INSPEC11548 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f ~ - The inspector did activate a "well east of the pit" (Observation 5). This is certainly relevant to the issue. However, it appears that the Inspector merely tamed it on and observed that it pumped water at 800 GPM. There may, or may not, be a problem with the subject well. I don't know if we have internal data relating to that well. Its location wasn't specifically identified. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the length of time the well was observed would no[ be long enough ro test whether ii could sustain a flow mte sufficient to irrigate effectively or to detect surging under operating conditions. Insofar as the well referred to as "north of the Wilson pmpert}~' (Observation 6), we own that location too. We have not, however, experienced surging problems. The well pumps well below 600 GPM, but that may be mechanical issues rather than water depth However, that well is about 150 yards west of Wheeler Lake. I would expect it would be one of the last wells in the area to experience surging due to its location & the recharge impact from Wheeler Lake. It is also a mile from the Varm pit. It is based upon the above observations that I request a meeting with the appropriate personnel with DMG. I also ask to be included as a participant in any re-inspection that may occur. I believe that many of the problems identified above could have been avoided had we been permitted to offer input at the time of the inspection. It is also particularly dishmrbirmg that the pit operator can be considered as the sole source of information necessary_to conduct the investigation.. For example, there is no evidence of independent verification of discharge flow rates. It is merely stated as "According to Mr. Varta. " (Observation 4). Meanwhile, data that we have gathered to quantitatively establish drops in water levels was not examined. Please note that I am copying the Weld Cotmty Commissioners. This is because we learned of the existence of the report during hearings before [hat body for another gravel piton July 31, 2002. The report was submitted by representatives of the applicant as data purporting to show that mining operations bad not damaged wells in the surrounding area, with the inference that other pits nearby likely wouldn't either. I cannot allow that potential inference to go uncontested. It is inaccurate. "Thank you for your attention to these issues. We look forward to a hearing from the Division. Sincerely, /~/,~ ~~~ vv ~YJ Br~n Wilson Farms CC. Weld County Board of Commissioners Robert Anderson, Planner, Weld County Kevin Rein, Office of the Stale Engineer Chris Gates, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment