Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> <br />March 20, 1978 <br />Mr. James L. Schmieding <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street., Room 723 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />VALCO, INC. <br />GENERAL OFFICES <br />P. C,. BOX 550 <br />ROCKY FORD, COLORAD081067 <br />(30:~) 254-7464 <br />Dear Mr. Schmieding, <br />Re Valco, Inc. Lamar East Pit - MLR File No. 77-572 <br />Division of Water Resources Memorandum, March 7, 1978 <br />We appreciate your forwarding to us a copy of the Division <br />of Water Resources memorandum concerning our operations <br />at the Lamar East Pit. <br />Living and working in the Arkansas Valley as we do ~.t <br />Valco, we are aware of water problems in the Valley. Much <br />of our product goes into concrete irrigation ditches; and <br />other water facilities. In our operating area throughout <br />the Valley we continually attempt to conserve water and <br />minimize the effects of our operations on the hydro]ogic <br />balance. We feel we are doing a good job in this respect. <br />Dr. Danielson's staff may have missed a few items ir, review- <br />ing our application. This is quite understandable i.n light <br />of the number of applications being processed at this time. <br />Our comments with respect to the items delineated ir, the <br />memorandum follow. They are numbered to conform to the <br />paragraph numbers in the memorandum. <br />1. The DWR advisory is duly noted. <br />2. This pit has been in operation since 1948. hlap <br />Exhibits C, C-1 and F indicate how much of the area currently <br />exists as water surface and how much more will exist: in 2006 <br />when the mining plan is completed. <br />No consideration has been given to compensations <br />accruing from phreatophytic tree removal or backfil7. and <br />reshaping plans. Requirements of other government a7. agencies, <br />such as the Division of Wildlife and the U. S. Soil Conserva- <br />tion Service, have been ignored by the DWR. <br />Water losses from evaporation as indicated b}' the DWR <br />are, in our opinion, conjectural. These "water los:;es due <br />to evaporation" have not caused apparent measurable injury <br />to the Buffalo Canal since 1948• It is difficult tc, under- <br />stand the DWR allegation that we now "will cause immediate <br />LAMAR CANON CITY PUEBLO <br />