Residents warned to be cautious around retention ponds

Daily rainfall continues to wreak havoc on the region as roadways are ooded, sinkholes are forming and now the Douglas County Sheri ’s O ce is warning residents to beware of over owing retention ponds.

In a press release on June 16 evening, o cials said Douglas County is experiencing above-average rainfall in June and the ground is saturated.

According to the National Weather Service, the Denver metro area usually has an average of just under two inches of rain in all of June. is year, rain showers beat that average in the month’s rst ve days. May was also a wet month this year, with the weather service reporting more than ve inches, compared to 2.59 inches in May last year. e sheri ’s o ce said normally retention ponds do not pose a threat, but with the continued rainfall, they can present a dangerous hazard and drowning risk, particu- larly to children. e news release said retention ponds are currently dangerous because of the following reasons.

According to the news release, the sheri ’s o ce said retention ponds, located throughout the Douglas County, are designed both for water quality treatment and ood control. Both those that are normally dry and those that hold water all year round are currently full.

• Retention ponds often have steep sides, which makes climbing out of them di cult.

• Retention ponds and outlet culverts may have strong currents as the water drains from them – especially if protective bars or grating is built close to the drain.

• e suction e ect created by the in ow and out ow structures of retention ponds can unexpectedly pull children under the water, making it extremely di cult for them to escape without immediate assistance.

• Children are naturally curious and may be drawn to the allure of these water bodies, especially during or after heavy rainfall.

Sinkhole

FROM PAGE 7 reported and town crews responded immediately and closed the roadway to tra c.

Upon rst arrival, Hudson estimated the hole to be nearly 12 feet deep and 30 feet long.

Emergency contractor Quality Pipe Services was mobilized on the morning of June 12 to stabilize the roadway damage and restore stormwater ow under the roadway. is work was completed early that afternoon. e town is now mobilizing Naranjo Civil Constructors, which has done projects for the Mile High Flood Control District, to perform the ultimate repairs, which will include a full replacement of the drainage cul- e sheri ’s o ce also warned never to get into a retention pond if a pet or a pesron falls in, instead recommending calling 911 so rescue crews can get on scene. vert as well as repairing the roadway subgrade and pavement.

• Parents are encouraged to discuss the dangers of playing near or in these ponds.

• Parents, especially those with young children, should avoid letting their children play near these areas during this rainy period.

• Retention ponds collect run-o , so the water in them is often dirty, unsanitary and can be toxic.

After calling 911 emergency authorities recommend throwing something that oats or a rope to the victim if it can be done safely.

Local authorities also warn residents to not swim, sh or play around a retention pond.

“ e replacement pipe we’re going back with is a reinforced concrete pipe,” said Hudson.

Replacement pipes have already arrived on site, however, the work also requires utility coordination and relocations to facilities located within the roadway corridor.

“Right now, if you go out there, there’s water owing through the hole we’ve cut — or the ditch we cut through the road and we’ll have to bypass it,” said Hudson. “ e contractor is probably going to have to bring in a pump and pump it around the work area because we can’t turn it o .”

With contractors onsite, the repairs are expected to take several weeks to complete before the roadway is reopened to tra c.

I will be forced to ask the court to reconsider that portion of its ruling,” Marshall said in an email statement to Colorado Community Media and the four majority board members.

To date, the majority of board members have refused to admit they broke open meeting laws, pushing to appeal the initial ruling.

Friday’s ruling reiterates what Holmes said in his preliminary injunction in March 2022.

Holmes found that all meetings where public business was discussed must be open to the public, regardless of whether a decision is made, dismissing one of the arguments school board members had made.

“Circumventing the statute by a series of private one-on-one meetings at which public business is discussed and/or decisions reached is a violation of the purpose of the statute, not just its spirit,” he said.

Holmes agreed with attorney Zansberg that at the Jan. 28, 2022, meeting between Peterson, Williams and Wise, the two board members gave Wise an ultimatum to resign or be red.

“ ough disguised as a choice, Wise was not given an opportunity to continue his employment,” Holmes said. “ e only options presented were options about how his job would end.”

Holmes also found that the Feb. 4, 2022, meeting where the board members red Wise without cause in a 4-3 vote did not x the board’s violation of the law because it “rubber-stamped” the decision Peterson, e ongoing legal battle has cost the district more than $152,000 so far.

Williams, Myers and Winegar had already made.

As evidence of this, Holmes cited the lack of public comment and conversation about Wise’s performance during the meeting, as well as the quick timing.

“In a review of what actually transpired at that meeting, based on a recording that was made, it is di cult to identify any portions of it that address ‘concerns’ that Peterson and Williams had other than concerns about how quickly Wise’s superintendency could be brought to an end,” Holmes said in his rulough Marshall had asked Holmes to nd that Wise’s termination was invalid since it occurred outside of a public meeting, the judge did not rule on the matter because Wise had already settled with the district.

Holmes declined to issue a permanent injunction, which would have explicitly prevented the board from serial conversations in the future, because he said there’s no evidence the board needed an injunction to comply with the law.

“ ere is no indication that once a court has determined their behavior did not comply with (Colorado Open Meetings Law), they will continue to engage in the prohibited practice,” he said.