Laserfiche WebLink
Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety /JET <br />1313 Sherman Street Room 215 ????9 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 14in ng a c, ataaa , 17, <br />b <br />Attention Sandy Brown: This is another objection to the Permit-Revision of WFC. More facts <br />and information that have been distorted. Mary Lou Morgans name is not Marie. Why were we <br />told by all of you that you could not look at the lease agreemnt, but WFC is permitted to include <br />it in the Permit-Revision and of Public Record? But, they did not put the rest of the lease <br />agreement which allows us to farm the ground and agrees that it will be put back in the crop land <br />that it was before it was mined. They did not show you that. <br />Attachment 2.05.4(2)(e)-7-6: These figures are all incorrect. 3 rolls of a sideroll equals 66 feet <br />not 60 feet and we always rolled 4 rolls which in fact would be 88 feet. All of these calculations <br />are incorrect. Same page-the siderolls do not all run at the same time. <br />77: -Sideroll capacity depends on Nozzle sizes. Nozzles are available from 1/8" to 1/4" by 1/64" <br />The smaller the nozzle, the faster they plug. WFC states there is a minimum flow of 0.42 cfs to <br />run One quarter-mile sideroll but then states that there is 1.39 cfs in the ditch. How many <br />siderolls will that run efficiently? 3X.42 is only 1.26. 1.39 even with WFC figures will run <br />more than 3 siderolls. More and more contradictions. The amount of water that WFC is trying <br />to put continuously on straight Alfalfa will drown it to pieces. That's what is wrong with East of <br />27 road already and they never understand. Once it is drowned, it can not come back!!!! <br />Page7-8: How many times are they going to keep cutting figures to CONSERVE?? <br />First. ET value.22 then .25 then .29 at 82% efficiency. They continuously keep cutting until they <br />get a figure that is absurd but fits what they are trying to do..37cfs to .35 csfl Alfalfa drowns <br />real easy! <br />7-14: How is these charts an average and accurate when you adjust ALL the data to suit yourself? <br />Page 29: The previous standard for 1 S` cutting production is based on letter from landowners from <br />1998 which do not specifically address irrigated cropland??? Where does this come from. Mr. <br />Morgans letter to you which is in the revision SPECIFICALLY addresses cropland and it is <br />documented as such. <br />Page 36 Again All falsehoods and inaccuracies.- Page 39, again untrue. -Page 41 contradicts page <br />36 again totally wrong. Also 1 share will do 2 ACRES of land Plans for fertilization <br />contradictory to page 36 again. Page 43 back to the dinosaur days again, not realistic. <br />Page 44 doesn't specify what Areas? Page 45 Not accurate information and does not apply to us. <br />Page 49 we believe to be inaccurate and maybe not even possible. <br />We are reading so many pages a day to Mr.Morgan and will continue with our objections and we <br />do still have a power of attorney in place that covers any letters, meetings, or objections that we <br />have pertaining to the reclamation of the Morgan property to make sure it gets restored to its <br />proper form of irrigated cropland as it was before the mine entered the property. We want it put <br />back like it was and we will not accept dryland nor will we accept this permit revision. <br />Thank you, <br />?,? <br />m1 qy)