2016-10-27_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAMES A. BECKWITH LETTER TO BROCK BOWLES, CO DRMS / SNOWCAP COAL COMPANY RECLAMATION / PG. 2 to civil suit to collect the damages and attorney fees.' On December 21, 2015, Snowcap made Commitments which were incorporated into its Permit C1981041. Snowcap's Repair Plan proposes to address only 2 acres of the 406+ acres of effected lands owned by Fontanari. Snowcap has deliberately refused to investigate the other 404 acres of effected lands: in direct violation of its Commitment of December 21, 2015. Surprisingly, Snowcap's consulting advisors are in conflict with each other over the relationship between mine collapses and surface subsidence. Fugro and Snowcap acknowledge that mine collapses cause surface subsidence and sub -surface fissures and abysses. Huddleston -Berry, however, deny there is any such relationship, and insist that only a bored air shaft causes the hydrologic communication between surface irrigation and mine flooding. This conclusion by Huddleston -Berry is refuted by field evidence acknowledged by Snowcap; by Fugro Consultants; and, by publications of DRMS. In the ultimate analysis, Snowcap's Plan is inconclusive, unsupported by the physical evidence and far too small in scope to address the subsidences already caused by room and pillar collapse and which will be caused in the future. For these reasons, DRMS must reject the Snowcap Repair Plan: holding Snowcap to the full extent of its statutory and common law liability to correct and resolve the landowner's loss of ability to irrigate surface crops. In its place, Fontanari requests DRMS to adopt the Fontanari Repair Plan. Over the next 10-20 years, under DRMS and Mesa County permits, Fontanari will be extracting valuable basaltic materials to a depth of 50 feet throughout its land. Such excavation will eventually uncover subsurface fissures: allowing DRMS and Fontanari to address their repair when uncovered and discovered. Snowcap should be eliminated from these future repairs, as it is obvious Snowcap is more a hindrance than a help in repairing the damages. In the interim, the Fontanari Plan calls for repair and improvement of the Martin Crawford Ditch: damaged by subsidence from Snowcap's mines. By matching soil conditions with appropriate crops (vineyards; orchards; grasses) and efficient irrigation methods (drip or sprinkler), Fontanari can then produce surface crops: thereby avoiding the loss of highly valuable water rights from Rapid Creek. The Fontanari Plan also requires increased reclamation bonds in the sum of $1.6 Million and payment, under statute, of the attorney fees incurred by Fontanari. THE SNOWCAP HYDROLOGIC COMMUNICATION REPAIR PLAN (A) Snowcap Willfully, Deliberately and Knowingly Refuses to Comply With its December 21, 2015 Commitment and the Terms of Its Permit On December 21, 2015, Snowcap, by written instrument, committed itself to investigating and reporting on the existing or potential existence of hydrologic communication between surface and collapsed mine caverns on all lands owned by Fontanari and Jason Carey.2 Research has failed to reveal any modification of this Commitment by either Snowcap or DRMS. It is as binding today as it was when agreed to by Snowcap. This Commitment is now a fundamental part of Snowcap's Permit No. C1981461. As an element of the Permit, it falls within the enforcement purview of C.R.S. §34-33-135(6) as well as 34-33-123. ' C.R.S. §§34-33-113,121 and 135 2 Fontanari Response to Snowcap Investigative Report; 5.6.2016; Appendix B