PERMFILE113902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • Page 3 of 5 agricultural community here to access, utilize and manage their water and land resources. If this groundwater is simply ignored it will at least render my basement and septic system useless, if not destroy my foundation. Obviously there is an exceptionally large amount of water located in my neighborhood. If Camas' plans are permitted, unaltered, it takes little speculation to conclude that there will be groundwater's, drainage file water and seasonal Poudre Flood waters all vying for passage and place on and around our private property. Any one of them alone could ruin my land use and residence, combined they most certainly pose a dangerous, critical displacement of water. According to Section 6.4.7, CRS Camas is expected to install monitoring wells. Shani Eastin, in her letter to the County planning department (copy attached), acknowledges the same county requirement. Camas excuses themselves from their responsibility to this mandate by noting that they do not intend to alter groundwater quality (DMG permit application, page 7). Unfortunately the interaction my neighbors and I have had with Camas has been frightfully contradictory regarding their intent on these particular issues. It is in fact another objection I have to their being permitted before they have secured thorough engineering studies and legal agreement where necessary. 4. Concerning water rights, Camas has a current condition to their county permit development standard regarding the Elder Aquaculture Diversion structure. This is a large drain file that crosses Camas' land and feeds the Flsh farm west of our home. Mr. Chris Elder developed the fish farm and received a legal right to the protection and usage of that drain tile. Camas' permit specifically stipulates that they must acquire a written agreement with Chris Elder, the original permitee (and remains the recorded owner at our county water court [reference Case Number 97CW160]). Shani Eastin's letter to the county (copy attached) acknowledges Camas' obligation to provide a 200-foot set back on each side of the drain file because no agreement could be reached between Camas and Mr. Elder. Camas now proposes a 25-foot setback from the Elder file on their county and state applications. Camas representatives informed us on December 2n° that they simply were not going to do the 200-foot set back and that Mr. Elder was not locally available, thus not a necessary person with whom Camas had to negotiate. Mr. Tuttle, when pressed, explained that Camas had decided that they didn't need the set back in order to preserve the drain file properly. Without an impact study the Regulations state otherwise. Still later Mr. Tuttle said that perhaps Camas would leave Cell 6 unlined (although that is not apparently reflected in their permit applications) in order to accommodate seepage waters from the north. Camas' county permit, however, specifcally states in condition 3e that a Use by Special Review (USR) permit will in all cases not cause injury to vested or conditional water rights. The fact that the file and fish farm now belong to a different owner is not an excuse to ignore that condition. The Act, Section 34-32.5-116(h), CRS not only protects the hydrologic balance but notes that "nothing in (it) shall be construed to allow the operator (Camas) to avoid compliance with other statutory provisions governing well permits and augmentation requirements and replacement plans when applicable." Camas boldly and plainly ignores both county and state law to resolve this issue by agreement or impact study. It sets a terrible precedent for their integrity. 5. I object to the following further discrepancies involving community members: a. Richard Goetzel owns water rights on drain tiles that alternately drain his land of excess water or provide irrigation to 40 acres adjacent to Lake 2. Although Camas has an extra condition on their permit to reach an acceptable agreement concerning the file feeding the fsh farm, both state and county law protect Mr. Goetzel's water rights as well. Both the fish farm and Mr. Goetzel, in fact, share one drain tile. If Camas fulfills their obligation to locate and specify their plans concerning all associated conveyance structures they will obviously fulfill their legal responsibility to protect Mr. Goetzel's water rights. Up to and nearly through the December 2ntl public meeting, Camas representatives repeatedly stated that they intend to locate drain tiles as they mined and "take care of any problems that arose then. By the end of our December 2n° meeting, Mr. Gary Tuttle offered to develop a generic dewatering ditch for Mr. Goetzel. Camas has not, however, documented any dewatering ditches in their plat. Subsequently, he scheduled a meeting with our Water Commissioner, Mr. Goetzel, my wife and one of Camas' engineers to at least locate the tiles relating to Mr. Goetzel and our neighborhood. That meeting was apparently canceled, unbeknownst to Mr. Goetzel and my wife. b. Camas' reclamation plan dictates that all but Lake 1 will be lined and later sold as water storage lakes. A careful review of the topography map will show the obvious difficulty with excess ground and storm run-off water draining then through our neighborhood, around their lined lakes toward the river. Camas representatives have twice publicly said they also expect those waters to travel diagonally down through our neighborhood into the drainage ponds and out to the river. When several of my neighbors and I objected to a higher water table, Mr. Tuttle then changed their position on the matter to "assure" us that instead of draining past our homes the excess ground and storm run-off waters would be carried by dewatering ditches and/or the current drain tiles down to the drainage ponds. If that were documented in Camas' permit plans I would at least be encouraged. In general, excess