Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />substantial. Hay meadow, as the land existed prior to mining activity, will <br />require added topsoil, irrigation and other costs which the Operator now is <br />trying to avoid. Loss of hay meadow will deprive Landowner of a crop which <br />he can sell, winter cattle feed, loss of land value and loss in the value of his <br />water rights. See Memorandum of Hal D. Simpson, Assistant State Engineer <br />to Jim McArdle, October 7, 1983. <br />State law and regulations require that affected land be reclaimed "in <br />consultation with the landowner," and "subject to the approval of the board." <br />C.R.S. 1973, 34-32-116(k) as amended. Further, Operator has manifestly <br />failed to explain why reclamation as rangeland is preferable to returning the <br />land to its prior condition, as required by C.R.S. 1973 as amended, <br />34-32-112(3), 112(3)(a) and 116(1)(a). Instead, Operator baldly asserts that <br />the earlier permit, in which Landowner was afforded no notice or opportunity <br />to participate, somehow frees the Operator to reclaim the land however it <br />wants. See, e. g., Response Letter of Andesite, December 9, 1983 at items <br />D.4, on page 2, E.1 on page 3, item 6 on page 3, item 11(a) on page 4, <br />inter alia. The Landowner will show that the affected land was hay meadow, <br />that the Operator and Landowner at the time of the original lease contemplated <br />that it be reclaimed as hay meadow, and that the 1981 permit had provision <br />for topsoil depth and irrigation consistent with reclamation as hay meadow. <br />The effects of a determination by the Board to require reclamation of <br />bottom land as hay meadow will be several: <br />1) The land will be returned to its pre-mining state. The injury to <br />Landowner due to lack of notice, will, in large part, be rectified. <br />2) The Operator and Landowner will have to work together to arrange <br />for reclamation. This may result in a new lease agreement between the <br />parties. It is true that Landowner would like a new lease. Landowner is <br />presently receiving a very poor royalty of $.0916/ton, no payment for water <br />used to date, and has not been consulted about various other matters <br />regarding land use. The present lease does not contemplate the ongoing <br />supervision of this Board. The Landowner does not waive any of a number of <br />-2- <br />