INSPEC29202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 21 • MINE ID rY OR PROSPECTING ID J1 M-1994-005 INSPECTION DATE 6/22/01 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This partial inspection was performed as a result of receiving a written complaint from a citizen (Janice Becker) concerning irrigation ditches within this permitted area. Another citizen (Stuart Chappell) contacted this office by phone in regard to the same matter. An onsite meeting and inspection were scheduled with Mr. Chappell and the operator. The meeting with Mr. Chappell occurred on lands adjacent to the permitted area, and preceded the permitted area inspection. The operator named on page one was present throughout the permitted area inspection. The written complaint from Ms. Becker states that damage done to the former irrigation ditch which crosses the permitted area was not adequately repaired or replaced to ensure the continued supply of irrigation water to downstream users. This interrupted supply was described as having duration of several years and to have resulted in damage to the downstream users' fields and fruit trees. These same details were repeated by Mr. Chappell during the Division's meeting with him. Additional statements and details were included during this meeting, such as the operator's replacement of Mr. Chappell's headgate structure, resulting in loss of flow control, plus the upstream rerouting of the ditch, resulting in an inadequate supply of water, its delivery to the wrong location, and possibly the supply of water from a different ditch. Mr. Chappell stated that he had attempted numerous times during the past several years to work out these problems with the operator, but his contacts went unanswered or the answers were not satisfactory. Mr. Chappell stated that he is a board member of the ditch association, which owns the ditch easement, the structure, and the water. He stated that Ms. Becker and the permittee (United Companies) also belong to the ditch association. Several specific sites were then toured with Mr. Chappell, including the ditch inlet at the upstream (south) side of the Becker and property. This is where the ditch historically exited United Companies' property and entered the adjoining private land. The ditch is still located there, and was observed to be flowing from United Companies' land, under the road through a 15-inch culvert, and onto the Beckers' land. Another location was viewed, at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy 550 and Vernal Road, which lies about 100 feet outside the SW corner of the permitted area. There is a new concrete headgate structure here, which Mr. Chappell stated was installed by the operator, but without his (Chappell's) knowledge or consent. He stated that he no longer has a means to control the flow from here, and it is delivered now through this ditch to a low point on the west edge of his land, making its use far gravity irrigation impossible without pumping. He then indicated another ditch, also observed as flowing, on the SE corner of the permitted area. He stated that this was supplying water to him and other users, but he believed that it could be water that was from a ditch that was not adjudicated to this association. This ditch crossed the eastern edge of the permitted area, where he stated that the operator had possibly pumped from the ditch to other lands at the base of the hill to the east, or that impoundments on the permitted area had been pumped into the ditch, impacting water quality to downstream users. The inspection of the permitted area followed the meeting with Mr. Chappell, but did not include Mr. Chappell. The details of the written complaint and the onsite meeting were discussed at length with operator named on page one. The details of the currently-approved mining and reclamation plans (from Amendment AM-01, December 1994) were then reviewed. The operator's approved mining and reclamation plans describe the interception of the ditch which enters the permitted area at its SW corner, crosses the original phase of the pit south to north, and which was to have been rerouted around the west side of the extraction area, ultimately exiting the property at the same point. To ensure adequate delivery, the plan included a piped siphon system around the pit. The operator indicated that the ditch entering from the SE corner was the same ditch, only fed from a higher location on the supply. The entire portion of this ditch within the permitted area was inspected in detail. Most of it appeared to be a ditch which had existed for many years. Though thick brush and grass grew on its banks, there were no obstacles and the water was flowing through all of it. There were no locations noted where water was dumped over the hill. There were no signs of seepage in the pit (whose vertical highwall was often only 10 or 15 feet from the ditch) or anywhere on the unmined hillslope to the east. There were two notable locations of new ditch segments across the east edge of the site, where older segments were joined to ensure the flow along the length of the site to its north boundary. Every location exhibited approximately the same flow rate.