My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36020
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:45 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:34:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
1/15/2004
Doc Name
Enclosed Response to the Tatum Letter (TR-55)
From
DMG
To
Basin Resources
Permit Index Doc Type
Citizen Complaints
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.
/
4
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
., ~'. <br />a <br />JIM TATUM <br />ATTORWEY AT LAW <br />Facsimile (719) g46A159 <br />Tetephane (719) 846.0149 <br />January 9, 2004 <br />Mr. David Berry <br />Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Mr. Berry; <br />~" Q-~~~ RECEIi/E® <br />S~ <br />JAN 12 2004 <br />Division of Minerals and Geale^- <br />I am in receipt of your December 31, 2003 letter concerning TR-55. <br />Please be advised that our citizens' complaint encompasses the loss of water at <br />our bunkhouse on the south side of Highway 12, as well as the damagelloss of water <br />bearing zone directly adjacent to the long wall and airshaft on the north side of Highway <br />12. Both wells are in the same strata. <br />The June 1995 "Investigation into Possible Adverse Impacts of Mining <br />Operations on the Tatum Windmill Well" correctly identifies the well as pre 1972; <br />therefore, no permit was required at that time. There is no logical reason for us to make <br />application. for late registration_foi• this agricultural exempt_well,until such time as the <br />well is again viable. r - <br />60 Federal Regulation 16722 16723-24 states that the interpretation of section <br />720(a) of SMCRA properly extends the statutory requirement for water supply <br />replacement to private homeowners who engage in domestic uses (of water) such as non- <br />commercial farming, gazdening, and other horticultural activities as distinguished from <br />commercial and other non-domestic water supply users. The IBLA notes in their January <br />5, 2000 decision that failure to require replacement of the water supply needed for such <br />domestic agricultural, and horticultural uses would fail to make the residential user <br />whole. <br />In the IBLA decision the board refers to a letter written by me date April 5, 1995 <br />to Senator Phil Gramm in which I represent that "our home and ranch in Colorado is a <br />multi-million (dollar) operation..." The boazd incorrectly surmises that hence a multi- <br />million dollaz operation is cleazly commercial; therefore, the well would not qualify as a <br />residential water supply. This is an absurd proposition, that any farmer who sells a calf <br />or a bale of hay is commercial thus no farm/raneh could be anything but commercial. <br />What the board failed to determine was that in 1995 we owned In partnership <br />11,350,. acres-not adjoining to the property in question and as the majority,owners-we <br />were amulti-million dollaz ranching operation. The Solitairo `Ranch was riot.involved in . <br />129 North Commercial Street Trinidad, Colorado 81082 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.