GENERAL32560

• Permit No: M1977572
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 11/2/1987
• Doc Name: REVIEW COMMENTS 404 PERMIT APPLICATION CO-OYT-0501-1 VALCO
• From: SHINN LAWYERS
• To: US ARMY
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~ ~ ~ iii iuiiiiiuiu iii
r44
l^
SHINN LA1dl'ERS
ATTORNEYS ANp COUNSELORS AT LAW
CARL M. SHINN.
200 WE57 ELM STREET
REG. NO. 1302 October 30
1987 P
O

THOMAS L SHINN. ,
D:iT
FFICE BOX 390
LAI.IA R. COLORADO 81052
REG. NO. 9958

WENDY S. SHINN,
REG NO. 11527 1303) 336~73i3
~~~~^ ~~D
District Engineer
ATTN: CESWA-70-R
U. S. Army Corp of Engineers
Albuquerque District
P. 0. Box 1580
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-1580
NOV 21987
MINED LAND
RECLAMATION DIV131pM-
Re: Review Comments, 404 Permit
Application, No. CO--OYT-0501-1;
Valco, Inc., Lamar, Colorado
My File No. 2850-117
Dear Sir:
The City Council of the City of Lamar, Colorado; has
directed me to inform you of their continuing opposition i:o the
Valco, Inc., application currently before your organization. Valco's
application proposes to relocate the Arkansas River channel, as
well as construct a dike and spillway around their existing gravel
operation to be expanded.
This re-affirmation of the City's opposition to this
application is based primarily upon the City's earlier stcited con-
cerns, and those matters disclosed in the public hearing upon the
issue. As well, the City Council is greatly concerned because of
the negative response to this application filed by the Suite of
Colorado Department of Highways. Obviously, the City doer not
possess the engineering expertise to evaluate the project as fully
and completely as the State Department of Highways, but must presume
that the State Department of Highways' opposition, as sta~~ed, is
based upon valid technical expertise, and should be given utmost
consideration by the Corp of Engineers. Inasmuch as the :Arkansas
River bridge immediately north of Lamar is practically this only
existing link for this City to destinations all over Colorado, failure
of the bridge, even on a temporary basis as in the aftermath of the
1965 flood, works a great hardship upon the residents of 'the City
of Lamar.
Further, the Council respectfully calls your attention to
the fact that the existing river channel, passing under the extreme
north end of the bridge is an artificial channel. At least twice
in the recent past, the river has broken through this existing
artificial channel, to return to its historical channel on the south
side of the river bottom and bridge. It is evident that the ter>~ncy
of the river is to leave the existing artificial channel in high
water. It seems elementary that any sharp bend in the river, as