2010-01-06_REVISION - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety 1313 Sherman Street Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Attention Sandy Brown: This is another objection to the Permit-Revision of ATC. More facts and information that have been distorted. Vianr Lou Morgans nanie is not Marie. Why were we told by all of you that you could not look at the lease agreenint, but WFC is permitted to include it in the Pennit-Revision. and of Public Record? But, they did not put the rest of the lease agreement which allows us to farm the ground and agrees that it gill be put back in the crop land. that it was before it was mined. They did not show you that. Attachment 2.05.4(2)(e)-7-6: These figures are all incorrect. 3 rolls ofa sideroll equals 66 feet not 60 feet and we always rolled 4 rolls which in fact would be 88 feet. All ofthese calculations are incorrect. Same page--the siderolls do not all run at the same time. 7-7: Sideroll capacity depends on Nozzle sizes. Nozzles are available from 1/8" to 1/4" by 1/64" The smaller the nozzle, the faster they plug. WFC states there is a minimum flow of 0.42 cfs to run One quarter-mile sideroll but then states that there is 1.39 cfs in the ditch.. -How many siderolls. will that r`an efficiently? 3X .42 is only l .26. 139 even with WFC figures will run more than 3 siderolls. More and snore contradictions. The amount of water that V(TC, is trying to put continuously on straight Alfalfa will mown it to pieces. That's what is wrong with Fast of 27 road already and they never understand. Once it is drowned, it can not come back!!!! Page7--8: How many times are they going to keep cutting figures to CONSl~P.VE?? First ET value.22 then .25 then .29 at 82% efficiency. They continuously keep cutting until they get a figure that is absurd but fits what they are trying to do..37cfs to.35 csf? .Alfalfa drowns real easy! 7-14: How is these charts an average and accurate when you adjust ALL the data to suit yourself? Page 29: The previous standard for 11 cutting production. is based on letter from la-downers from 1998 which do not specifically address irrigated cropland??? Where does this come from. Mr. Morgans letter to you which is in the revision SPECIFICALLY addresses cropland and it is documented as such. Page 36 Again All falsehoods and inaccuracies, Page 39, again untrue. Page 41 contradicts page 36 again otaHy wring. Also 1 share will do 2 AC IBS of land. Plans for fertilization contradictory to page 36 again. Page 43. rack to the dinosaur days again, not realistic. Page 44 doesn't specifier what Areas' Page 45 Not accurate information and does not apply to .is. Page 49 we believe to be inaccurate and maybe not even possible. We are reading so many pages a day to tr.Morgan and well continue with our objections and we do still have a poxycr of attorney in. place that covers any letters.. meetings, or objections that -.re have pertaining to the reclamation of the Morgan property to make sure it gets restored to its proper form of irrigated cropland as it was before the mine entered the property. We want it put rack like it was and we will not accept dryland nor will we accept this permit revision. Thank you.