2010-01-04_REVISION - C1981008 (4)

Home Browse Search

make that determination or decision and I think the laws that I have read so far will support that. These are MINERS not FARMERS. WFC did not even know what type of irrigation we were doing nor did they have any other documentation right about the other farms. DRMS has been terribly mislead and misinformed and the NRCS has never documented anything that said there was not enough water at any of those farms and according to the NRCS they can only use figures and do estimates and cannot make a final decision and WFC has NO right to determine ANYTHING about the irrigation or state facts about our PRIOR irrigation practices because they have Not a clue as to what we do or how much water we use. WFC is trying to save themselves money, not do what is right or that is required by the laws. That is why some of these laws were enacted, so mining operations could not get away with this. The law says the landowner should never be hindered in their production of crops due to the landowners place being mined as long as they stay far enough ahead of the mine so it does not interfere with the mining of the coal. I asked this question many times and was told there was no such law. Lance agreed for us to continue farming the piece they are presently mining and we have stayed far enough ahead and abided by all of WFC wishes immediately and it has worked very well and we continue to get our production off of prime land and they seem to be moving right along with their mining with no interference from us. WFC knows that even though they are now the property owners of Johnsons place, the law states that it must be put back in the same condition. WFC also knows that WFC told James when WFC purchased the property that the property would be put back as good as it was. When WFC removed our prime top soil for three days and three nights, Mr. Morgan and Mike went to WFC office and Mike and Mr. Morgan will never forget what Lance told them. "This is a communist State, those who have give and those who need take." We can never get our soil back. At every meeting, Lance says We "11 take care of Mike" Even at your meeting. So what does this mean? The law also states the property will be reclaimed in accordance with the Agricultural practices of the locality in which the property is being mined. Our agriculture practices allows us to plow the fields up and replant whenever it is deemed necessary. We also plant corn, an annual crop, so why can't we plant corn for some of the reclamation period. ? On corn, there is a lot less water used and production rates are done annually. We do not, however, feel that water is an issue, but as you have seen our proposals, we have offered another 12 shares of water which has been refused. We have many shares available that we just loan to other people bcause they need it and we weren't using it. What Law states that we have to prove sufficient water and with whose figures because we have contacted every important entity today and NO ONE knows of such a law. Sufficient water by whose definition ? ?? All of them ask me were we irrigating it prior to mining and I say yes and were we getting production and I say yes, then they say that is sufficient. Sufficient water means the CC Ditch, not how many shares, it's a dependable water SOURCE not how many shares. I want a law sent to me that says what WFC is trying to prove. I want to read the law myself. I want to see it say that we need x amount of shares to do x amount of acres. NRCS doesn't even know of such a law. "In addition to finding the application is compliance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this