Laserfiche WebLink
had irrigated the parcel until 1995 or 1996 and claimed more irrigation of the parcel <br />until 2003 or 2004, when the main pit excavation extended over the old irrigation <br />ditch. <br />14. Operator argued that he had not given up his water or irrigation rights <br />by adding the middle field to his permitted area. Operator continued to argue that <br />Exhibit G to the permit allowed and provided for irrigation separate from the <br />mining activities. Regarding the wedge of the middle field that is within the <br />permitted boundaries, Operator stated that he had always farmed the middle field <br />and would not mine that portion of the field for years but then stated that he would <br />not mine that part of the permitted area because it would require rerouting the <br />haul road. The haul road currently runs between the middle field and Operator's <br />primary operational area and pit. <br />15. Operator also testified that he had moved the water conveyance line <br />onto the section of the middle field within the permitted area to redirect tail water <br />from irrigation to prevent it from flowing northeast towards Interstate 70. <br />16. When asked about the May 6, 2020 letter stating that no irrigation will <br />take place within the permit area, Operator admitted that part of the middle field <br />was within the permitted area and that he had irrigated it for twenty-six days. <br />Operator also stated that the water conveyance line at issue here was probably <br />under construction when the May 6, 2020 letter was sent to the Division. Operator <br />claimed that the letter only referred to the north area of the site and stated that he <br />did not sign the letter. Operator argued that the irrigation within the permit <br />boundary was not part of mining or reclamation and was therefore not a violation of <br />the permit. Operator stated that the system installed within the permit area <br />allowed a different orientation of irrigation furrows away from the areas of concern. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />17. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Colorado <br />Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials, Article 32.5 of <br />Title 34, C.R.S. (2020) (Act-). <br />18. Sections 34-32.5-124(1), C.R.S. requires compliance with Board orders, <br />permits, and regulations. Operator has failed to comply with conditions of his <br />Permit and failed to comply with the approved mining and reclamation plans in the <br />Permit by constructing a water conveyance system and irrigating within the permit <br />boundary. Accordingly, the Operator has violated section 34-32.5-124(1), C.R.S. <br />19. Section 34-32.5-124(6)(a), C.R.S. provides for the suspension, <br />modification, or revocation of permit when the Board determines that an operator <br />Rudolph Fontanari <br />M-1996-076 <br />W-2020-023 <br />4 <br />