My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:18:46 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 7:54:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/22/2013
Doc Name
Joint Answer Brief of Defendents Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board & DRMS 2010 CV548
From
DRMS
To
District Court, Montrose County Colorado
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
DAB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
location, soil types, crop(s) grown, available water, field geometry, <br />etc. Id. <br />In addition, WFC testified that the irrigation plan was developed in consultation with <br />Plaintiffs and that irrigation of the Morgan Property was designed around the Plaintiffs' primary <br />crop choice — alfalfa. R: 7389. Under PR -6 the Morgan Property will be irrigated using a <br />combination of sideroll sprinklers (74 acres) and gated pipe and furrows (34 acres). R: 7860. At <br />no time during the initial planning stages of the PR -6 irrigation plans did Plaintiffs raise their <br />concern that sideroll irrigation prohibits them from growing corn. In fact, testimony of WFC <br />indicates that Plaintiffs did not raise this concern until the October 2010 pre- hearing <br />conference —far too late in the process considering the Plaintiffs' active role in directing the <br />initial development of the irrigation design, method and crop selection.12 R: 7389. <br />ii. PR -6's Combined Irrigation Methods are Consistent with <br />Plaintiffs' Historic Irrigation Methods <br />The record shows that Plaintiffs presented conflicting and contradictory statements <br />related to the irrigation history of their property. Ms. Turner testified that Plaintiffs purchased <br />sideroll sprinklers in 1996 and upgraded to a sideroll irrigation method (the exact method of <br />irrigation they currently object to) on the western acres of the Morgan Property, on their own, <br />12 WFC poignantly testified regarding Plaintiffs ever - changing position on irrigation <br />design/method based on the Morgan's primary crop selection. Mr. Lewicki, WFC's consultant, <br />testified that: "As far as the crops selection goes...we have been told all along by the Morgan's, <br />that we want alfalfa... We plant alfalfa... the whole thing of the corn came up at this [October <br />20101 prehearing conference well beyond the time that this was under major scrutiny, and the <br />entire plan for the alfalfa was, as I said, reviewed by the NRCS. We can't really change that. We <br />were doing what we were told by the Morgan's all along, restore alfalfa, pure alfalfa. We were <br />even told what species to plant and we did that ... the whole 108 acres is being restored to <br />that ... this is kind of a snapshot of what we went through during this whole adequacy <br />review ... during the course of getting NRCS concurrence, they said no." R: 7389 -7391. <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.