to a drainage facility because the features affected the facility's overall condition. Id, We reached this holding, however, under a different CGIA section, 24-10-106(1)(f), which waives a public entity's immunity for injuries resulting from the "operation and maintenance" of the enumerated facilities. Id. at 567. We expressly held, "A failure to maintain is within the scope of the operation and maintenance provision." Id. Because paragraph (e) does not impose such a maintenance duty, Powel! is distinguishable from the case at hand. 6 . Burnett relies on several cases to argue that an entity waives immunity when a maintenance failure allows objects to intrude upon or interfere with a public facility and cause an injury thereon. See State v. Moldovan, 842 P.2d 220, 225 (Colo.1992) (<HOLDING>); Medina, 35 P.3d at 448-49 (remanding to
holding that the plaintiffs injuries were a result of the states failure to maintain and therefore finding a waiver of immunity under the cgia where the state allowed a rightofway fence adjacent to highway to fall into a state of disrepair thereby enabling a cow to run onto the highway and injure the plaintiff holding that the government waived immunity for failing to repair a damaged fence that allowed a cow to wander onto a roadway recognizing that immunity may be waived holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court holding that the government waived immunity for failing to secure boulders above road