2014-09-29_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M2002020

Home Browse Search

GILBERT Y. MARCHAND, JR. , P.C. Andy Nicewicz, Esq. September 29, 2014 Page 2 are not limited to ... [providing] an alternative source of water to support the historic well water use during mine dewatering." In his September 27, 2013 letter to Mr. Peter Hays at DBMS, Greeley's Water Resources Manager, Jim Hall, described the use of a storage tank and supplemental trucked water to meet irrigation needs on the Rodman property during the 2013 irrigation season. The letter characterized the 2013 mitigation measures as a short term solution. Noting that "Greeley ... has plans for a long -term solution if necessary," the letter went on to state: "Greeley believes that the most effective way to support the well water use on the property is to construct a new potable water line to the Rodman property to provide the property with water during Greeley's 25th Avenue Site dewatering operations." At a meeting between the Rodmans and the City of Greeley on March 26, 2014, the City agreed to run a city water line augmented by a below - ground cistern. Indeed, when the Rodmans met with Peter Hays and Tom Kaldenbach on April 7, 2014, Greeley's intentions were to enter into an agreement to construct a 4 inch diameter water line with a 1 inch diameter tap to provide a domestic flow rate of 17 gpm, and to supplement that supply with a 5,000 gallon underground cistern to be connected to the two wells for an irrigation supply. See CDRMS Report on April 7, 2014 Inspection. Although the parties exchanged draft agreements in which the Rodmans would have released Greeley from liability in exchange for a replacement water supply, Greeley is now refusing to enter into any agreement, or install a water line. To date, Greeley has installed 4 2,000 gallon cisterns that protrude three feet above the ground, even though at the site meeting it was agreed that 10,000 gallons of capacity would be installed. As such, they are a property devaluing eye -sore. Further, in combination with Well No. 1, the cisterns have not provided an adequate supply, even during this wet hydrologic cycle. Rather, they have required supplementation with trucked -in water. The Rodmans have found it necessary to run their irrigation system two times a day, which is more than was required historically. In retrospect, 2014 operations were remarkably similar to 2013 operations, which were not adequate and which were considered only a short-term solution. To the extent that 2014 operations may over -all have been more successful than 2013, it is undoubtedly primarily due to the prevailing wet hydrologic cycle. Such conditions did not exist in 2013, and certainly cannot be expected to continue for the duration of Greeley's dewatering operations. In short, as a result of Greeley's dewatering operations, the Rodmans are not able "to pump a full supply of water in accordance with their permitted uses" and have not received "an alternative source of water to support the historic well water use during mine dewatering." Therefore, Greeley's current response has fallen short of the requirements in its mitigation plan. Moreover, Greeley has not proposed adequate protective provisions in the event that a post - dewatering slurry wall adversely affects the Rodmans' historical water supply.