Gilpin Commissioners and Dory Lakes property owners discuss water case
Both want out of court
Dory Lakes Property Owners Association (DLPOA) representatives and Gilpin County commissioners met on the evening of March 18th to discuss a resolution to their lawsuit over water issues. On one side of the table sat DLPOA board members Bill Cavanaugh, Rudy Garcia, Del Johnson and Suzanne Paulman. On the other side, sat Gilpin County Commissioners Jeanne Nicholson, Buddy Schmalz and Forrest Whitman. Attorneys for each entity were also at the table.
The two parties are at odds over a water lease, dating from 1996, which allows the County to store and use up to 30 acre-feet of water from the subdivision’s lake each year. (One acre-foot equals 325,000 gallons. An average household uses a half acre-foot per year, 162,500 gallons.) The County pays DLPOA $300 per acre-foot with adjustments for inflation and a set minimum annual fee of $4,500. The annual payment is now about $10,000. The original arrangement benefitted DLPOA, not only with revenue, but also by having more water in their lake. The County gained a place to hold water that could be released to downstream users to replace water taken from the Ralston Creek watershed by the two wells at the Justice Center. That water is used to supply the Justice Center, Community Center, Exhibit Hall, Administration Building, Fairgrounds and to irrigate the ball fields. Additionally, the County has pumped water directly from the lake into trucks for Road and Bridge projects. When the County takes its water during dry years, the lake level drops, limiting its recreational uses (fishing and non-motorized boating).
DLPOA has objected to the County’s extensive use of the water, particularly to the trucks coming into the subdivision to pump water directly from the lake, and to the County’s installation of outlet works adjacent to the lake. The County has maintained that 30 acre-feet of the water is theirs to use as needed. The original lease was written with no expiration date and no escape clause for DLPOA; only the County can cancel it. In 2008, DLPOA filed suit in District Court against the County and in November, 2009 Judge Rodgers made a ruling. He found in favor of DLPOA regarding the outlet works easement, ordering the County to compensate DLPOA for the structures that were not part of the original lease. He found in favor of the County regarding use, because DLPOA’s suit wasn’t filed within the time allowed per statute. That meant the County could use and release water from Dory Lake at will. He also ordered DLPOA to pay the County’s court costs of $58,854. The County has already garnished $11,205 from the annual payments to DLPOA, leaving DLPOA owing $47,649. DLPOA appealed, triggering a counter-appeal by the County. That’s where the case is now.
At the table, last Thursday evening, DLPOA told Commissioners they wanted the debt forgiven, the return of the garnished money, continued annual payments and a contract that allows for renegotiation in the future. In return, DLPOA would withdraw as an objector from the Water Court litigation (over seepage) brought against the County by downstream users, mainly Arvada. That is of value to the County, as one less objector improves chances of getting that case settled sooner and more favorably – and at less expense to taxpayers.
Commissioners, noting they are charged with looking out for the interests of all Gilpin taxpayers, including Dory Lakes residents, said they wanted DLPOA out of the water court litigation and a final settlement to this district court case so they aren’t back in court over these issues later. Schmalz said Commissioners are obligated to other taxpayers to go after the money DLPOA owes the County, but suggested a payment plan, possibly having the County withhold the annual payments in whole or in part until the debt is paid. Commissioners said they are willing to ease back on the Road and Bridge trucks pumping water from Dory Lake, but said they needed to figure out the value of the lake bottom, regarding the pump installed there, before determining any compensation for it. The easement for the outlets works is actually on land owned by a private party, not DLPOA, they noted. Commissioners said they would consider a contract that can be revisited periodically, but not terminated. Garcia said it was never DLPOA’s intent to terminate it. “We want to get on down the road – get rid of this thing,” he said.
Commissioners can take no official action at a work session, and the entire group said they were not ready to reach consensus on any points, yet. Another work session has been scheduled for 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April 13th, at the Court House. The public is welcome to attend and observe work sessions, but may not interrupt, disrupt or comment. The parties hope to propose a more specific settlement at that time, with dollar figures, timelines and necessary actions stipulated.