Laserfiche WebLink
The Morgans testified that removal of soil from the property began in October <br />2007 and lasted for three days with double shifts. They estimate that as much as 200,000 <br />cubic yards of A and B soil were removed and placed on other property being reclaimed. <br />Western Fuels witnesses admitted that soil was removed, but claims the removal occurred <br />in April 2007, and that 20,000 cubic yards were removed. The parties agree that the <br />removal was from 51.6 acres of a total of 107 acres of the property. <br />When the Morgans saw the removal of soils taking place, they began to complain, <br />first to Western Fuels, then to every state and federal agency that would listen. A <br />meeting occurred between regulatory officials and Western Fuels in February 2008, at <br />which the Morgans were not invited. A decision was made to treat the entire Morgan <br />property as containing "Prime Farm Land" and to handle soil removal in accordance with <br />"Prime Farm Land" standards. To that end, a mining permit revision (PR -06) was <br />subsequently issued that was intended to address the soils handling issue. The Morgans <br />have objected to the reclamation plan set out in PR -06 alleging violations of federal and <br />state statutes and regulations. They continued to complain that soils had been removed <br />from their property and that the reclamation plan calling for replacement with suitable <br />substitute soils was inadequate and would not restore the property to its pre- mining level <br />of productivity. They argue that they finally became aware of the fact that substitute soils <br />would be used in March 2010. They filed this action in August 2010. The Morgans <br />testified that in the period following the removal of soils in 2007, negotiations were <br />ongoing to lease more Morgan property and that Western Fuels representatives assured <br />them that the soils removal issues here would be "taken care of'. <br />Other than the date and quantity of soil removal, the contested facts concerned the <br />effect of the removal and the adequacy of the approved reclamation plan. The Morgans <br />contend that they have sustained damages as a result of the removal and that the <br />reclamation plan in place will not restore the property to its pre- mining productivity. <br />Their evidence established that virtually the entire parcel was planted in alfalfa and that <br />because of the quality of the soil and the availability of irrigation water, it produced <br />alfalfa hay of an average of over a ton and one - quarter of hay per acre at first cutting. <br />They rotated the crop with oats about every 6 -7 years. Their expert testified that in his <br />opinion, the reclamation plan calling for "suitable substitute soils" to be used to replace <br />