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
shortly thereafter. R: 7336, 7351. In addition, in response to questions from Board Chairman <br />Paulin, Ms. Turner testified that, historically, when they wanted to plant corn on fields irrigated <br />with siderolls, they would simply move the siderolls out of the way. R: 7351. Thus, Plaintiffs' <br />own testimony informed the Board that sideroll irrigation methods had not historically precluded <br />them from growing corn — contrary to Plaintiffs' position in their Opening Brief. <br />The only irrigation method not discussed in any detail in the PR -6 technical review or at <br />the hearing was center pivot irrigation, which Plaintiffs now claim, despite specific conclusions <br />by the NRCS to the contrary (R: 6319), is their only viable irrigation option. Plaintiffs never <br />requested approval of center pivot irrigation from the Board (or from NRCS or WFC during <br />preliminary irrigation design). Plaintiffs now assert that WFC should bear the cost of <br />implementing center pivot irrigation and that by not ordering center pivot irrigation the Board's <br />action was arbitrary and capricious. Opening Brief, pp. 29 -30. <br />PR -6's irrigation method via gated pipe and furrow and sideroll was developed by NRCS <br />at Plaintiffs' request to irrigate Plaintiffs' primary crop choice, alfalfa, and the Board's approval <br />of it is supported by the record and, as explained by Ms. Turner herself, is consistent with the <br />irrigation practices historically employed at the Morgan Property. <br />d. Conclusion <br />After receiving written evidence and considering testimony, the Board found: <br />Regarding the post- mining land use, Rule 2.05.5 provides, among <br />other things, that the reclamation plan must "contain a detailed <br />narrative of the proposed use, following reclamation of the land <br />within the proposed permit area." Rule 2.05.5(l)(a). Section <br />2.05.4(2)(e) and Map 2.05.4 -5 of PR -6 contain the required <br />narrative. The proposed post- mining land uses described in PR -6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.