Laserfiche WebLink
2. Al's legal responsibility to properly protect reclaimed property from erosion and <br /> adjacent properties from damage is also clear. See, for instance, Section 34- <br /> 32.5-116(4)(j) Colorado Revised Statutes which states "all surface areas of the <br /> affected land, including spoil piles, shall be stabilized and protected so as to <br /> effectively control erosion." See also subsection (4)(i) of the same section, which <br /> states "areas outside of the affected land shall be protected from slides or <br /> damage occurring during the mining operation and reclamation." The DRMS is <br /> charged with insuring that the permittee complies with these statutory mandates. <br /> Al and Tetra Tech assert that Al complied with the permit conditions, but all <br /> parties agree that the eroded western slope of the pit resulted in damage to BIC's <br /> property. Thus, it is clear that Al has not satisfied its legal obligation to protect <br /> adjacent properties. <br /> 3. BIC is confused by Al's statement at the top of page two of the letter dated <br /> January 12, 2017, first full sentence that states: "No other improvements <br /> throughout the rest of the relocated ditch were requested by the City/Boyd." To <br /> the extent that Al believes that BIC had to specifically request Al to appropriately <br /> armor the slope of its gravel pit to prevent erosion and resulting damage to BIC <br /> property, Al is obviously mistaken. As demonstrated in the Wright Water report <br /> dated September 2, 2016 and above, both the permit and state statutes require <br /> Al to protect the banks from erosion and resulting damage to adjacent property <br /> owners. Al has an independent obligation to do this. <br /> To address the erosion resulting from Al's pit embankment, BIC requests the DRMS to <br /> require Al to: <br /> a. Stabilize the unstable and eroded gravel pit embankment <br /> b. Repair the pipeline carrying water for BIC back to its original design <br /> c. Reimburse BIC for$1 million plus in repair costs incurred to date <br /> Because the last time we met, BIC's technical consultant, Ian Paton, P.E. of Wright <br /> Water, was not available, we request to schedule a meeting as soon as possible so that <br /> Mr. Paton can attend, explain his findings and conclusions, and answer any questions. <br /> Sincerel oy , <br /> �f� �l <br /> �ric Reckentine, Director <br /> Boyd Irrigation Company <br /> cc. Christie Coleman, P.E. Boyd Irrigation Company <br /> Jeff Kahn, Counsel, Boyd Irrigation Company <br />