Laserfiche WebLink
Some of the flow that should have been directed to Pond 5 through this culvert was probably handled <br />by the north inlet culvert, but since it was not designed to handle the volume of water for two culverts, <br />there was a large volume of water that bypassed the north culvert and bypassed Pond 5. There was <br />ponding of water on the northwest side of CR92 from about the location of the tamarisk tree found this <br />year and extending in the depression about 175 feet northward to then drain through what is now the <br />giant gully, to and past the green gates, and across CR92 onto the adjacent Warnock property. <br /> D. EFCI constructed six water bars across CR92 downhill from the Monarch Fan Road to almost the <br />green gates. These diagonal water bars are shown on the included CR92 Map. All of these water bars <br />divert water to the southeast side of the road. <br /> So far EFCI has denied any responsibility for the damage to CR92, the west giant gully, or the large <br />amount of sediment leaving the area. Their reasoning is that this damage is outside their disturbed <br />boundary. CR92 Map shows the disturbed boundary demarcation by the orange T posts on the ground. <br />The two northerly T posts are shown in the two photos in the DRMS Jan. 12, 2016, inspection report. <br />The location of the disturbed boundary does not agree with various Southfield Mine maps, and even <br />Southfield Mine maps do not agree on a single disturbed boundary. But the more important question is <br />what determines disturbance outside their permitted disturbance boundary? It would seem that <br />constructing the road in the first place would be major disturbance or cutting six water bars across the <br />road would be significant disturbance. We have probably not stressed enough that after cutting the <br />water bars there has been diversion of the storm water flow on the road to the southeast side of CR92. <br />This increased flow has to pass through the old GEC sediment pond area near the green gates. Since this <br />sediment pond has been filled with sediment for over twenty years, large amounts of sediment are <br />transported by the extra water bar diverted water onto the Warnock property. The water bars are a <br />significant diversion of surface water and it has an adverse impact on adjoining landowners. Still <br />another aspect of this issue is that Jack Robeda representing the Warnocks has repeatedly complained <br />at several DRMS inspections for about the last five years that the water bars have been the cause of the <br />increased sediment load on the Warnock property. Instead of removing the water bars EFCI has ignored <br />the complaints of our neighbor. Can EFCI disturb the road, divert storm water flow, claim it is outside <br />the disturbed boundary, and then refuse to return the road to its previous condition? <br /> <br />