Laserfiche WebLink
t ~ <br />~' .. <br />when comparing the amount of drawdown with the amount of water <br />in storage the impact of the drawdowns are negligible. Further- <br />more, of the 20 alluvial wells mentioned by the Deputy State <br />Engineer, 6 are owned by Flatiron Paving Company. Two of the <br />wells owned by Flatiron are within 600 feet of existing excava- <br />tions. Water from these wells are essential to our operation and <br />have continued to provide the water needed in spite of their prox- <br />imity to the existing excavation. Seven other wells are located <br />east of our location in an area that has been heavily mined over <br />the past years. To the south there are no wells close enough <br />to experience any measurable impact. Wells located to the east <br />are located closer to a non-Flatiron mining operation than to the <br />proposed. <br />2. After reviewing our calculations we have concluded that <br />the state engineer is correct. A recalculation of the size of <br />the existing lake resulted in an approximate doubling in the <br />existing lake surface. However, this lake was created in 1970, <br />prior to either H.B. 1529 and H.B. 1065 becoming law. In light <br />of this fact we feel it would be inappropriate for the Board <br />to place an ex post facto requirement on an existing lake surface. <br />3. Water used for the proposed mining operation will come <br />from wells with industrial uses. We1112261F has a tested capacity <br />of 150 GPM. You should also refer to case No. W-3477 State of <br />Colorado Water Court. Well Number 14515 has an industrial <br />consumption use of 500 GPM. Furthermore, Flatiron is an active <br />member in the augmentation program organized by GASP. <br />If you have any questions regarding this matter please call. <br />Sincerely, <br />~i;N4-C~ <br />Michael J. Hart <br />