Laserfiche WebLink
p.7 <br /> <br />TR-49 and TR57 A Technical Revision (136) Means a minor change including incidental permit <br />boundary changes. Again, the change shall not cause a significant alteration in the permit. How <br />do you allow these, how does the state Authority allow All of you to CHANGE what Federal and <br />State laws say? If All of you are not going to abide by these rules and laws, why have them??? <br />The Martin place in TR49 was historically irrigated and cropped prior to the mine entering the <br />property. Your laws. Bud Benson had just cut alfalfa off it prior to that. I also cropped it for <br />two years after that and there is a water take out and it has new owners that do have water. Where is the alternate water supply plan that is suppose to be in force? <br />Mr. Klein, do you understand any of this? People here do not read public notices, there should <br />be no reason to have to object or read a public notice if the rules, laws;, and regulations governing <br />any lands being mined are followed. WFC screwed up by removing our prime soils and this was <br />intentional. When Mr. Morgan and Michel went to Lance, He said, "This is a communist State, <br />Those who have, GIVE, Those who don't, TAKE."' This was our first objection and call to the <br />state. We talked to Dan Mathews and Mike Boulay and WHILE they were stealing our soils, we <br />told them what Lance said and it took them 3 days at 90 loads per day to get them to quit. Then <br />the <br />it was months before they did anything. They could have come up here and met with us and <br />returned, They did NOTHING, <br />mine and had our prime soils returned. Our Bari y soil <br />until the following year. The remainder of our combined lift was 22 inches. If I can get Mr. <br />Irvine here, I am going to have him take samples of the Benson property and show ALL of you <br />that this is FACT. The State at that time could have shut them down until we had a <br />primefarmland plan in place, they didn't. They didn't come and talk to us, they didn't visit so <br />that we could have shown them, they didn't <br />ANDS ATE LA S RDID NOTHING EQUIRE. T TO <br />PROTECT THE LANDOWNER AS ALL FEDERAL <br />landowner must be protected to the fullest. WHERE ARE OUR RIGHTS AND OUR <br />PROTECTION FROM THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE COAL MINING? WHERE WAS <br />STATE INTERVENTION TO PROTECT OUR PRIME FARMLAND? <br />SUMMARY: We have a committal letter from WFC stating that ALL of the 107.96 acres will be <br />returned to irrigated alfalfa with No grass and NO pasture to CROPLAND as it was prior to the <br />mine entering the property. We have an adequacy report by Marcia stating exactly that. <br />There is a Stipulation number 17 in the renewal of permit S to put the entire 107.96 acres back to <br />alfalfa cropland. <br />Why are you allowing a permit revision number 6 and why is the State allowing a permit revision <br />to try and change our prime farmland to dryland? Federal and State ]laws state that once it has <br />been determined as prime farmland, NO permit revision or any other revision can change the <br />status of prime farmland without the WRITTEN REQUEST from the landowner. And <br />consultation with the Secretary of agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. So, why are you <br />even allowing this to happen? <br />Again , in Mr. Berry conclusion, the revegetation plan is irrigated Hayland and irrigated pasture. <br />There will be NO PASTURE on this place and is of NO use to us. We raise crops to sell and <br />have no livestock and we will not permit any PASTURE or DRYLAND on this place. This is <br />another VIOLATION of FEDERAL and STATE LAWS! PRIME FARMLAND MUST BE PUT <br />BACK IN CROPS_ NOT PASTURE, NOT DRY LAND, CROPS. THIS IS FEDERAL LAWS, <br />THIS IS STATE LAWS, THIS IS THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, IT MUST BE PUT