GENERAL53971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN-12-06 TUE 07:41 RM CHR4ERS 303 6595223 p, 0g l9. In response to the Defendants Chavets' request, the DMG concluded that there was no violation of the permit as all water which would be discharged from the site to the South Platte Rivet would be delivered via long standing ditches in quantities allowed by the recorded public document (i.e.,15 cfs). 20. Plaintiffs have aclatowledged that the Defendants Chavers have horses on their property. In order to protect the right=of--way and their animals and property, the Plaintiffs have requested access to maintain the ditch, erect fences and establish a crossing for the horses. The Plaintiffs have contacted the Defendants Chavers to coordinate construction activities and the location of the animal crossing. In response, Mr. Chavers denied Plaintiffs access to the Porter Seepage Ditch. Further, access is required to comply with the request of DMG to mazk the boundary of Plaintiffs' Section 112 Penult. 21. Defendants Chavers have also added obstructions over, above and through the ditch to prevent water from flowing through the ditch to the South Platte River. Further, Defendant CDOT has placed cement barricades at the entrance of the box culvert, which prevents water from flowing directly to the South Platte River. This has caused pooling of water at the enhance, which has caused concern about the integrity of the ground and its improvements. 22. Defendants Chavers are threatening to pursue any and all damage claims they may have, including damages to the horses, crop damage and interference with the potential sale of his property, which is currently being negotiated. However, mining operations have already commenced in accordance with the Plaintiffs' permit. In addition, the Porter Seepage Ditch lots been located on the Defendants Chavers' property since 1919 and was therefore being used at the time they puzchased the land. The actions of Defendants Chavers have caused the lessees of Plaintiffs' property to claim their leases are in jeopardy. 23. Plaintiff SW TKO Joint Venture, LLC and Lafarge North America ("Lafarge") entered into a lease agreement whereby they agreed that Lafarge had the right to sample, drill, and lost for, develop, mine, quarry, extract, process, sell, use and remove material during the term of the lease. The lease agreement was formed according to the specifications needed to complete the Lupton Lakes Project. 24. To benefit Defendants Chavers and Defendant CDOT, the Plaintiffs wish to develop a ditch stabilization and erosion control plan, but Plaintiffs' surveyors, engineers and fencing contractor have been denied access to their easement to complete the analysis and improvements. As established and used historically, the Plaintiffs are allowed to drain water through the easement aczoss the property to the South Platte River, and to maintain those ditches as any other ditch or easement in Colorado. 25. CDOT has placed barricades at the entrance of the box culvert to prevent the historical flow of water. $ecause of the cement barricades, and the restriction on the flow of