ENFORCE20070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comparing as-built to new modelling capacities shows 1.10040 reduction in size. January 5, 1993 - S. Wathen, DMG, reviewed the December 14, 1992 Prospect watershed hydrological modelling information and expressed several concerns. Mr. Wathen wished to make several changes in the factors used in the model, even though all factors had been previously jointly agreed upon on October 21, 1992. Mr. Wathen made changes to the SEDCAD model and made a new run. His results showed that the required sizing for the Prospect Pond under these new modeling requirements was 2.0 ac.ft. Comparing as-built to this modeling capacity shows a 4004'0 reduction in size. S. Wathen stated in this letter that "A fmal review of the Prospect • Pond and South Collection Ditch based upon these revised factors can be completed if Colowyo will submit SEDCAD data derived from the assumptions outlined above." DMG had "serious concerns" about the validity of Colowyo's May 10, 1991 hydrological modelling of the Prospect watershed, yet on January 5, 1993, DMG expected Colowyo to commit to a model that is 4004'a less conservative than what Colowyo initially proposed! January, 1993 - S. Wathen, DMG, was on vacation the entire month of January. March 4, 1993 - J. Garcia met with S. Wathen and L. Routten in Denver to discuss the January 5, 1993 results of the Prospect hydrological modelling plus to discuss the hydrological modelling for the West Pit watershed. J. Garcia proposed the idea to completely ignore the modelling developed with S. Wathen, and for DMG to instead adopt Colowyo's May 10, 1991 modelling for the Prospect watershed which is 40040 more conservative. J. Garcia additionally proposed that DMG accept Colowyo's May 10, 1991 modelling for the West Pit watershed since the West Pit watershed is a mirror image of the Prospect watershed and both were modeled in 1991 using the same logic, reasoning, and factors. DMG refused to accept Colowyo's 1491 modelling. DMG insisted on using the modelling of S. Wathen. DMG insisted on remodeling the West Pit watershed using the same illogical reasoning used on the Prospect watershed. DMG stated that to obtain approval, J. Garcia needed to submit the modelling for the Prospect watershed developed by S. Wathen which would require J. Garcia to write a disclaimer in the submittal that he personally could not professionally or ethically agree with the entire modelling assumptions or end result! J. Garcia and S. Wathen then developed a completely new, illogical model for the West Pit watershed. Upon completion, S. Wathen admitted that the new model would give results smaller than the May 10, 1991 submittal. He stated that he was the regulator and that was what he wanted!