2006-11-01_REVISION - M1983102 (2)

Home Browse Search

November 1, 2006 Colorado State Division of Mining and Geology 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 Re: M.L.R.B. Permit # M-1983-102 Dear Mr. Wenzel and Mr. Mount: As you know I called Mr. Mount on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 to find out why we did not receive a certified notice regarding the Thompson Permit expansion above onto Lots 5 & 6 of Great Divide Head Lettuce Colony. The notice was evidently mailed out on September 21S`. Our ten acre piece of property, Lot 7 is adjacent to Lot 6 and our well and residence is only 30 foot from the property line of Lot 6. We feel that we are one of the most affected pieces of property, besides Mirabitos for the expansion of the permit. According to Mr. Wenzel, immediate adjacency does not meet the State Mining requirement to receive certified or any notice to comment. I was advised this by phone last week and then received a fax with the definition of "affected area" from Mr. Wenzel Monday at work. I thought I had this week to get comments in (after never receiving a notice) but I was called this morning by Mr. Wenzel to say the comments are due today. Improper notification is my first complaint. Regardless of your interpretation of the Mining regs, all state statutes require notification to adjacent property owners or owners of interest and I think you should interpret your regs a little broader in light of the calls and letters received to date by the whole residential community up here. Our main concern and the only one I understand your entity would even consider, is in regard to our wells. The Thompsons and Pratt already hit ground water at the existing site, were pumping out of it since Spring and covered it up to your satisfaction. They stated numerous times it was snow melt, rainwater and then finally drainage off the floor of the pit. We all know that is not the case. Now they are expanding onto another 20 acres on the MESA. As we discussed Mr. Wenzel, the water table fluctuates with the years (wet versus drought). The track record for the applicant is not good. Your department is not even required to visit except every four years or by complaint as was done August 30`h. The applicants were given three days notice, during which time, they filled the ground water in. If not for the pictures taken with a zoom lens by the neighbors, there would be no evidence. We thought when you visited the site for inspection that you would dig into the ground and actually perform testing at the site and