My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-05-10_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2010-05-10_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:11:45 PM
Creation date
5/19/2010 8:40:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
5/10/2010
Doc Name
Letter on Importants Facts (Faxed)
From
JoEllen Turner & Michael Morgan
To
DRMS & OSM
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
DAB
MLT
SB1
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.
/
7
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
p.3 <br />By changing the laws around is not the answer. <br />bad by all of you. <br />The laws have been changed and altered terribly <br />The State has mentioned continuously that No objections were ever filed on Permit Revision 5. <br />Did you read the Public Notice? I have enclosed it. It states that permit revision 5 is just to <br />extend their permit area. There is NO map as the rules require. There is No clarification as the <br />rules require. There is No public availability at the Court house as the rules require. Most of the <br />public notices NEVER have the right information as required by the law, rules, and regulations. <br />.As you notice in the public notice, for permit renewal 5,the application was not and is still not at <br />the courthouse, this information is not even available HERE. It is in Denver or Grand Junction. <br />With the information that is provided in the Public notice, WHY WOULD WE OBJECT? How <br />could we even read it to object if we had an objection? Again, Illegal. Not what your Federal <br />and State laws state at a minimum must contain. <br />On Page 2,1 have included a letter from NRCS that specifically tells the state that Vegetation <br />types are not synonymous and in fact cannot be used interchangeably in this case as they have <br />done. By the way, this was the third letter that NRCS wrote to the State and told them that this <br />should not be done. Also, because of the size of the document, we need you here because we can <br />show where it was all documented for IRRIGATED CROPLAND, not as it states in their letter. <br />We had NO PASTURE on this place since Mr. Morgan sold the livestock off of this place and at <br />the public meeting and at all other meetings in ALL communications the State has been told that. <br />The State has been shown and told that we raise no livestock and have had no livestock on this <br />place for 30 years. We raise crops to sell and that has been the livelihood of this place 15 years <br />before the mine spoke to Mr. Morgan about leasing. Mr. Morgan requested that anything that <br />has to do with his property he wanted to be informed. He has written and requested this and <br />when Marcia, Dan and them all set at the meetings, he has told them this in PERSON. He is <br />blind and I think all of you are discriminating against him and taking advantage of him because <br />he has requested in writing also. Then they had another meeting discussing his property Just this <br />March and he was not informed. There is nothing NEW at the courthouse and we should not <br />have to read it there for him. <br />Another lie by the state. Third paragraph, page 2. We purchased the siderolls in 1996 and the <br />Western portion of the property did not have the road which is part of our field now and the <br />siderolls were on there since 1996. The Farming operations were totally interrupted on the <br />Eastern 50 acres TWO YEARS IN ADVANCE THEY HAD US SHUT OFF OUR WATER. <br />Where is the State getting this information. WE had to shut the water off that ENTIRE 50 acres <br />and this was a brand new field of AV 120 Alfalfa and we had just sold Weimer Ranches and <br />Smiths 360 to of Alfalfa of it. Lance and Ross both were in the field and commented that this <br />was the largest windrows of alfalfa that they had ever seen and asked us what we had planted. <br />We told them that it was a very thin stemmed alfalfa that was suppose to has exceptionally high <br />yields and they agreed, it did. WFC sent Mr. Morgan a letter requesting that all water be shut off. <br />2002 was the last year that we were able to farm that property. This was very detrimental to us. <br />When Marcia and Dan visited us, we asked them why we had to shut the water off like that? <br />Marcia said, that's the law. But, after reading the laws, we find that we are permitted to farm just
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.