The Montezuma County Commission has requested that a lawsuit filed against it for its approval of a controversial gravel pit be dismissed by the court because the case lacks merit.

The suit was filed by Carol Stepe and Jack Akin, neighbors of the approved Line Camp gravel pit slated for construction in the Dolores River Valley.

The plaintiffs are essentially asking a court to overturn a decision made by a governmental entity. The appeal seeks to invalidate a high-impact permit allowing the mine to go forward, arguing it did not adequately address the project’s negative impacts, some of which exceed set threshold standards established in the county land-use code.

Several public hearings on the issue brought heated opposition from nearby property owners, who expressed concern about increased truck traffic, noise and dust; diminished tourism on the San Juan Skyway; and decreased property values if the operation went forward.

The scenic valley is popular real estate for homeowners, but its plentiful gravel reserves and easy access off Highway 145 have also attracted several gravel-mine operations, a mix of development interests that is causing conflicts.

On Sept. 18, Four States Aggregate won approval to mine sand and gravel for a five-year period from an 18-acre tract next to the Line Camp Chuckwagon, pending additional permits and specific mitigation requirements to deal with dust, noise and traffic.

The commissioners approved the permit but with additional rules, including limited hours of operations; that an advisory group be formed to oversee reclamation activities; that Four States and landowner Val Truelson put up a $10,000 reclamation bond; that noxious weeds be controlled on the property; and that Four States make sure its drivers complied with traffic laws.

The commissioners, through attorney Bob Slough, disputed the plaintiffs’ claims that they failed to follow the high-impact-permit process outlined in the land-use code.

In their initial response, filed this month, the commission also denied that the gravel mine will cause "devastating consequences" to property values and neighbors lives, as the plaintiffs are asserting. Furthermore, the commission disputes the allegation that the approval failed to follow criteria established for obtaining high-impact permits in the county.

It defends the commission’s decision and mitigation requirements, noting language in the land-use code states that "the permit shall either be approved with conditions, insuring compliance with the decision criteria, or it shall be denied."

The commissioners believe that any "significant, adverse impacts" will be mitigated under their approval, and that the gravel-mining operation "can co-exist in this agricultural/residential area."

The importance of respecting property rights and values alongside the need for construction gravel was addressed in the response. The commissioners noted that gravel production is the "biggest challenge in balancing these purposes" but that "(t)he aesthetic qualities of the County attract new residents who increase the demand for gravel resources needed to build and maintain houses, roads, septic systems, businesses and other supporting infrastructure."

Tim Tuthill, attorney representing Stepe and Akin, said Monday that his clients are prepared to go forward with the case.