2019-10-22_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAMES A.BECKWITH FONTANARI OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS 1 SNOWCAP BOND APPLICATION SL-I I 1 PG.3 and the bordering sinkholes, together with the potential presence of a surface subsidence trough at the eastern edge of Tract No. 71. As a result of this subsidence, the Study Area contains numerous sinkholes that prohibit Fontanari from using flood irrigation to facilitate seasonal livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. Past experience has shown that when Fontanari utilizes this irrigation method, the water is immediately lost, or disappears, down the respective sinkholes (i.e., hydrologic communications).3 As a result, Fontanari must use other forms of irrigation to sustain the livestock grazing and wildlife habitats on his property. Fontanari is currently installing a sprinkler irrigation system to avoid these hydrologic communications. This has required Fontanari to pipe the entire Martin Crawford Ditch, as well as install lateral lines within Tracts Nos. 70 and 71. (DRMS officials observed these site improvements during the August 14-16, 2018 bond release inspection.) In April 2018, Snowcap initiated SL-11 to obtain a partial bond release as to the Study Area. Snowcap published a public notice concerning Application SL-I I in the Grand Junction Dairy Sentinel from April 27 through May 18, 2018. That notice stated that written comments or objections and a request for hearing was required to be filed "within thirty (30) days of the last publication of this notice or within thirty (30) days of the completed bond release inspection, whichever is later." (Emphasis Supplied) On July 31, 2018, DRMS sent its Notice of Intended Inspection, scheduling a bond release field inspection the week of August 13, 2018. DRMS officials Daniel Hernandez, Brock Bowles, and Clayton Wein conducted that inspection on August 14-16, 2018. In its Application, Snowcap contends that surface subsidence has not occurred since 1985. (Application, Tab 10: "Surveys occurred from 1981 to 1985. A survey performed in June 1991 determined there was no measurable residual subsidence.") Snowcap is wrong. The continued existence of surface tension cracks and sinkholes on Tract No. 70 in the identical areas Mr. Magers identified in 1981-85 and 1992 belie that contention. Indeed, Mr. Magers observed that: "... the affected area during the survey of June 1991 showed only one crack (Fig. 12); this crack was approximately 1 to 2 ft wide and ranges in depth from 1 to 9 feet. The orientation of this crack was similar to the sets of cracks shown in figure 10 (1981-1985), crossing the A-line between A5 and AG and crossing the B-line between B5 and B6. The length of the crack was approximately 200 ft, with the deepest section in the middle of the length. The crack occurred in the tensile zone of the subsidence profiles for both the A- and B-monitoring lines. The subsidence profiles show no appreciable change from 1985 to 1991." 3 In a Joint Stipulation filed in Case No. 2017CV30314 (Common Law Claims) Snowcap and Fontanari agreed Fontanari would not use any flood irrigation on Tract No. 71 during the pendency of that action. (Fontanari Exhibit 4)