Laserfiche WebLink
WITWER, OLDENBURG, BARRY & GROOM, LLP <br /> Page 4 <br /> attached hereto as Exhibit B. I would add, however, that there is good reason to be skeptical of <br /> Coulson's suggestion that it was forced to remove a previously-proposed drainage swale because of <br /> "wildlife implications if the operator encroaches within 300ft of the Big Thompson River." DRMS <br /> Files, May 6, 2024 Wayland Letter at page 4. In 2023, Coulson sought, and obtained, County <br /> approval for the installation of underdrains that require installation of pipe outfalls flush with the <br /> bank of the Big Thompson River.See Ex.F,March 21,2023 Galloway Letter at page 2;see also Ex. <br /> G, Galloway Map of Conveyor and Underdrain Systems. <br /> 4. The Plan does not comply with Rule 6.3.12 <br /> The Plan also cannot be adopted as presented because Coulson has not yet complied with <br /> Rule 6.3.12 by providing either structure agreements or engineering evaluations.First,it is clear that <br /> Exhibit D to the Plan should be amended because the map does not correctly depict all significant <br /> structures within 200 feet of the affected lands.At present,Exhibit D appears to be inconsistent with <br /> Exhibit E. While not clear on the point, Exhibit E appears to reference topsoil that was previously <br /> segregated as soil that will be used in its reclamation efforts under the Plan. In an Inspection Report <br /> dated February 15, 2022, DRMS Staff noted that Coulson's actions in dumping about 25 dump <br /> trucks full of topsoil near Lacy Lane was not consistent with the existing reclamation plan and must <br /> be either removed or incorporated into the surrounding landscape.Coulson has never complied with <br /> this request, and indeed has added to the piles in the area. Thus, if Exhibit E is intended to call for <br /> these piles of topsoil to be moved and used the reclamation plan, the "affected area" includes the <br /> area near Lacy Lane lying south of Pond 2,and Coulson must comply with Rule 6.3.12 with respect <br /> to structures owned by significantly more homeowners.Alternatively,if the Plan is intended to leave <br /> the 25-plus piles of topsoil untouched,the O'Briens object,since this would clearly be inappropriate <br /> and inconsistent with previously-approved reclamation plans. <br /> 5. The Plan should not be approved until bonding is adequate. <br /> The O'Briens also object to approval of the Plan because adequate bonding is not currently in <br /> place to complete reclamation plans if Coulson fails to do so. DRMS files indicate that,because of <br /> the high costs of complying with water rights requirements,DRMS sent Coulson a notice in 2019 of <br /> a required surety increase.The required increase raised the amount from$58,400 to$4,757,390,but <br /> Coulson did not comply.Therefore,DRMS issued a Reason to Believe Notice on Oct.9,2019.After <br /> this notice, however, it would appear that Coulson was able to avoid the security increase by <br /> obtaining a Substitute Water Supply Plan ("SWSP") from the Division of Water Resources. See <br /> DRMS Files, SWSP,filed Nov. 8,2019. The SWSP,in turn,indicates that it was issued in material <br /> part because of a supposed dedication of 6.84 shares of Hill & Brush Ditch Co. to the operation of <br /> the SWSP,and a signed copy of a"Dedication of Water Rights"is attached to the SWSP.See Ex.H, <br /> Dedication of Water Rights.From a review of this dedication,however,it is far from clear that either <br /> DWR or DRMS has an adequately-perfected security interest in the referenced 6.84 shares of Hill& <br />