Laserfiche WebLink
This pump, as was previously made clear, was purchased and installed at the City's expense. <br />Prior to our efforts, Mr. Rodman had abandoned the pump and the well and ceased its operations. <br />In other words, his pumping capacity prior to our assistance was negligible. Last year the pump <br />successfully functioned continuously at lower pump rates. When operated in this manner, the <br />pump continued to feed the frac tank at a rate lower than 10 gpm, without cavitating. <br />This year, rather than operating the pump consistent with past practice, Mr. Rodman abandoned <br />use of the pump. He then increased the volume of water delivered to the cistern with the <br />expectation that the City will pay for this added expense. While the City is obligated to mitigate <br />any effects of our operations on Mr. Rodman's property, we are not expected to provide relief <br />beyond that level including the provision of additional water following Mr. Rodman's voluntary <br />suspension of appropriate pump use and his failure to keep his pump in good repair. While we <br />continue to dispute the potential effects of our limited activity in the area, the record is clear that <br />the City has taken unnecessary actions to assist Mr. Rodman. <br />We believe that this most recent Inspection Report fails to take into consideration the extensive <br />efforts of the City given Mr. Rodman's refusal to permit well inspections. <br />2. Rodman's refusal to allow well access has exacerbated the City's costs. <br />The Rodman family has consistently excluded the City and its third -party monitor, Mr. Bill <br />Schenderlein, from access to the irrigation well to monitor levels and performance. The City has <br />repeatedly sent written requests to Mr. Rodman and his attorney asking him to reconsider his <br />position. These requests proved fruitless. You indicated when we met, however, that you <br />believed you had convinced Mr. Rodman to permit access for well monitoring. Your Inspection <br />Report indicates: <br />This incorrectly depicts the efforts the City has been making to address any potential <br />effect upon the well at issue that may have been caused by the City's dewatering. The <br />City has made repeated efforts to address any potential effects of its operations on the <br />Rodman well. Mr. Rodman, however, has refused to facilitate these efforts. <br />We are grateful to you for your efforts in this regard. However, we hope you can see that by <br />prohibiting us from performing inspections, Mr. Rodman has unnecessarily increased our costs. <br />This includes the costs of additional water deliveries, the costs of additional pump evaluation, <br />and the potential costs for additional cistern maintenance. <br />3. The disruption in groundwater flows, or hydrologic balance, at the Rodman wells is <br />attributable to many factors consistently ignored by DRMS. <br />As you pointed out at our meeting, the groundwater flow in this area is expected from the west- <br />southwest to the east-northeast. The City's operations would likely have more of an effect on <br />wells down gradient than up gradient, as observed in our monitoring data. Up gradient influences <br />would, therefore, be expected to cause a more significant impact. The Rodman property is <br />surrounded by other mining operations including an upgradient pit operated by Aggregate <br />