2008-01-10_REVISION - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

been done and even a reference area would not ben needed at this point. I think all of the landowners would like their properties back on the eastern half of the mine and go on with their lives because everything possible has been done on that part of the mine. Areas now being done and the ones in the future are my biggest concerns. If you have and agree to a reference area for the dryland and a reference area for irrigated pasture, then you also need a reference area for our type of ground being mined which is irrigated cropland and alfalfa, not grass, but alfalfa. You would also need a reference area for the people who have raised either grass hay or grass/ alfalfa mixes. Each one of these are entirely different. There are no similarities in an alfalfa field and a grass hay field, none what so ever. They cannot be classified the same or even close. There is no similarities in a grass hay field and irrigated pasture. So, if reference areas are used, they have to compare apples to apples and use reference areas of the same makings. Something you also need to be well aware of and stay on top here is that the water is not attached to the land here. If a piece of property has been irrigated all of its life and for some reason the water was sold off of this property, that property still should be restored back to what it was. The mine does not have the right to change the properties classification just because now the water was sold. If they do as they did on the Martin place, this is not right. This place as well as Lloyds, Johnsons, etc. has always been irrigated and this is how it should be returned. We will have at these properties for the rest of our lives and we don't want another eyesore such as the Peabody disaster. Even if the coal mine themselves have bought these properties outright, they should have to be returned to the original state. They should not be allowed toQ@*e these properties into dry land for budget cuts and just because they don't want the work and/or they will be retired and gone. We will still be here and so will other people planning to purchase property here. When the mine goes to irrigated pasture or dry land, there are many many shortcuts they are planning to take. For instance, for drylands, they only plan to fertilize once with no rock picking, no leveling , etc. For irrigated pasture, they have NO leveling, very little rock picking, and there is nothing mentioned about our irrigated 140 and I repeat 140 acres of cropland which they have only 22tacres and there is no leveling mentioned or extensive rock picking. When I did the drylands and especially the irrigated pasture at the mine, I not only rock picked, rock raked, I did extensive leveling. We do not want the mine to just throw all of ours into a heap because they want to take shortcuts and save money in their budget which is very minimal anyway. We want ours put back as good as or better than it was before they entered the property which is what they agreed to do. We also want our property classified as irrigated farm crop land/ alfalfa which is what it was before they started mining. We do not want any of ours reclassified to anything else. In the last few years prior to them starting mining on this property, the sunshine comer, we had just planted into NEW alfalfa fields after having taken them out of corn All of the fields that they are planning to mine of ours is and has been in either row crops or alfalfa. WE DO NOT PLANT ANY GRASS. WE PLANT STRAIGHT ALFALFA FOR PRODUCTION., We do not raise livestock and the hay is to sell and that is the way we make our living. Other issues: When I worked for Western Fuels, I tried my best to get the irrigation water started as soon as the ditch came in. This was not possible because & Lance and Ross would allow the water trucks to use the water from the farmers for irrigation to water the roads and for dust control. Even though, I was already set up and ready to irrigate, they would take my water away