Laserfiche WebLink
39. The Morgans objected, and WFC and the Morgans began negotiating concerning <br />the availability of water to use in reclamation. On April 28, 2010, the Morgans and WFC <br />reached agreement that 62 shares of CCC ditch water, or more if needed, would be available <br />during reclamation. <br />40. Following this agreement, WFC notified the Morgans that their land would be <br />reclaimed as irrigated cropland, and revised the proposed PR -06 accordingly. <br />41. In spite of this agreement, to this day, Ms. Turner insists in written statements and <br />in public fora that the reclamation plan for the Morgan Property is to reclaim it as dry <br />pastureland. These statements are made with knowledge of their falsity or recklessness with <br />regard to the truth. <br />42. During this time frame Ms. Turner also began sending the Division lengthy, <br />rambling, nearly incoherent objection letters laced with profanity and personal attacks on <br />employees of the Division and WFC. <br />43. In these objection letters, Ms. Turner frequently accused WFC of lying to various <br />government actors. These accusations were unsupported by any evidence and are false. Ms. <br />Turner also misrepresented aspects of what was in the proposal for PR -06, for example <br />misrepresenting the proposed use and quality of Bench One Substitute Subsoil. <br />44. In these objection letters, Ms. Turner stated she was acting both for herself and on <br />behalf of Frank and Mary Lou Morgan. Frank and Mary Lou Morgan had executed a power of <br />attorney purporting to give her the right to speak for them in all matters concerning their <br />Property. Frank and Mary Lou Morgan never disavowed her or Mike Morgan's activities or, on <br />information and belief, made any effort to stop them. <br />45. The Division characterized the dispute at this point as between WFC and the <br />"landowner" and stated in communications to WFC that the rights triggered at this point were <br />those accorded to a landowner under the Colorado Coal Program. <br />46. On March 23, 2010, Ms. Turner filed a citizen's complaint with the Office of <br />Surface Mining that was similar in many respects to the objection letters she had been sending to <br />the Division. Following the procedure required by SMCRA, the OSM referred the complaint in <br />the form of a Ten Day Notice ( "TDN ") to the Division. Contemporaneously, Ms. Turner also <br />served a document styled as a notice of a potential citizen suit on behalf of all Counterclaim <br />Defendants. <br />47. Among other things, the citizen complaint falsely accused WFC of lying to <br />government agencies, and contained numerous misrepresentations as to the 1998 soil survey, the <br />content of PR -06, and WFC's plan of reclamation for the Property. <br />48. On April 1, 2011 WFC gave notice to Counterclaim Defendants that it considered <br />their actions to be a material breach of the Coal Mining Lease, which granted WFC the right to <br />operate without interference by the Lessor. <br />(00026036.1) 6 <br />