Laserfiche WebLink
~, ~~ <br />., <br />.~ ':~. <br /> <br />JIM TATUM <br />ATTORNEY AT LAW <br />Facsimile (719i 846-0159 <br />Telephone (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 />Q-~~~ RECPtI~fE® <br />Sr' <br />JAN 1 2 2004 <br />Division of Minerals and Geofa^~ <br />Mr. Berry; <br /> <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 damage/loss 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 fox this agricultural exempt well until such time as the <br />well is again viable. <br />60 Federal Regulation 16722 16723-24 states that the interpretation of section <br />72O(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, gardening, 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 board incorrectly surmises that hence a multi- <br />million dollar operation is clearly 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 ranch 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 dollar ranching operation. The Solitaire Ranch was not involved in <br />129 North Commercial Street Trinidad, Colorado 81082 <br />