Laserfiche WebLink
Poor management, poor farming, poor irrigating, Shit how in the HELL did we ever survive <br />without the help of Ross Gubka and Western l~uels? It's a wonder that we are even here. <br />2.04 9 -16 "Part of the reason for the reversal was due to a typographical error in a. previous <br />NRCS documentation." First off THE OFFICIAL REFERENCE IS NOT NRCS OR THE <br />COLORADO FAR1Vl. LAND INVENTORY. <br />NATIONAL SOIL SURVEY HANDBOOK WHICH WAS DOCUMENTED TO BE PRIME <br />FARMLAND IN 1998 and was documented as being PRIME soils in 1985, 1992,1996, and <br />1998. To use any other, documentation or less documentation that what is required by Federal <br />and State laws is not acceptable and everyone is getting sued for that. All rules, regulations, <br />Federal and State have been violated here. SECOND, even in the Colorado Farmland Inventory <br />the typo error was on one page and on the prior it also stated it was prime farmland. FedeTal and <br />ERROR IN <br />State laws say that it must be PROVEN 13EYOND A DOUBT, NOT JUST A TYPO <br />ONE PIECE OF PAPERt!!1 NRCS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSULTED AT THAT TIME <br />AS WELL AS THE USDA and it was mandatory by law that the STATE also do a thorough <br />investigation. NONE OF THIS WAS DONE> HOW DO THEY GET THEIR PERMIT <br />RENEWED???? <br />Page 2.04.9 -16 The Rules and regulations do not say this. Prime Farmland exists if it has been. <br />historically used as cropland NO Water is mentioned, no management is mentioned. They are <br />taking the rules and laws out of context, again. It must have less than 6 % slopes, it must have a <br />growing season of at least 90 days, no water is mentioned, no management, no production yields, <br />just read the laws and the rules. It must have very few rocks in the soil, it must have an adequate <br />and dependable WATER SUPPLY which is the CC ditch not an individuals shares of water, and <br />it must contain PRIME FARMLAND SOILS. <br />Theis examples at the bottom of the page are wrong. They have not been here but 16 years and <br />all of this permit area has been historically used for cropland for the past 50 -90 years plus. If it <br />was irrigated before and it produced, then it needs to be irrigated again. It does not matter if the <br />areas that have been ]eased or sold to the mine do not have an adequate and dependable water <br />supply now, because at the time that they were acquired, they had to be in production 5out of 1.0 <br />years. At the time they were acquired, if there was prime farmland within that area, they were <br />NOT allowed to even enter that property until a thorough prime farmland investigation was <br />done, ! 1 ! !NOT 10 or 12 years later. ALL rules and laws again broken!! And the mine at that time <br />would have to have by law an alternative water supply to return the property to as good or better <br />than it was. <br />TR57 again is illegal. A Technical Revision can only be used for MINOR changes, not used to <br />change our entire property! 1! <br />The adequate and dependable water supply for this area is the CC ditch. The reason Dean Stindt <br />disqualified, the first very small area was because the water supply was CALAMITY DRAW <br />which had not been designated as a dependable water supply and there were no shares for this <br />property and it was very small. This was a very SPECIFIC piece and the letter was not to be used <br />for ANY other piece. LETTER ENCLOSED!!! <br />