Pueblo City officials on Jan. 6 presented photographs and legal analysis showing prolonged seepage and structural deterioration along the Bessemer Ditch that city staff say has damaged City Park facilities, parts of the municipal golf course and at least one private basement.

The presentation, led by Brian McCain of Parks and Recreation and by city legal staff, described sinkholes and standing water on city property and said employees were removed from a city park annex after mold and standing water were observed. City attorneys reported the ditch company disputes financial or repair responsibility for the lined portions of the ditch.

McCain displayed photos taken over the summer showing brown, saturated ground and holes under the golf course surface; he said there were multiple sinkholes large enough to present safety concerns. He also described two sump pumps installed in the annex building basement and said staff had relocated employees because the area developed mold and was not safe to occupy.

City Attorney Jagger (identified in the meeting as the city's legal presenter) summarized the legal landscape, saying the ditch company has told the city it does not acknowledge an obligation to maintain or replace the gunite lining installed decades ago. Jagger cited a provision the presentation identified as Public Law 96-309 and a local citation read in the meeting as section 742-108, and quoted the statute language that the ditch company "shall be responsible for maintaining or replacing the gunite lining authorized by the act." He said the ditch company's stated position is that any 1973 contract cited by the company relates to a bridge crossing and does not absolve it of duties arising from the federal law.

City attorneys said the ditch has obtained at least one bid of approximately $800,000 to address the lining in the City Park area but that the ditch company had told staff it lacked the financial ability to proceed. The city reported it had proposed an interest-free 10-year loan to help fund repairs; that offer was declined and, according to staff, the company has stopped communicating.

Because the ditch company disputes the obligation and because the legal situation involves federal grant conditions and possible tort claims, staff said the next step would be to retain outside counsel with irrigation-ditch and federal-law experience. The city attorney said outside counsel would review the public law, state law and any contracts; evaluate remedies (including compelling performance or seeking replacement/repair) and potential defenses such as statute-of-limitations or other limitations on tort claims; and estimate litigation costs and likely outcomes. The city plans to return to council with an engagement letter and a proposed resolution to approve retention and compensation for outside counsel.

Councilors pressed for additional factual detail and for clarity about the scope of any legal action. Councilor Martinez asked whether the city's proposed legal effort would be limited to city-owned property; the city attorney said the initial scope would focus on damage to city-owned property but that legal review could reveal whether broader remedies or claims are available. Councilor Flores asked whether the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act provides the ditch company any protection; the attorney said that is one of several legal issues outside counsel would evaluate. President Niemann and other councilors described the visible damage to the golf course, neighborhoods near Powell Avenue and to city facilities, and said the city must pursue remedies.

No vote was taken at the Jan. 6 work session. Instead, staff requested direction to solicit proposals from outside law firms experienced with irrigation ditch companies and federal grant conditions and to return to council with engagement letters and a resolution to approve compensation. City staff indicated two national firms had already been contacted and that a recommended firm would be brought forward after conflicts checks and an engagement letter were prepared.

If litigation or formal legal action is pursued, staff said they would present cost estimates and a recommended course of action for council approval. The city also noted it owns some stock in the ditch company but staff had not completed a review of whether shareholder status affects legal strategies or remedies.

The council discussion included requests for further factual work to support any legal action: confirmation whether the ditch or its insurer had been put on notice, full review of prior federal grant agreements and city contributions dating to the 1980s, and identification of any prior repair contracts or maintenance records for the lined sections.

City staff said they will return with the outside counsel engagement letter, a scope of work, and cost estimates; council will consider a formal resolution to retain counsel and authorize payment.

The issue remains under study by staff and city counsel; the city did not take formal legal action or vote during the Jan. 6 session.