Laserfiche WebLink
06-05-2006 02;33Pi1 FROti-DOL NATURAL RESOURCES <br />3038563568 T-5T2 P.007/02T F-633 <br />19. Tn response m the Defendants Chaucer' request, the DMCI concluded that there <br />was rw violation of rho permit as all water which would be discharged from the site to the South <br />Florae River would be delivered via long standing ditches in quantities allowed by the recorded <br />public document (i.e.,15 ds} <br />20. Plaintiffs have aclomwledged that the Defendants Chavers have horses on their <br />propexty. In order m protect t3te right-of-way and their auimals and ptaperry, the Plaintiffs have <br />requested access to maintain the ditch, erect fences and establish a crossing for the horses. The <br />Plaiatif'fs have contacted the Defendants Chavcas to eoordiaaie construction activities and the <br />location of the animal crossing. Ia response, lvir. Chavers denied Plaintiffs access to the Porter <br />Seepage Ditch. Prather, access is required to comply with the request of DMG to mark the . <br />boundary of Plaimiffs' Section 112 Permit <br />21. Defendants Chaucer have also addod obstructions over, above and through the <br />ditch to pmvart water from flowing through the ditch to the Soutlt plane River. Furtbar, <br />Defendant CDOT has placed cement barricades at rite entrance of the box culvert, which <br />prevents worst from flowing directly to the South Platte Rive. This has caused pooling of water <br />at the entraacr, which has caused coruem about the integrity of the ground atld its <br />improvements. <br />2Z. Defendams Chavers era threatening w pursue any and all damage claitrts theq tray <br />have, including damages to the horses, crop damage sad iaterfereace withthe potential sale of <br />his praperry, which is currently being negotiated However, raining operations have already <br />commenced in accordance with the Plaintiffs' permit Ia addition, the Porter Seepage Ditch has <br />been located on the Defendants Chavets' property since 1919 and was therefore being used at the <br />time they purchased the land. ;The actions of Defendants Chaucer have cawed the lessees of <br />Plaintiffs' property to claim their leases are in jeopardy. <br />23. Plaintiff SW TKO 7oiat Venture, LLC and Lafarge North America ("Lafarge' <br />entered into a lease agrecutent whereby they agreed that Lafarge had the right to sample, drill, <br />and test for, develop, mitre, quarry, extract, process, sell, we and remove material during the <br />terra of the lease. The lease agreement was fotmmd according m the specifications needed to <br />cotriplete the Lupton Lakes Project <br />24. To betwfit Defendants Chavets and Defendant CDOT, the Plaintiffs wish m <br />devolop a ditch stabilization sad erosion control plan, but Plaintiffs' surveyors, engineers sad <br />fencing contractor have bees denied access to their easement to complzte the analysis atld <br />iatproveiYteats. Asestablishedand used historically, the Plaiutiif's era allowed to drain water <br />through the easement across the ptoperry to rhm South Platte River, and to maintain those ditches <br />as any other ditch or easement in Colorado. <br />25. CDOT has placed barricades at the entrance of the box culven to pmveat the <br />historical Aow of water. Because of the cement barricades, and the restriction on the flow of <br />