My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-01-29_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2013-01-29_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:12:31 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 7:55:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/29/2013
Doc Name
Paintiffs Opening Brief 2010 CV 548
From
Christopher G. McAnany Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, LLP
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.
/
36
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
unlawful. <br />3. PR6 FAILS TO ASSURE THAT IRRIGATED FARMING CAN BE <br />RESTORED POST - MINING. <br />SCMRA and its regulations require that areas previously mined shall be <br />restored to conditions that are capable of supporting the uses which existed prior to <br />mining. Rule 4.16.1. The Record establishes that the Morgans have historically <br />grown crops including alfalfa, oats, corn, and wheat, and that the property is <br />irrigated with a dependable water supply. DRMS and the Board correctly <br />designated that post- mining land use as irrigated cropland. The Record established <br />that crops on the Morgan Property have been historically irrigated via gated pipe <br />and furrow methods, along with a "traveling big gun." Because of changes in the <br />topography post- mining, WFC proposed to irrigate via the use of sideroll <br />sprinklers, <br />which it owns and will remove at the conclusion of reclamation. <br />The Morgans objected because they will not be able to grow corn beneath <br />the sideroll sprinklers, and because the removal of the equipment at the end of the <br />reclamation period will make it impossible for them to irrigate at all' 1. Because the <br />11 As an alternative, Michael Morgan proposed the installation of center pivot <br />sprinkler equipment, which is compatible with corn and which would remain at the <br />conclusion of reclamation. R. 7405. The request was apparently rejected. <br />29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.