My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE121736
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE121736
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:20:00 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 9:40:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
VOLUME 5A- WATER USERS CONSULTATION
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.
/
19
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
MEETING WITH WATER USERS -EAST AND MAIN ROATCAP DRAINAGE <br />October 09, 1984 <br />• Page three <br />of all the adjudicated water rights in the area. As water is sold <br />with the property, it is not always possible to determine who has <br />ownership at the present time. <br />4) a water replacement plan. This must be a legal and physical way <br />of replacing water. One plan CWI would use is to divert Robert <br />Stucker/Overland pitch water from East Roatcap Creek to West Roat- <br />cap Creek. <br />Mr. Grosse-Rhode asked why the water is replaced if it is diverted <br />down West Roatcap. Matt explained that it assures the people that they <br />will receive the same amount of water as they now have. Mr. Grosse-Rhode <br />asked shout the people who get their water from Long Draw. Matt said the <br />boundary had been located so that CWI would not be mining under the Long <br />Draw. <br />CWI will be doing construction on West Roatcap Creek by putting in a <br />diversion box so that the water could be divided between Robert Stucker <br />Ditch and Oak htesa Ditch, CWI also worked with the Robert Stucker Ditch <br />users to replace a leaky section of the ditch. <br />• Matt further discussed the water replacement plan stating monitoring <br />will be done to identify subsidence problems and repairs would be made <br />immediately when possible. <br />Water sources which have been identified in the area were shown on a <br />map and Mr. Grosse-Rhode's rights were pointed out. Some of the rights are <br />recorded and show existing ownership, as they are the ones who originally <br />filed on them. Water rights are transfered with property and existing <br />owners are not always known. <br />The water rights belonging to Mr. Grosse-Rhode were examined for over- <br />burden (depth from the coal seam to the surface itself). Anything with <br />overburden greater than 800 feet should not be affected by undermining. If <br />there would be a problem, CWI would repair it if possible. On a spring, <br />subsurface construction would be done at the company's cost. <br />Mr. Grosse-Rhode questioned his conditional decree that was now shown <br />on the map. Matt said it should show unless it was filed after the report <br />was completed in August of 1983. Mr. Grosse-Rhode said it and several <br />others had been filed after that time. There is also one run-off pond that <br />lasts year-round not shown. Matt told Mr. Grosse-Rhode that CWI currently <br />does not monitor any of his springs. Those that are monitored are the ones <br />in the permit area having prior consent of the owner. <br />Ron Stucki said the overburden on Mr. Grosse-Rhode's property was <br />• greater than 1500 feet in most areas. Mr. Grosse-Rhode asked how the depth <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.