|
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />Appendix 8
<br />
<br />W. ,JOSEPH SHOEMAKER
<br />ROBERT S WHAM
<br />EDWARD.J. KRISOR...IF!
<br />EDWARD M. BENDELOW
<br />
<br />
<br />Mr. Ben Urbonas, P.E.
<br />April 1, 1983
<br />Page 2
<br />
<br />SHOEMAKER, WHAM, KRISOR &
<br />ATTORNEYS AT LAVl
<br />1666 SOUTH UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
<br />DENVER, COLORADO 602.]0
<br />
<br />SUSAN E. BURCH
<br />
<br />303-777_5501
<br />
<br />April 1, 1983
<br />
<br />Mr. Ben Urbonas, PoE.
<br />Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
<br />2480 West 26th Avenue
<br />Denver, Colorado 80211
<br />
<br />The engineer has provided a summary of improvement recommenda-
<br />tions for Tucker Gulch and Kenneys Run at pages 4-6, together with
<br />estimated costs. These recommendations are described in detail in
<br />Section IX of the Report. The main thrust of the improvements is to
<br />provide a conveyance for the 100-year flood, enlarging and armoring
<br />the channels and enlarging the street and highway crossings of the
<br />channels.
<br />
<br />Re: Tucker Gulch and
<br />Kenneys Run
<br />
<br />On Tucker Gulch, the acquisition of all or a portion of the
<br />trailer court for use as a stilling basin is recommended.
<br />
<br />Dear Ben:
<br />
<br />On Kenneys Run, stormwater detention is recommended at sites on
<br />the West Fork and East Fork.
<br />
<br />You asked me to review the Phase A report for Tucker Gulch and
<br />Kenneys Run dated January 1983, and render a legal opinion on the
<br />alternatives presented by Muller Engineering Company, Inc.
<br />
<br />Tucker Gulch is to the west of and tributary to Clear Creek,
<br />approximately 350 feet downstream of the Ford Street bridge i~ the
<br />City of Golden. The headwaters of the Gulch are In the foothills of
<br />Golden Gate Canyon at elevations exceeding 8,400 feet. The Gulch
<br />drains 11.43 square miles and, at its confluence with Clear Creek, the
<br />elevation is 5,640 feet, nearly a 3,000 foot drop. The stream gr~- .
<br />dient is steep with some slopes exceeding 2%. The Gulch floodplain In
<br />the upper reaches has experienced no significant encroachment, but at
<br />the confluence with Clear Creek, there is a trailer court. The en-
<br />gineer has described at pages 30-32 the problem areas within the study
<br />reach length of approximately 7,700 feet from Clear Creek upstream to
<br />State Highway 93. The trailer court will be inundated by 100-year
<br />flooding according to the Report at page 32.
<br />
<br />Kenneys Run is to the east of and tributary to C~ear ~reek, a~-
<br />proximately 600 feet downstream of the Ford Street bridge In the City
<br />of Golden. The headwaters of Kenneys Run are located in South Tab17
<br />Mountain (East Fork) and Lookout Mountain (West Fork). The high.polnt
<br />in the basin (5.62 square miles) is at the top of Lookout Mountain
<br />with an elevation of 7,560 feet. Uo S. Highway Number 6 crosses the
<br />basin and forms a sub-basin boundary, dividing the total basin approxi-
<br />mately in half. Development along Kenneys Run consists of Coors offices,
<br />school property, commercial buildings and residential stru7tu:eso The
<br />engineer has described at pages 32-34 the problems areas Within the
<br />study reach from Clear Creek to upstream of U. S. Highway Number 6
<br />(West Fork) and upstream of Boys School Road (East Fork). The ~oors
<br />Wellness Center and Employment Center and a number of small business
<br />will be inundated by 100-year flooding, according to the Report at
<br />page 32.
<br />
<br />On both drainageways a local flood hazard public awareness pro-
<br />gram is recommended, as well as floodproofing measures and flood plain
<br />regulation.
<br />
<br />In summary, the engineer has done a good job of defining the
<br />current problems and recommending solutions.
<br />
<br />The following general legal premises are used by me in evaluatinq
<br />recommended alternatives:
<br />
<br />1. In drainage matters, a municipality (Golden) or a county
<br />(Jefferson) can be expected to be treated like a private party. 2
<br />Farnham, Water and Water Rights, pp. 975 and 977, adopted by the
<br />Colorado Supreme Court in City of Boulder v. Boulder and White Rock
<br />Ditch Co., 73 Colo. 426, 216 P. 553 (1923).
<br />
<br />2. Any improvements upstream must be made taking into con-
<br />sideration the outlet capabilities downstream. (Long line of case
<br />law). The Colorado State Legislature recognized this premise in
<br />county (unincorporated) areas by requiring developers of such areas to
<br />detain greater than historical flows. 1973 CoR.S. S 30-28-133(4) (b).
<br />
<br />3. In Colorado, strict liability is imposed on owners of
<br />reservoirs for damages resulting from leakage, overflow, or floods.
<br />Barr v. Game, Fish, and Parks Commission, 30 C.A. 482, 497 Po2d 340
<br />(1972). It is my opinion that this premise also applies to detention
<br />ponds which might not fall under the scrutiny of the State Engineer
<br />because of smallness of size.
<br />
<br />4.
<br />City and
<br />
<br />If you are not going to maintain it, then don't build it.
<br />County of Denver v. Pilo, 102 Colo. 326, 79 P.2d 270 (1938).
<br />
<br />8-1
<br />
|