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(l), 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 /> MV-2020-023 <br /> 4 <br />