. C. tarsalis was also found to breed in considerable numbers just north of St. Vrain Creek in the vicinity of the Longmont plant of the Great Western Sugar Company. The most significant breeding area of C. tarsalis was found just southeast of the city, well within the flight range of the mosquito. The waters in this area were contaminated by refuse disposal and had a strong odor of sewage. "Rodent Survey of Denver, Colorado, October -November, 1944" (12) In 1944, infestation was found in all parts of Denver with the greatest density by far in the section along the South Platte River from West 46th Avenue to the Burlington Ditch. Several meat packing and feedlot operations which furnish a great deal of food for the rats are located in this area. Animal waste, blood, and tissue were deposited in the river to become a floating menu for the rat population harbored along the banks in the shelter of the brush and riprap. The report states that: "The dumping of offal or putrescible wastes into the South Platte River is prohibited by city ordinance, yet enforcement of this law is lax or is not practiced. Edible matter floating down this river supports a considerable number of rats, and the proper treatment of this industrial waste is imperative." The report further states: "The conditions in the northern part of the city, along the South Platte, with its riprap banks and collections of rats in the packing house district, are most favorable to an extension of plague into the wholesale and other metropolitan areas if the disease appears on the north border of the city." "Report of a Survey of Rodent Problems at Boulder and Longmont, Boulder County, Colorado, February 15, 1961" (13) The rat problems in these cities arise largely from poor sanita- tion practices, particularly in the storage of refuse and garbage and the disposal of same. Further problems arise from poor practices in and around livestock feedlots, grain storage, and hog farms. Evidence of rats was observed along the stream which flows through the south part of the Boulder business district. Extensive harborage for rats was present in the form of weeds, tree roots, riprap, and piles of lumber. A food supply in the form of improperly -stored garbage was available along the banks. 19 BIBLIOGRAPHY References Cited 1. Private communication with Inter -County Regional Planning Commission, Inter -County Regional Planning Commission, Denver, Colorado. October 1964. 2. The Natural History of the Arthropod -borne Encephalitides in the United States. A.D. Hess and Preston Holden. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 70, Article 3, p. 294-311. 1958. 3. Mosquitoes of Public Health Importance and their Control. H. D. Pratt, R. C. Barnes, K. S. Littig. Public Health Service Publication No. 772, Insect Control Series: Part VI. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1963. 4. Rat -Borne Disease Prevention and Control. Federal Security Agency, PHS, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia. 1949. 5. Control of Domestic Rats and Mice, B. F. Bjornson and C. V. Wright, Public Health Service Publication No. 563, Rodent Control Series, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1960. 6. Aquatic Habits of the Norway Rat, Clarence Cottam. Journal of Mammology, Vol. 29, No. 299. 1948. 7. Flies of Public Health Importance and their Control. H. G. Scott and K. S. Littig. Public Health Service Publication No. 772, Insect Control Series: Part V. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1962. 8. Report on the Fly and Rat Problem in North Denver and Adams County Areas During 1952. Colorado State Department of Public Health, Tri-County Health Department, Denver Department of Health and Hospitals, Colorado A. & M. College, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Department of Agriculture. Unpublished Report. 1952. 9. A Reconnaissance of Deomstic Rodent Control and Related Environ- mental Sanitation Problems at Sterling, Colorado. L. J. Ogden, H. F. Jagger, William Grills. USPHS, CDC, Greeley, and Northeast Colorado District Health Department, Sterling, Colorado. Unpublished Report. 1959. 10. A Preliminary Evaluation of the Fly and Mosquito Problems in the Brush -Fort Morgan Areas of Colorado, 1957. USPHS, CDC, Technology Branch, Logan Fiefd Station Section, and Colorado State Department of Public Health, Division of Sanitation, Northeast Sanitation District. Unpublished Report. 1957. 20 11. Mosquito Survey, Longmont, Colorado. USPHS, CDC, Greeley. Unpublished Report. 1961. 12. Rodent Survey of Denver, Colorado. USPHS, CDC, Special Survey. Unpublished Report. 1944. 13. Report of a Survey of Rodent Problems at Boulder and Longmont, Boulder County, Colorado. February 1961, USPHS, CDC, Greeley, Colorado; Colorado State Department of Public Health, Division of Sanitation. Unpublished Report. General References 14. Rodent Survey of Aurora, Englewood, Littleton, Golden, and Brighton, Colorado. Unpublished Report. October -November, 1944. 15. Epidemiology of the Arthropod -borne Viral Encephalitides in Kern County, California. W. C. Reeves and W. McD. Hammon, with W. A. Longshore, Jr., H. E. McClure, H. F. Geib. University of California. Publications in Public Health, Vol. 4. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1962. 16. Mosquito -transmitted Encephalitis Viruses: A Review of their Insect and Vertebrate Hosts and the Mechanisms for Survival and Dispersion. Carl M. Eklund, DREW, PHS, Parasitological Reviews, Experimental Parasitology, Vol. III, No. 3, May 1954. 17. Distribution and Control of Rats in Five Rocky Mountain States. Fred Harmston and C. T. Wright. Public Health Reports. PHS, DHEW, Vol. 75, No. 11, pp. 1077-84. November 1960. 18. Notes on the Biology and Seasonal Abundance of the Larval Stages of Culex Tarsalis Coquillett in Irrigated Areas of Scottsbluff County, Nebraska. Lafe R. Edmunds, CDC, PHS, DHEW, Logan, Utah. Reprint from Mosquito News, Vol. 15, No. 3, September 1955. 19. Ecology of Western Equine and St. Louis Encephalitis Viruses: A Summary of Field Investigations in Weld County, Colorado. C. A. Sooter, A. D. Langmuir, T. A. Cockburn. American Journal of Hygiene, Vol. 65, No. 2, March 1957. 20. The Transmission of WEE (Western Equine Encephalitis) Virus by the Mosquito Culex Tarsalis Coquillett. H. C. Barnett, Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 1956. 21. Irrigation and Mosquitoes in the United States of America. J. M. Henderson, Columbia University School of Public Health. Indian Journal of Malariology, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 1952. 21 22. Preliminary Vector Evaluation of the Proposed Home Supply Watershed Project, Larimer and Weld Counties, Colorado. USPHS, CDC, Greeley; Colorado State Department of Public Health, Denver, Colorado. June 1962. 23. Plague in Colorado and Texas. D. H. Ecke, C. W. Johnson, V. I. Miles, M. J. Wilcomb, Jr., and J. V. Irons. Public Health Service Publication No. 210. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1952. 22 GENERAL MAP FEBRUARY 1964 EDGAR M. CLEAVER, M.D. DIRECTOR May 21, 1969 Welcl County Health Department P. 0. BOX 1227 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 Board County Commissioners Courthouse Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention Mr. Marshall Anderson, Chairman Dear Sir: BOARD OF HEALTH R. T. PORTER, M.D., GREELEY MRS. ROBERT TIGGES, GREELEY NILES S. MILLER, PLATTEVILLE ANDREW GVRTNER, GREELEY BEN REICHERT, GREELEY _/I ar-tx. 3 r Dote J ' vet No. After reviewing the plans and inspecting the site of the new Monfort feed lot, I will make the following statement. If plans are followed, I do not see any health hazards. Sincerely, rf glen E. Paul Director Environmental Health Services GEP/ry APPLICANTS EXHIBIT: NUMBER ONE SUPPORTERS APPLICANTS EXHIBIT: NUMBER TWO FEED LOT DRAWING APPLICANTS EXHIBIT: NUMBER THREE & FOUR IN FILE APPLICANTS EXHIBIT: NUMBER FIVE ARTISTS DRAWING - STORED IN VAULT A 1±en da-nce iPecov�cl On1cJ r4O Feed Lois 1N�, )#s OA /YQ5. 'J'orsees CV/see-Ye a Ye A,••,1 rode ®1r f Addvcsss di - �f1 • eW4 ffec/e (C.te 49" *.er a , a4 iflIf/ .-�. e,04 6)9C av `.ge4g. a o,,c I q 9 04 Sao , emit, 2/- /dam _CcteY Li' , / 7 tete2, /s4 i- 3 T≥ /S./ /fro z< aye 8fe zfco sr' mve C,'ea%j-,rob. 2 12 s ,2.Z.. Avast . �rce,�ay /3e3_ `7 au -to__ dS 4 -1 C, .Laz Gfh�ovl Pa c,/IL eddru< )titQ t r Y /14 -ems.-c .71 / 72.O ac-ds) cy .,9I /° /o , /; - Aloe a)o.12 i 34/I // JY *fL42/ 2c1.710. Z 'ate 15- 7 ve l- 3Z A ffe*ciarae Recovd - �j©�It�: Lis hi 1-fOY� Feed L 5 Inej. Nahie e 7,r4e-ri ASesi-vtl?ro- e .7 GEL 0144. a/4-camrev ,4 dd,/ as _aLAA-aw re -ti 00 to Cr-et, , Arle),danet. 0),/ti / ! )or fe �y�vf &eel *ad C e part A ✓ess /, ac/S R - -Q ? nnev /& 8- Q`— oe, -'�,2,s` -ruder. /Y/7 // `(4e y ;a( CL� / ic,fl, - J8 test %s; 4iz� /S3 y oz7 71-4 �. /?'>ef t7kE C •l &O 617 r�16 2G 7t �ct fit -o , G� es/f /7/T 7'"C ,At, CA -et <9, 41,v o b- t s c\AA,� 1/4r k -ez 4,. -?/‘ e'-£4. 2x0/--gen-�� /7!t /?'A1/fft'..- pit'+ 14 tier, cis nce, 11-; covd • (3,„) ct 711 cm -Nov -1 Feed Lois No . J Z. 7 r� 4P -,/am/ - ?I/a vt ,J letLiAtAattcs aft ACID $ S 2Ts'/7- /Sau¢ At ot. V Ay s Y Ixyo / .2/ rf '$o e . lr+-.c,a,,,, , 77Cl�uirt-�i'/ ez:042 ,t Roy - .z.cf-c c aq ott Galas / �o/.s 4.g/4 Altair 194.2/3rx/.c Tedele -4-4 • .2x6,/e. OilIk l O / ,n /C gPkjct5, � OS oc Li F_Of Lifit�rciree {ew-f Feel 1.efs �_S�oGC �� x* 1,414Lederrt---" 9 • ,fin ore,LL 297-et7 g �7old yL SS Wald °! &-q /7,A Cam.-eehey /Fir /44L ri eC ea. �4T �° & /3y?o 4114441a P.( /flx ntte/.c a«( 203 S anaos"-IJG�Do -mktr'at s• t_Ya /4'-L, St ert- �'/7t,% 3no Ai1-1- aye- a„4- sue !el S - asr IZ13-12 I, V. /'jacJ7Jo"o totW yz2z-iGaie`, kozeit JosSiarL #aucoc/c CZAti 71/accteeii ).-t- 'For nritiCsi L h -IL -a'a. tat- ?' Ja t +uC.O. O c. 1 e-- ). D damc.L4..� 717/14) ..3 C11,01 - -� tiWlur Vcaat ,4 dire- ss Cc.,.- Fct r L -- 2yI & '4. r044 a,Q. i a t, cwr__ 09 /� ,4iCf Poi Plc --(---re //c 7.2 2 /5 ei &v -c. 2 / V / nn-�-.- -- a ,r0 //4 �e JD-snvti- /l-o _get . Lis 41c,a4 Eat a 1 a.c12 it/z-I or4t.c 4 2-o7',7 Q.4,-,1/4_ 2S 3 al N -2C 3t /lam ..re, !a312 o_ 7 : r /Yty�. ,ems frba, oo7 qe asps kJ ►k 4 eo, I /7/r 1 cid e 9//G So 're 1102._ kirk //v' - /7.5 /cola 7-te aue BEFORE THE WEL_ .:OUNTY, COLURAUU PLANNING COMuML. .ON RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No. Bee # 21 Date 5/7/69 APPLICATION OF Monfort Feed Tats, Inc. Address Box... 1290.,...Greeley,_ .Colo Moved by Ronald Heitugan that the following resolution be introduced for pas- sage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for 9DiCM(ffejXf3Eek1 ( [inia(aXia , ( $9Cthat APPROVAL of .._._......1,OCQTToN covering the following described property in Weld County, Coloraao, to -wit: Peer --a- + --t Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P. M., Weld County 'containing 640 serer a or-iess. _, J be recommended (favorably) (lAiiirailI4 to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: SEE ATTACHED REASONS Motion seconded by Adam LePore Vote: For Passage: Leonard Bartels Against Passage: Philip Bowles Henry Brunner Ronald Heitman Adam LePore John Watson The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and cordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. PC -Z-005 CERTIFICATION OF COPY Dorothy-Idil , Recording Secretary of Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a t_ue copy of Resolution of Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopter. on k1ay..5,...1969 , and recorded in Book No. II , Page No. of the proceedings of said Planning Commission. PC -Z-006 Dated this 7th day of May , 19 69 Recording Secretary, Weld County Planning Commission At a regular meeting of the 'Meld County Planning Com€niesion May 5, 1969, members present voted by a majority of 4 to 1 to reimammend approval of of the request by Monfort Feed Lots, Inc to locate a oowmercial feed lot as described in their request in Section 9, Township 4 North, Lange 66 best of the 6th P. M., Weld County for the following reasons, 1. The request conform to requirements stated in Section III (3) User permitted in the "A" Agricultural District (A) Commercial feed yards shall be located at least 660 feet from any resident on another lot, from any public place of assembly, and from any E, R, H, MH, T, B or S zoning district boundary line; (b) Commercial feed yards shall be located at least 660 feet from any State or Federal highway right of way. 2. It is located in a general area which now includes a number of commercial feed lots. 3. In view of the location on the south side of the river, the surrounding area is not now or likely to be in the future a concentrated area or prime residential area. 4. The site has unique features in being adjacent to a railroad line, has adequate water sus,ply and access to essential public utilities and adequate drainage can be provided. 5. The applicants have indicated conformacy and ability to install essential health protection measures, buffer zones in the proper manner. 6. The request does not conflict withy any previously adopted long range plane or established eonpreheensive plane Oh d� PROPOSAL TO: Weld County Planning Commission May 5, 1969 General Proposal and Discussion of Criteria for: Monfort Feed Lots Gilcrest, Colorado The selection of the site which we are here today to ask your approval of, is the result of many months of study and investigation. When the decision was made to extend the production of our exist- ing Packing Plant, and to supply the added demand for finished cattle out of this general area we began searching for a suitable site on which to build additional capacity for our own feeding operation. Matters such as the availability of alfalfa and corn silage within a given radius, the fact that present service facilities are operating at maximum capacity, and other related considerations brought us to decide on a complete new facility at a new location. There are a number of criteria that had to be met in selecting a new site. First, we naturally wanted to be as close to the present Packing Plant as possible, keeping in mind that the transporting of some 700 head of finished cattle to the plant would be a daily task and expense for years to come. This will, with time, involve literally millions upon millions of tons. Secondly, and opposed to the first consideration, we want the new Lots to be so situated geographically and far enough away from the city of Greeley to avoid any furtherance of the problems we have had with the community. We feel the proposed site will satisfy both of these criteria. The site must be in an area whore the feeding of cattle is an established practice and where there would be no zoning conflicts. Then we had to satisfy the utilites availability. Ample water supply for both drinking water for the cattle and for the sprinkling system, which will prevent dust generation during summer months. This by the way, demands something in the range of 2500 gallons a minute, or better than 3 1/3 million gallons a day. Next we have to have domestic water to supply our boilers for the pro- cessing of grain. lie have to have natural gas to run our generators. We felt that direct railroad connections on site were a must. Highway connections had to be close at hand, and as I mentioned before we must be in a highly productive agricultural area for corn and alfalfa supply and symbiotic to this, a manure market. The placement of this facility will predictably cause a few pro- blems as well as what we feel will be a great many assets. We hope to minimize these in all ways possible. There will undoubtedly be a few close neighbors who would rather not have a new big industry move in the area. I susposo this would probably be true any place you might go. We will show you in just a few minutes however, the design and plot plans we propose and we truely believe this facility will be an asset to the area, structurally as well as financially. We will utilize all known means to prevent and control any and all pol- lution potentials. We will go into this in more detail in minute, in that this is the area of design which has direct implications as to your approval. The site will be well landscaped and designed with attractiveness as well as efficiency and utility in mind. In short, we are desirous that this facility will be a real show place. Turning to the more tangible, I have asked our treasurer and accountant to prepare some estimates of the economic effects of this facility. MONFORT FEED LOTS - GILCREST SEC 9 T4 R66 It has been projected that land acquistion and construction for the new feed lot complex will cost $ 4,250,000. In addition, the lot will maintain a grain inventory of $ 900,000 and with a 100,000 head capacity will have a cattle inventory of around $ 25,000,000 in value. When the feed lots is at capacity, the 125 employees will receive a payroll in excess of $ 1,000,000. Excluding any Denver purchases, $ 350,000 will be spent locally for repair parts and operating supplies. Utilities, fuel, insurance, and other misc. expenses will cost another $ 250,000. Property taxes are estimated to be $ 469,688. We can- not predict the cost of the cattle but we estimate an assessed valuation of $ 6,250,000 and a mill levy of S 75.15 per N. This mill levy breaks down as follows: General fund 26.46 $ 165,375 ( Of this 26.46, 16 mills goes to the county for expenditures other than schools or $ 100,000. The balance of 10.46 mills or $ 65,375 goes to the Weld County Schools of which school district RE 1 gets 6.9% or $ 4,511 and school district 6 gets 45.46% or $ 29,719.) School District RE 1 Water District Fire District :ones Junior College 42.80 1.00 2.90 1.99 75.15 267,500 6,250 18,125 12,439 469,689 The 1969 school budget for RE 1 is $ 898,000 so that the projected property taxes for the RE 1 schools would pay around 30% of the budget. To give you an idea of the local feed that would be required, we can use last years figures on our current feed lot facilities. Silage: We contracted 10,473 acres and paid out directly to farmers $ 1,517,000. In addition we hired an extra 75 men to help us with the harvest and we spent an additional $ 300,000 in harvest expense. Green Hay: We purchased 2,603 acres and paid out directly to farmers $ 153,000. s -;n` nn additional $ 780,000 in hnvest =once. Shelled Corn: on about 7,500 acres we purchased $ 894,000 of corn grown in the local area. Total acres amount to 20,576. We might add here that Monfort Feed Lots pays off in full on all crops purchased, within 10 days of final delivery. In 1968 we initiated a manure bonus plan and coupled with an attractive selling price, we moved in excess of 300,000 tons and were unable to fill all of our manure requests. We do in addition, pay $ 1,300,000 to local freight lines on cattle and grain and over $ 1,000,000 in feed supplement to a local elevator. Monfort Feed Lots is constantly seeking new and better methods and I am sure additional capital expenditures will be spent each year on improvements and as time goes along we will make expenditures in replacing worn out equipment. At our present facilities, we have over 100 units of motorized vehicles besides elevator, flaker mill, scales, shop and office equipment. • • If I may now turn your attention to the graphic materials I have brought along I will try to describe to you the facility we propose. LOCATION: The proposed site is legally described as Sec 9 T4 R66. This is the section, the southeast corner of which lies two miles north of Gilcrest. (Illustrate on map). The area is zoned A -Agricultural and the feeding of cattle is a well established practice in the area. Note the location of. 1. Parrs 5. Kammerzell 2. Ehrlichs - #1 & 2 6. Nesom 3. Domke 7. Eckhart 4. Miller 8. Small farm lots Note that the closest northeast corner of the proposed site will be at least 5 miles southwest of the closest point of the Greeley City Limits. GENERAL PLOT PLAN - (Note diagram) The service area for the feed lot will be 1/4 mile by 660 feet at the northeasterly corner of the lay out. Railroad siding will be brought from the existing trackage on the north boundry of the site. The mill and elevators will be located midway along this siding to allow for maximum parking and switching of cars for unloading of both grain and cattle. The elevator will have an initial capacity of 250,000 bushels. The mill will be similar to our existing facility in that it will steam process and flake our grains, automatically weigh and pro- portion the prescribed rations for the various pens of cattle and will have a capacity for in excess of 1500 tons a day of finished feed. At the eastern edge of this service area will be a large off- street parking area for employees and victors. These cars will not need to enter the main area of the service area. The office building approximately 10,000 square feet, will house all service offices, scales room, console controls, feeds laboratories, as well as the kit- chen and lunch room facilities. A 12,000 square foot area service shop will be located to the south and near the trucks entrance to the Lots. Note the scales are placed away from the entrance so that truck traffic can get off of the roadway while approaching the scales during peak usage seasons. Thera will be a double set of truck scales so that there should be no bottle -neck at this point. This traffic will not interferewith normal feeding traffic. There will be a double net work of alleys serviceing the pens so that cattle are not using feed alleys and the feed truck alleys can therefore be hard surfaced. There will be 214 feeding pens, approximately 200 by 250 ft. in size. There will be concrete feed bunks, concrete feed slabs, and con- crete water slabs in all pens. We will install a net work of underground tile lines to drain any excessive moisture to a ponding facility. This will have a capacity to hold run-off water quantities in excess of a 25 year storm. (Note attached letter from NHF&Q). These calculations were possible and were based on studies conducted by Mr. Tom Norton of NHP&Q while working on his advanced degree at CSU and Sponsored by ourselves as well as others in the industry. (Note attached copy of regulation concerning Feed Lot Run -Off). On the outer perimeter of the premises will be a 50 foot green belt. This will consist of a tree hedge and grass way. A separate sprinkling system is being designed to service these parkways. We are sure that this will be an attractive facility and one of the most, if not the most, advanced designed and equipped cattle feeding facility in the world. MILLER sawn RUYLE ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW TELEPHONE NO. 352-9467 DAVID J. MILLER -ROBERT A. RUVLE-WALKER D. MILLER 1004 A NINTH AVE. P. O. BOX 749 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 April 29, 1969 Weld County Board of County Commissioners Weld County Court House Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. Gentlemen: Our office represents Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. of Greeley, Colorado. The Company presently has studied the possibility of the construc- tion of a cattle feeding operation in the rural area south and west of LaSalle, Colorado. Tentatively, the Company has selected property located in Section 9, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th Principal Meridian as the most applicable property for use by it in the development of a new cattle feeding operation. Other properties in the immediate area may also later be included in the final plans for the development of the feeding operation. I have examined the Weld County Zoning Map and have determined that the area above described is presently zoned as "A" Agricul- tural District. I find that under Section III 3.3 of the Board's Zoning Resolution "Permitted used in the "A" Agricultural District", that under certain limitations, the feeding of cattle is a permitted use. The foregoing Section provides that the permitted use, in such a District for the feeding of cattle, shall be approved, as to location, by the Board of County Commissioners. As attorney for Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. I respectfully request that the Weld County Board of County Commissioners consider the above described property for the location of a new cattle feeding operation to be conducted by Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. The proposed feed lot facility will be designed for the feeding of approximately 100,000 head of feeder cattle and will include all the necessary and related facilities. We request that the Board fix a date, time and place at which the Company will be permitted to make a formal presentation to the Board of the planned facilities. Thereafter, it is requested that the above described property and such additional lands as will be necessary in the immediate area adjacent thereto be approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County for the location of a new cattle feeding operation. rn i F !• • 1 I.- .v;' n'e Weld County Board of County Commissioners -2- April 29, 1969 If the Board desires additional information concerning the contents of this letter or clarification of this request, you may contact me at your discretion. Very truly yours, �,,� .ea -c..- 4. Ad -1-74---2 —J Robert A. Ruyle RAR/cc cc: Weld County Planning Commission 9th Avenue and 9th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Monfort Feed Lots, Inc. Box 1290 Greeley, Colorado 80631 houte 3, Lox 4.39-P X3•.)631 ''r. John P. Watson Connty Plannin_M hoard D€, !'r. :ti t ion: 1.i .I ' 'F' r. ._;r l�',! ' ..'i 7r '1 ,."�et!.`�. ., ti!i:: letter nl:n 'ne on record ,1;' JE31n ' o' .poseri to tzle 'ooten- t _ c•, ;i: •�:. i ,:, • •.., �', .r ,. 1 :e -t -l1, ? �. „_'e '1x ' i.c.' on f .�. r . s. i t. of c•-• ._ r1.t '1?�,' t?Xis.,iYl� .�'8'..i-XUv :I.:! t.: Es ViCiil.b� tne .1 . . ')r :lc:. o>' h lo':?c•.truct on to Ti? :'tome - and ne nuisances 'lr• .. ,•1 r. 1 r7 .'� �� r.. .7 ..�' .. it '�'�A. ,j f: e� .."�.r •Y t(:t nf o:ior. In •,tir-tj ii on, 1 s Jro,i.;ly oeiit:ve that r• y intnr..:,ts o,:' t.w 'i tizens of Greeley a.id •:e1<' Gourity, not t f l G 2 !1 .r i.i r : .. •. ". ' •^ 't; 3' 1 :101 r 7. conditions, but also for t -e potential gro•ath of the cc J V',,r• sincerely, EnSilip D. Weaver CC:Well Colntti CorlTr i ssioners .y(. c . Olt, Greeley Chamber of Commerce, ::tom. 4rch^ter :_n S��. , •.:3 r�,- FACT SHEET MONFORT OF COLORADO (Organization and History) Monfort of Colorado consists of three separately -operated business enterprises owned by the Monfort family -- Monfort Feed Lots, Monfort Packing Company and Monfort Provision Company. Warren H. Monfort is president of Monfort Feed Lots and his son, Kenneth W. Monfort is president of the packing and provision companies. All three operations are located in or near Greeley, in northern Colorado, and provide employment for a total of 909 employees. Monfort Feed Lots, 2.5 miles north of Greeley, started in 1930 by Warren H. Monfort, is now the world's largest quality cattle feeding operation with a capacity of 115,000 head on 320 acres. Based on an average of 140 days per steer, the present feed lot facilities can feed out approximately 275,000 head per year. Most of the feeder supply is purchased in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas but cattle are also purchased in all the western and southwestern states and as far east as Missouri, Louisiana and Arkansas. The basic ration consists of corn ensilage or green chopped alfalfa hay and corn, in addition to other grains. All grains are cooked 18 minutes by steam and then rolled and fed immediately. Grain storage space includes 1,450,000 bushels capacity at the feed lots, a 1,100,000 bushel elevator at Cozad, Nebraska and a 700,000 bushel ele- vator at Goodland, Kansas. The average gain per head per day in the feed lot is 2.4 pounds, and the cattle yield in excess of 63% of carcass beef and grade in excess of 90% choice and prime. Mon- fort buyers select top feeder steers weighing 600 to 800 pounds, and the animals will weigh between 1050 and 1200 pounds when they are trucked to the nearby Monfort Packing Company plant for slaughter. In 1968, a total of 222,793 cattle were fed out, representing 71% -of the cattle slaughtered by the plant. rage 2 Monfort Packing Company, located on the northern edge of Greeley, slaughtered 311,959 cattle and 622,088 lambs in 1968. This represented more than 1% of the U.S. cattle slaughter snd about 5% of this country's lamb slaughter. Monfort operates the largest lamb slaughter racility in the United States. In addition, Monfort Packing Company now is capable of boning its entire beef pro- tion of loins and rounds and can break and bone more than half the lamb kill. No other Ingle packing plant operation can match this combined beef and lamb fabrication production. The packing plant recently signed a contract to provide consultant services to an \sgentine meat packing firm to construct a new packing plant in Buenos Aires. Monfort will ovide technical assistance, but will not share in the ownership. Monfort Packing Company began operations on May 17, 1960, slaughtering only 14 head f cattle with an initial crew of 25. On August 9th of the same year, the plant slaughtered its first lambs, 37 head. At that time, it was known as Greeley Capitol Packing Co., and ownership was shared with a packing firm in Denver. Within six months from the day the plant was opened, the Denver group left the affiliation with the company and the name was changed. Monfort, which ships its meat products throughout the United States and to Europe :aid Asia, had a sales volume in 1968 of $134,869,246. Monfort Provision Company, located on the U.S. 85 bypass east of Greeley, supplies the retail and hotel, restaurant and institutional trade in Wyoming, northern Colorado and western Nebraska with beef and lamb and other meat products. Organized in 1962 as the Poudre Provision Company in downtown Greeley, the plant now occupies one of the most modernly de- signed and equipped meat purveying facilities in the Unit‘ ,d Stites,. Page 3 The provision company features a conveyor line for steak portioning, where the teaks can be cut and trimmed to individual specifications in weight and size and then sealed in consumer -size vacuum packages for such volume buyers as restaurant and hotel chains. Monfort also utilizes the provision company facilities for research and develop- ment in beef and lamb portion control, consumer -sized packaging and pre-cooking of products. With the provision company facility, Monfort of Colorado carries its quality control one step nearer to the consumer. Thus, Monfort of Colorado is able to maintain control over the quality of the product from the purchase of the feeder steer to that day six months later when the individual steak, cut and weighed to exact specification is removed from the vacuum film package by restaurant chef or housewife and placed on the grill. In this respect, Monfort of Colorado is unique in the industry. (Statistical Data) A total of 909 persons are employed by the Monfort Feed Lots, Packing Plant and _ovision Company in the Greeley area. This represents an increase of 27% (195 employees) from the beginning of 1968 to the beginning of 1969. Total payroll costs, excluding profit sharing and fringe benefits, amounted to $7,200,313 in 1968, representing an increase of $1,744,541 over 1967. Profit sharing paid out in late 1968 to those employees of three years or more of service amounted to another $570,864. Other benefits include free life insurance and free hospital, medical and major medical insurance for the employees and their dependents. Page 4 MONFORT OF COLORADO STATISTICAL INFORMATION .tal Number of Employees Payroll in Dollars (Exclusive of Profit Sharing) Number of Cattle Fed at Feedlots Number of Cattle Slaughtered at Packing Plant Number of Lambs Slaughtered at Packing Plant Packing Plant Sales in Dollars 1967 714 (Beg. 1968) $5,545,772 201,604 277 ,142 582,891 $107,440,225 1968 909 (Beg. 1969) $7,200,313 222,793 311,959 622,088 $134,869,246 FOR RELEASE: 11:00 a.m., April 30, 1969 STATEMENT: Kenneth Monfort, President of Monfort of Colorado SPECIAL MEETING: Greeley Area Industrial and Business Development Foundation PLACE: Greeley Country Club I would like today to announce the major expansion program for Monfort of Colorado. Our expansion plan is in three main areas: First, the construction of a new 100,000 head feedlot two miles north of Gilcrest. aynlication has been filed, and.if, after the public hearing, we receive a favorable decision by the County Planning Board and County Commissioners construction would start Immediately. We would hope the first cattle would go on feed in October. The feedlot will, we believe, be the best designed and most modern possible with emphasis on control of possi- ble pollution, both water and air. It will include great emphasis on landscaping and in short, we hope, will be a showplace. Remoteness from population concentrations, now and in the future, weighed heavily in the selection of the site. Other factors that were considered were the availability of silage and alfalfa, transportation, utilities, water for the cattle and for dust control, soil texture, and the potential labor force. The second part of the expansion involves the addition of a second shift at the Packing Plant. This additional shift will literally double our cattle requirements, in- cluding those that we buy from other feeders in the area; it will add an estimated 500 employees to our present 725 and will add to our water and sewage treatment needs. We project this additional production to start shortly after the first of next year. The third part of the expansion involves what we call a consumers products facility. This facility will age, portion, grind and cook many of the fabricated cuts coming from the fabrication department of the Packing Plant. When built, we expect it to be the largest and Page 2 most modern facility of its kind in the world. It is currently in the design stage and we would project construction to start in late summer. Location has not been finalized but we believe it will be built on land that we already own or lease in the Lucerne area. Hopefully, it will be operating in early 1970 and we project employment of both men and women to reach 500 by the end of that year. New executive offices are also planned to be located near the Consumer Products plant. Yesterday, we filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a registra- tion statement covering the public sale of stock in a new holding company called Monfort of Colorado. If all is in order, as we have every reason to believe, the public issue will be on the market sometime this summer. Monfort of Colorado, the new company, will own all of the stock of Monfort Feed Lots and Monfort Packing Company. Through the Packing Company, it will own the stock of Monfort Provision Company. The issue will be approximately 1,200,000 shares of which 200,000 shares will be sold by members of the family. The family will still own between 75 and 80% of the stock after the offering. The lead underwriters for the issue are Walston & Co., a national firm with more than 100 offices and Faulkner, Dawkins and Sullivan, a New York firm. We would presume that several Colorado firms may well be included in the underwriting and selling group. It should be noted that the public sale of stock that we contemplate will not finance all three of these projects and we will be dependent upon obtaining additional funds. The very tight money situation at the present time may well slow some of our plans but we are confident that any slow down will be of a temporary nature. Page 3 When we first envisioned this expansion we thought it should occur in a different area. We have been contacted by numerous individuals. Chambers of Commerce, Development organizations, etc. in many other states and many other areas of Colorado. We looked and investigated. We soon determined, however, that we must look only in Colorado. Not only is our successful sales effort tied to Colorado beef, but we honestly believe that Colorado beef is superior. After restricting our thinking to Colorado, we could find no other area of the state with the advantages of climate, utilities and communications that we have in however, rested on the availability of large both weather and business, transportation, the Greeley area. Our final determination, numbers of well finished cattle from the best cattle feeders in the country and the very stable, easily trained and highly productive labor force available. These considerations far outweighed special tax incentives and other gimmicks offered elsewhere. We realize that this expansion program will create certain problems. Our current 900 person employment will more than double and it is easy to see a 20 million dollar yearly payroll within several years. We pledge our cooperation to City, County and State officials in any way possible to make this expansion truly an asset for our community and the people within the community. ENGINEERING SONS,J,_TANLSJ ---��-- 2021 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 PHONE 303: 352.80]7 NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON AND QUIRK, INC. April 21, 1969 Dr. Duane E. Flack Monfort Feedlots, Inc. North of Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sir: Re: Storm Drainage from Proposed Feedlots The calculation of the volume of storm drainage which will run off from 340 acres of cattle feedlot pens has been completed as requested. The information is tabulated as follows: Storm Frequency Volume of Runoff 1 year 5 years 10 years 25 years 50 years 24 acre feet 38 acre feet 46 acre feet 62 acre feet 73 acre feet The basis for the rainfall intensity duration relationship used in these calculations is from the U. S. Weather Bureau First Order Data Collection Stations. The storage factor used was one which would be available 90 percent of the time as indicated in a report from Colorado State University intitled "Cattle Feedlot Water Quality Hydrology". If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact us. TEN/sm Very truly yours, NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON and QUIRK, INC. Thomas E. Norton, P.E. OFFICES IN GREELEY AND GRAND JUNCTION. COLORADO Obsx 1 COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Wafer Pollution Control Commission 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Adopted: April 10, 1968 Effective Date: May 15, 1968 RULES FOR THE CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION FROM LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT FACILITIES I. AUTHORITY: -Chapter 44, Session Laws 1966, as amended by Chapter 217, Session Laws 1967, Sections 5(e), and 8. II. DEFINITIONS: A. "Commission" means the Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission. B. "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation or association doing business in this state, in whole or in part. C. "Livestock Confinement" means cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules, goats and fowl corralled, penned, tethered, or otherwise caused to remain in pens or corrals where feeding is other than grazing. D. "Feedlot Operator" means any person engaged in the business, as owner, operator or manager of a place, establishment or facility commonly known as a feedlot, and including any facility commonly known as a stockyard, veterinary clinic: or other livestock confinement facility, consisting of pens or corrals used for the purpose of holding livestock for feeding and for holding such livestock for sale, shipment or slaughter or treatment. E. "Abatement Schedule" means the prescribed time schedule for investigation, completion of plans, the construction of facilities and final date of abatement of pollution. III. PREVENTION OF WATER POLLUTION: A. Every Feedlot Operator shall take all reasonable preventative measures to avoid the pollution of the waters of this state due to surface runoff waters or discharges from within feedlots or stockyard enclosure, or from manure or sludge storage areas appurtenant thereto. B. To the extent necessary, minimum preventative measures shall include the construction of sealed collection and retention ponds; provision for adequate drainage to prevent the collection of surface waters within such enclosures or upon appurtenant areas; the use of mechanical means for scraping, cleaning and grading all areas which could contribute to water pollution; the disposal of animal excrements and other wastes, and the diversion of surface runoff or drainage waters prior to contact with contaminating areas or substances. Rules For The Control Of Water Pollution From Livestock Confinement Facilities IV. COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS: A. The Commission, upon finding the preventative measures utilized by a Feedlot Operator to be either inadequate to prevent water pollution or non-existent, may require a Feedlot Operator to adopt one or more of the foregoing stated preventative measures, and such other measures as the Commission may deem reasonably necessary to prevent water pollution, including the installation of a waste treatment facility for surface runoff waters or discharge water from within feedlot and stockyard enclosures and manure and sludge storage areas appurtenant thereto. The Commission will establish a water pollution abatement schedule for each feedlot found to have inadequate preventative measures.' TI g`99j 1 8985 - U\ QR95- • • 4 • 991E 299,2 _ r/� \ 4 off. '0 ;: a /�^ 7t.L% a" = z .I,...___4 el/ f .4 t :.(;.>•''':I.4.___._. _ _. _ __ - __-__...__ . i49Ag 9a . /r 7-; i_ 4 ,._•'../../• 'I .I ezt-- t � yi �' 9'7 ) .• a, e=at.), ,,,„.e.,l 1994 =/ � 6', / 9 v. ?4' 6.r./ p/,...27/./...:, ..f,. :�; _. .. 1 .._ 0 /'73 ,ii -4.0.m.4_11.,...„.. 'gaol 4 .,414.1.4 , ;.c94f c /L Ig 19 z- /?1,-,11-4.,e1.?..; •. 1-7,,4,4., w� ,4-i • /' R 91 /G 4 _ ,, -, • i••••0...• -1 ..,:,,r 341-1LI 11 , J , I , 191.3 ; .�,, K. :, �.-C.. - - - 1 - — J � i 7 ' '- es'-' i L- _- - / 4 ffl I 8y 1 1.183 1 r 102.14 (71 t 4r r 2/ 7 0 9 ,? P l' ",,,, -.1.d -t ✓(„1,-ri,,,e...4 - 46.,i',,,,,,,,,..." F "'�/ I ..... .... ._+ ..-1----,, e9 %✓ i 1---- gel?9 I 1 I ��I J t ( -1O/ ,eg -�a� ►# �... _., 199 7 R/ NCO Or, ('� /.�;...a^� a.;.. D09.. ....ice w 9°° `� g..?4.44-13 �-- �, �� 43/ 6 Z, `�.,6,� r -___ I" ----L-1-01.. 90 0 ,'x,46,,. t.,,., 9oo$ ..._ iy",l,..L _ ae1/ y Son 4; It-_ 1,L".lin =/ l•,-.',1Of., ' ./,.. lday- f v 4— .___ t f Hello