Laserfiche WebLink
,"~GG Western ~ <br />~ix~e Mobi/e <br />Aggcegpre ~ Asphoh ~ Concre~e <br />July 6. 1994 <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~ ~ <br />RECEII!r: F' <br />JUL 8 199 <br />Post Ollice Box 2187 <br />Forl Collins. CO 80522 <br />303482-7854 <br />Metro: 534x583 <br />FAX. 224-5564 <br />DfV;°!Otl C1 htibe~~y n ,.~,;:,;C y <br />Mr. Gary Curtiss <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />215 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203-2273 <br />RE: Minerals Program Inspection Report for inspection Dated 5/13/94 <br />Dear Mr. Curtiss: <br />This letter is in response to the information requested concerning locating local <br />monitoring data which would establish a relationship between Mr. Andrew's wells, <br />Western Mobile's dewatering activities, and the effects of a possible localized <br />drought. <br />Mr. Shawn Hoff informed me that Buckler Equipment Company had solicited the <br />expertise of TuttleApplegate in researching the same well monitoring data. <br />Rather than duplicate their efforts, I pursued gathering information from <br />Flatiron Company's investigations on the effects their mining had on surrounding <br />wells. <br />As we discussed during the initial investigation, I was under the impression that <br />there had been some litigation between Flatiron and some surrounding well owners. <br />However, Mr. Ed McDowell of Flatiron said that because of the pending sale to <br />Western Mobile in 1989, they decided it was prudent to settle out of court rather <br />than endure a lengthy court battle. He sent me two engineering reports they had <br />commissioned to determine their degree of liability. One is eight pages <br />conducted in 1982, and the other is three pages from 1977. Both are included for <br />you under Aooendix A. The conclusion of the 1982 study found that the primary <br />recharge sources for the wells in that vicinity were: (11 percolation of applied <br />irrigation water; (2) seepage from canals; and (3) precipitation. <br />A map included in the engineering report shows that the Andrew's well is on the <br />"downstream" side of the groundwater flow from the area marked "Area taken out <br />of irrigation", and in line with the wells that were under question with <br />F1atIron. According to the report, the water loss to the wells was caused by <br />losing the irrigation source. This intuitively makes sense, considering that the <br />area under question is characterized by heavy commercial and residential building <br />and extensive infrastructure. <br />