My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-11-06_REVISION - M1983102
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1983102
>
2006-11-06_REVISION - M1983102
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:36:05 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:31:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983102
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/6/2006
Doc Name
Letters of Objection to Operator
From
DRMS
To
Thompson Properties
Type & Sequence
AM2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ivuv. i•~uvv ~:u~rin iuwn Ur GHANBY 9IU8819341 <br />Page Two <br />Tv1Y. Wenzel and Mr. Mount <br />NU.9hlh <br />Y. 3 <br />in the expansion areas, Regardless of what is alluded to by the applicants and their paid <br />hydrologist, ground water was hit and had been used (they were pumping out of the <br />ground), They were also operating without off cial water rights. I would think the State <br />would cars about that and not allow them to correct it after the feet or expand into <br />another area to possibly damage and take away the rest of our property rights especially <br />where the water is concerned. <br />We re-submit you own inspection report dated09/05/2006 to be entered back into the <br />record for the State's consideration of allowing this expansion. The existing pit is one <br />thing but the expansion should not be allowed, period. Further testing needs to be done. <br />The hydrologist hired by the applicant did no tests in the old site nor in the new area. <br />Does not residential wells 30 feet from the property line count for something? Our well <br />has been here since 1985 and the Thompsons did not even purchase the expansion lands <br />unti11999. All other property owns share this same concern, <br />We beg you not to be hasty in your decision. Consider all the facts and do more actual <br />engineering. Please be advised that the 5purlins and the whole neighborhood want to go <br />on record that we have advised you of the potential physical and financial impact to all of <br />us should the State allow this expansion. Covering up groundwater or re-drilling a <br />neighboring well if it is injured, does not guarantee the same amount oz quality that the <br />neighborhood has egjoyed. Please bring the State Engineer, the Colorado Division of <br />taster Resources, and the Water Commissioner for District 51 into this process as <br />requested in the neighborhoods letters to both you end the State Engineer on September <br />27, 2006. You advised me this week Mr. Wenzel that the Iiollcy's loner on behalf of the <br />whole neighborhood did not request any action on your part. You are mistaken. We are <br />all askhlg for intervention in thin matter by your Department and those mentioned above. <br />Sincerely, <br />~c¢a~- Q'v~ /-ftaol 'bP~zt~ - -•~.tr~ ~ 1 ~-"~ <br />Sharon and Bill Spurlin for all the homeowners in the "affected" (our definition not the <br />State's) neighborhood <br />PO Box 677 <br />Granby, CO 80446 <br />~ 7V S 3l - ~~4t./ ~_ <br />a -t v &8'~ ~ 4 a i h~~ <br />S'tU ~,'7 ~5~1 WJrIL ~'~ 2.~~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.