My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-03-26_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2010-03-26_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:02:41 PM
Creation date
4/1/2010 10:13:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/26/2010
Doc Name
Intent to File a Civil Suit
From
JoEllen Turner
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
SB1
MLT
DAB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
167
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
l• <br />been done and even a reference area would not ben needed at this point. I think all of the <br />landowners would like their properties back on the eastern half of the mine and. go , on with <br />their lives because everything possible has been done on that part of the mine. <br />Areas now being done and the ones in the future are my biggest concerns. If you have and agree <br />to a reference area for the dryland and a reference area for irrigated pasture, then you also need a <br />reference area for our type of ground being mined which is irrigated cropland and alfalfa, not <br />grass, but alfalfa. You would also need a reference area for the people who have raised <br />either grass hay or grass/ alfalfa mixes. Each one of these are entirely different. There are <br />no similarities in an alfalfa field and a grass hay field, none what so ever.. They cannot be <br />classified the same or even close. There is no similarities in a grass hay afield and irrigated <br />pasture. So, if reference areas are used, they have to compare apples to apples and use reference <br />areas of the same makings. Something you also need to be well aware of and stay on top here is <br />that the water is not attached to the land here. If a piece of property has been irrigated all of its <br />life and for some reason the water was sold off of this property, that property still should be <br />restored back to what it was. The mine does not have the right to change the properties <br />classification just because now the water was sold. If they do as they did on the Martin place, <br />this is not right. This place as well as Lloyds, Johnson, etc. has always been irrigated and this is <br />how it should be returned. We will have at these properties for the rest of our lives and we don't <br />want another eyesore such as the Peabody disaster. Even if the coal mine; themselves have <br />i• bought these properties outright, they should have to be returned to the original state. They <br />should not be allowed to amke these properties into dry land for budget cuts and just because <br />they don't want the work and/or they will be retired and gone. We will still be here and so will <br />other people planning to purchase property here. When the mine goes to irrigated pasture or dry <br />land, there are many many shortcuts they are planning to take. For instance, for drylands, they <br />only plan to fertilize once with no rock picking, no leveling , etc. For irrigated pasture, they have <br />NO leveling, very little rock picking, and there is nothing mentioned about our irrigated 140 and <br />I repeat 140 acres of cropland which they have only 22 t acres and there is no leveling mentioned <br />or extensive rock picking. When I did the drylands and especially the irrigated pasture at the <br />mine, I not only rock picked, rock raked, I did extensive leveling. We do not want the mine to <br />just throw all of ours into a heap because they want to take shortcuts and save money in their <br />budget which is very minimal anyway. We want ours put back as good as or better than it was <br />before they entered the property which is what they agreed to do. We also want our property <br />classified as irrigated farm crop land/ alfalfa which is what it was before they started mining. We <br />do not want any of ours reclassified to anything else. In the last few years prior to them starting <br />mining on this property, the sunshine corner, we had just planted into NEW alfalfa fields after <br />having taken them out of corn. All of the fields that they are planning to mine of ours is and has <br />been in either row crops or alfalfa. WE DO NOT PLANT ANY GRASS. WE PLANT <br />STRAIGHT ALFALFA FOR PRODUCTION. We do not raise livestock and the hay is to sell <br />and that is the way we make our living. <br />Other issues: When I worked for Western Fuels, I tried my best to get the irrigation water started <br />�• as soon as the ditch came in. This was not possible because the Lance and Ross would allow the <br />water trucks to use the water from the farmers for irrigation to water the roads and for dust <br />control. Even though, I was already set up and ready to irrigate, they would take my water away <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.