Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I AGO NRT. RES. SECTION <br /> <br />~st.if' Fax NOle 7671 <br />To UV'I" <br />C<>JDtpl. <br /> <br />Fax:3038663558 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />.OI'~. <br />..ges <br /> <br />Rug 26 ~97 15:40 <br /> <br />RECEaO <br />AUG 2 6 1997 <br /> <br />P.01 <br /> <br />Co. <br /> <br />""""". <br />FlIX' <br /> <br />Pncl"e' <br />Fa><' <br /> <br />.oard <br /> <br />Colorado Water <br />CoI\$ervation Board <br /> <br />CONFIDENTIAL <br /> <br />CoJ:orado has adopt.ed t.he " civil. law rule" on d.rainage:. The'. <br />"ci vi 1 law rule" provides that the owner of higher land (" dominant <br />estate") has an easement fO.r the drainage of the historical amount <br />of surface waters from .his lands to flow through the natural <br />drainage course on lower lands ("servient estate"). City of <br />Boulder v. Boulder and White Rock Ditch and Reservoir Co., 216 P. <br />553 (Colo. 1923); Ambrosio v. Perl-Mack Construction Co. 351 P.2d <br />803, 80S (Colo. 1960); City of Enalewood v. Linkenheil, 362 P.2d <br />186, 189 (Colo. 1961); Hankins v. Borland, 431 P.2d 1007, 1010 <br />(Colo. 1967); Calvaresi v. Brannan Sand & Gravel CO., 534 P.2d 652, <br />654 (Colo. App. 1975); Harareave v. Skrbina, 635 P.2d 221, 226 <br />(Colo. App. 1981), rev'd Qn other arounds, 662 P.2d 1078 (Colo. <br />1983) . <br /> <br />The dominant estate owner may alter the natural drainage <br />conditions on his lands so long as the water does not flow over the <br />servient estate in a quantity or in a manner which would cause <br />additional harm to the servient estate. Hankins at 1010; Calvaresi <br />at 654. If his alternations cause harm, the owner of the dominant <br />est.ate must replace, repair, and maintain drains or channels on the <br />servient estate to prevent damage to those lands. Hankins at 1011- <br />12; Calvaresi at 654. The owner of the do~inant estate may obtain <br />reasonable access to perform the reFairs. Calvaresi at 655. If <br />the dominant owner increases the runoff in an manner or quantity to <br />do more harm had been done historically, that discharge can be <br />enjoined as a continuing trespass. Doche!f v. City of Broomfield, <br />623 P.2d 69, 71 (Colo. App. 1981). <br /> <br />CONCLUSION: Each of t.he entitiesU is dealing with runoff in <br />excess of historic amounts due to the development of their <br />properties. If the Soard determines that permitting the increased <br />runoff to pass through its proper~y would be compatible with the <br />purposes of the Project, then the Board could rely upon the case <br />law described above as a basis to enter into an easement for the <br />passage of the stormwater runoff through its property. It is <br />recommended that a written easement be utilized so that the <br />responsibilities of both parties can be specified. <br /> <br />U Double L Subdivision (a/k/a Wiggins and Ackerman), Federal <br />Express and Waste Management, Inc. are mentioned in the Staff's <br />memo to the Board. We have recommended to the Board's Staff that <br />they check with the Colorado Department of Healt.h and any appropri- <br />ate local agencies to determine that all such entities: 1) have all <br />necessary permits, 2) are in compliance with all necessary permits, <br />3) are not involved in or have not. been involved in any proceedings <br />for violations of any such permits or for failure to have any such <br />permits, or for failure to comply any other applicable statutes, <br />ordinances, and/or rules and regulations. <br />