Laserfiche WebLink
Jane E. Bunin, PhD <br /> October 21, 1996-Response <br /> Page 6 <br /> Issue 6 - OTHER PROBLEMS/QUESTIONS <br /> a) A signed agreement was requested for the Bear <br /> Creek Ditch diversion in a February 28 , 1990 <br /> letter from MLRD to Western Mobile for M-81-302 . <br /> I found no signed agreement- - - - - . <br /> Response - On August 16, 1996 the Division received agreement <br /> for the Bear Creek Ditch diversion signed <br /> February 8, 1994 . This agreement is now in the <br /> file. <br /> b) Question about water rights . <br /> Response - The water rights issue was raised as a result of <br /> some confusion over who should be holding the well <br /> permit. As stated in the March 31, 1995 letter <br /> from Western Mobile, they do not own the property, <br /> therefore, as the property owner, Flatirons is the <br /> proper entity to hold the well permit . The <br /> Division considers the issue to be resolved. <br /> c) The December 22 , 1994 inspection requested a <br /> reclamation plan for the processing site . I found <br /> no response from Western-Mobile. Aren' t they <br /> required to respond or else face some <br /> consequences? <br /> Response Western Mobile was requested to provide a <br /> reclamation plan for the processing site . Since <br /> they did not provide one, the Division has the <br /> right to enforce the requirements for reclamation <br /> as described in Rule 3 of the Construction <br /> Materials Rules and Regulation - Performance <br /> Standards . The request for a plan was made to <br /> assist the Division in calculating the reclamation <br /> bond. Since the operator did not provide a plan <br /> the Division recalculated the bond based upon the <br /> performance standards as allowed under <br /> Rule 4 . 2 (2) . The current bond was determined to <br /> be adequate, if it was not adequate the <br /> consequences would have been an increase in the <br /> financial warranty . <br />