Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />...1„ , <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br /> <br />sll <br />cut through the levy, this levy or dike or whatever it was, was <br />(placed there for the protection of the surrounding land in the <br />event of the frequent high water, and that just opening a cut in <br />that levy and not doing anything, to close it from time to time <br />or anything, I think was negligent. <br />Now, in addition, apparently the county did not <br />completely comply with various regulations that were in effect <br />concerning the operation of gravel pits, but I can't see that <br />it's been shown that their failure to comply with those <br />iregulations had any effect whatsoever on the event that <br />transpired on May 1, 1980, so although they may, as I say, they <br />.may not, apparently were not in complete compliance with <br />various regulations and even statutes that covered the operation <br />of gravel pits, but I don't think their noncompliance in itself <br />had any effect, however, on the day of May 1, 1980, when high <br />water did come up on the St. Vrain, and that was not inordinately <br />high water, was water which could be expected to occur in the <br />realm once every four to five years. This water did not overtop <br />the dike that surrounded, that was on both sides of the river in <br />ithis area. However, it did, because of the existence of this <br />,cut that I referred to before, it did come into the gravel pit <br />'that was operated by the county in the area. <br />Now, certain additional water also came in around <br />'in back of the county property because of some overflow further <br />down the river, as well as from natural rainfall. However, it's <br />