Laserfiche WebLink
,~ . <br />;i <br /><, <br />--~. <br />-~ <br />m <br />n <br />0 <br />m <br />0 <br />C <br />3 <br />m <br />C <br />m <br />a <br />m <br />m <br />m <br />S <br />v <br />m <br />l <br />N <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />Grad pits aren't as <br />Dear Editor: . <br />Let's start out try living the old saying, "Sweep <br />your own step before you sweep the neighbors'." [f <br />my memory is correct, a few months ago Galen <br />Larson wrote in one of his weekly articles that he <br />was a retired pipeliner. He is stating how awful a <br />gravel pit would be in Dolores. 1 don't believe that <br />the county commissioners condemned any prop- <br />erty for this gravel pit. This is a lot different from <br />pipelines. There are hundreds of miles of scarred <br />land from cross-country lines, not to mention the <br />farm land, corrals, irrigation ditches, fences, <br />driveways, etc., that aze torn up by pipeline com- . <br />panies. I have friends in Mancos that 1 am swe <br />will agree with me that a gravel pit isn't neaz as <br />messy as cross-country pipelines. The hundreds <br />of miles of line are swe to disturb more than two <br />or three residents. <br />If people from Flagstaff or anywhere are so <br />upset about the beauty of Dolores Canyon then <br />awfu~is pipelines <br />they should buy somewhere else and build. We <br />have plenty of these kinds of people here already. <br />I believe we have very good and fair county com- <br />missioners at the present time. I personally feel <br />they made the right decision concerning the grav- <br />el pit. <br />Gas lines and irrigation canals aze needed for <br />this country to survive, but believe me, so is grav- <br />el. If we don'[ have local gravel pits then what will <br />happen when we call for concrete road material <br />and are told we have [o wait a week to transport <br />gravel from Farmington, N.M.; Bluff. Ulah, or <br />some other .place,. not to mention 150 percent <br />additional costs? <br />is a 15- or 20-acre gravel pit finished with grass <br />and roadways any worse than miles of scarred <br />farm land? <br />Harold L. Foster <br />Cortez <br />The Co?fez Journal Via e-mail <br />Count. asks d~i <br />y smissal <br />of ravel- it lawsuit <br />g p <br />BY JIM lliIMIAGA <br />JOURNAL STAFF WRCCER <br />The ~ Montezuma ~ County <br />Commission has requested <br />that a lawsuit filed against it <br />(or its approval of a controver- <br />sial gravel pit be dismissed by <br />the court because the case <br />lacks merit. <br />The suit was filed by Carol <br />Stepe and Jack Akin, neigh- <br />bors of the approved Line <br />Camp gravel pit slated for con- <br />struction in the Dolores River <br />Valley. <br />The plaintiffs are essentially <br />asking a court to overtwn a <br />decision rnade by a governmen- <br />tai entity. The appeal seeks to <br />invalidate ahigh-impact permit <br />allowing the mine to go for- <br />ward, arguing it did not ade- <br />quately address the project's <br />negative impacts, some of <br />which exceed set threshold ' <br />standards established in the <br />county land-use code. <br />Several public hearings on <br />[he issue brought heated oppo- <br />sition from nearby property <br />owners, who expressed con- <br />cern about increased truck <br />traffic, noise and dust; dimin- <br />ished tourism on the San Juan <br />Skyway; and decreased proper- <br />ty values if the operation wen[ <br />forward. <br />The scenic valley is popular <br />real estate for homeowners, <br />but its plentiful gravel reserves <br />and easy access oft Highway <br />145 have also attracted several <br />gravel-mine operations, a mix <br />of development interests that is <br />causing rnnllicts. <br />On Sept. 18, Four States <br />Aggregate. won approval to <br />mine sand and gravel for afive- <br />yeaz period from an 18-acre <br />tract next [o the Line Camp <br />Chuekwagon, pending addi- <br />tional permits and specific mit- <br />igation requirements to deal <br />with dust, noise and traffic. <br />The commissioners approved <br />the permit but with additional <br />rules, including limited hows <br />of operations; that an advisory <br />group be formed to oversee <br />reclamation activities; that <br />Four States and landowner Val <br />Truelson put up a $10,000 <br />reclamation bond; that noxious <br />weeds be controlled on the <br />property; and that Fow States <br />make Buie its drivers compUed <br />with traffic laws. <br />The commissioners, through <br />attorney Bob Slough, disputed <br />the plaintiffs' claims that they <br />failed to follow the high- <br />impact-permit process outlined <br />in the land-use code. <br />In their initial response, filed <br />this month, the commission <br />also denied that the gravel <br />mine will cause `devastating <br />consequences" to property val- <br />ves and neighbors lives, as the <br />plaintiffs are asserting. <br />Furthermore, the commission <br />disputes the allegationthat the <br />approval failed to follow criteria <br />established for obtaining high- <br />impact permits in the county. <br />It defends the commission's <br />decision and mitigatiori <br />requirements, noting language <br />in the land-use code states that <br />`[he permit shall either be <br />approved with conditions, <br />insuring compliance with the <br />decision criteria, or it shall be <br />wee I;UUNTY on Pale 16A_ <br />Coun~ky <br />Continued from Page lA ~~ <br />