PERMFILE126714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 4. The existing channel of the Colorado River is now directed at an angle that will strike the narrow 100 foot bike/pedestrian path area (as outlined in United Companies map and document on file in the Mesa County Court House) When the Colorado River has another one of these heavy run off seasons which have repeatedly occurred in historic times the water saturated deep gravel pit will offer a immediate water flow path for the river to take. [see attached drawing Exhibit No. 3] 5. Those residences with adjacent out buildings and farm land will then be upon the immediate floodplain as well as to be subjected to immediate flooding with financial losses to theair .homes, outbuilding and farm lands through the fault of the pit being allowed to be established there.[See drawing Exhibit No. 4.] It. is our contention and concern that your office should not az~pro,/e the application for reclamation for the simple reason. th~st when the floodplain is removed by being converted to a gravel extraction pit extending below the surface e:Levation of the Colorado River there is no way reclamation can be accomplished to keep the river from making a taew channel and flooding or destroying private properties; adjacent to the pit. A 100 foot bike/- ~,.E destrian path completely saturated at river level would not hold the river in its present channel. Thus if your office approves this reclamation proposal you will be as guilty as the appli<:ant for bringing economic disaster to the nearby private land owners. See Exhibit No. 5, photos of Colorado River in f'1ood, 1983-1984 run-off) Unite+d Companies of Mesa County show in their document that when this gravel extraction is completed they will donate the land to the Colorado Riverfront Commission for inclusion in that project. Thus if there is any damage later on that does not occur xhen they are operating gravel extraction processes, that damage will become the problem of the Colorado Riverfront Commission and not be Uniteds problem. United Companies have not yet reclaimed the Golden Pit though they submitted a plan to you in 1985 to do same. D~~ not destroy our private properties by approving a reclam~3tion proposal that will not guarantee our properties will not be badly damaged or destroyed by future changes in the Colorado River channel as a direct result of allowing reclamation that can not provide t2~e existing protection we now have. Only a ten foot solid'~'concrete wall extending below river level to at least the height of existing surfaace along the entire length of the propesed area would provide any assurance that future damage would be a minimum. Unitled Companies would not construct anything like that.