GENERAL45596 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~3~~~ T~7'~~ :_ _ -_ .._ Mr- David Berry .._ Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology -- "' .... . 1313 Slietman Street, Room 215 ......- Denver, Colorado 80203 Mr. Berry; I am in receipt of your December 31, 200 ~ letter coaceming T12-SS- '; Please be advised that our citizens' complaint encompasses the loss of water at our bunkhouse ou the south side of Highway 12, as well as the damage/loss of water bearing Zone directly adjacent to the long wall and airshaft on the north side of Highway 12. Roth wells aze in the 'same strolls. The June 1995 "investigation into Possible Adverse Impacts of Mining _ 4peratioris 'on the Tatum Windmill Well" correctly identifies the well as pre 1972; .. .. therefore, no permit.was required. at that time. There is no losical reason for us ro make application for late registration for this agricultural exempt well until such time as the well is again viable- ~ --- ~ -- 50 Federal Regulation 16722 16Y23-24 states that the interpretation of section, 720fa) of SMCRA. properly extends the statutory requirement for water supply~~ replacement to private hos~reowners who engage in domestic uses (of water) such as non- ~ commercial. farming, gardening, and other horticultural activities as di$tinguished from -- commercial and other non-domestic water supply users. T'he IBLA notes in their January 5, 2040 decision that failure to require replacement of the water supply needed for such domestic agricultural, and horticultural uses would fail to make the residential user whole. In the IBLA decision the board refers to a letter written by me date April 5, 1995 to Senator phil Cramm in,which T represent chat "our home and ranch in Colorado is a multi-million (dollar) operation..." The board incorrectly surmises that hence amulti- . million dollar operation iS clearly commercial; therefore, the wall would not qualify as a residential water supply. This is an absurd proposition, that any farmer who sells a calf or a bale of hay is commercial thus no farm/ranch could he. snything b'ut commercial. What the board failed to determine was that in 1995 we owned in partnership 11,350 acres ,tot adjoining, io the property in question and as the majority owners we were amulti-million dollaz ~anching operation. The Solitairo Ranch was not involved in 129 Nat'th C~ rnmerc~al Street ~ Trtmdad, Colorado 8182 ,1 i Wflltll WIP 65t09b86It SL~St L09z/Z0/b0 L0 39tld °~ ~" ~ e