Laserfiche WebLink
2.04.9 -17" This issue was clarified in the Aupst 4, 2004 letter 'from. Jim Boyd to Dan Mathews." <br />Again, a letter used inappropriately. NRCS and 1 talked to JIM Boyd extensively. When he <br />wrote these letters, he was given facts about SPECIFIC pieces of property and he was <br />SPECIFICALLY talking about a piece of property that he was told did not have any water and <br />had not been irrigated for many years and had, not ever been cropped . This information that he <br />was .gi.ven was all a lie. He based his letter on the information an the facts or data that he was <br />presented with. He said he does not KNOW any of the rules or regulations and when he is given <br />information he tries to in return give as accurate of information that he can with what he was <br />told. Then WFC takes the letter and applies them to any thing that seems to fit. Now, The State, <br />all of them have been told that and in the public meeting if you would listen to the tape, with TIM <br />BOYD sitting right there, i pointed out these letters which were all in the black notebook that I <br />sent to you and everyone was told that these letters have been used illegally and inappropriately. <br />°RThe .efore, all previous references to prime farmland bave been referred to as prime farmland <br />soils." Again, TOO late. This all. had to be done BEFORE they could even enter the property. <br />All the properties EAST of 2740 road that had prime fh mland soils have already been reclaimed <br />and most of the property West of 2700 road, the mine is 2/3 done and have already destroyed <br />Alluvials as well as millions of dollars worth of prime soils have been, stolen. That is like trying <br />to put the cart ahead of the horse. By the way this doesn't work. <br />"It is also demonstrated that the subsoil place in this area meets the suitability criteria outlined by <br />Walsh."'. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US AND NEVER WILL BE. THE BENCH ONE <br />MATERIAL THAT THEY USED THEY RAISED THE SALT CONTENT AND THEY USED <br />ORNAMENTAL PLANTS FOR THEIR EXAMPLES. SHALLOW PLANTS ARE NOT <br />AFFECTED TOO BAD BY RAISING THE SALT CONTENT, BUT DEEP ROOTED PLANTS <br />AS WE PRODUCE COULD BE. Raising the salt content may not hurt some Of Our crops, but <br />according to Dave Dearstyne, it may not be the BEST for all that we raise. They stole our Barx <br />Darvey Soils and Barx Darvey soils cannot be duplicated and giving us a replacement of our own <br />soils does not give us back waht we have. They amy be able to cover our ground, but we do not <br />have the rich deep Barx Darvey soils that we had. The regulations sya that a SUBSTI'T'UTE can. <br />be used as a subsoil, but IT MUST BE BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD AND MUST BE <br />ABLE TO PRODUCE HIGHER YIELDS. Our Bench one material cannot do that and it does <br />not suit us!!!! <br />2.04.9 -17 "Prime Farmland Soils" they again start adding to and interpreting what they want <br />instead of just writing down the definitions as they appear. Prime farmland soils are those that <br />have the best physical and chemical characteristics. All o£ the other things they added are not <br />for prime farmland SOILS. <br />Page 2.04,9.1.1; "Prime FarmalnX' All added information that is not part of rules and regulations. <br />(1) historically used as cropland(rernember this is 5 out of 10 years <br />(2)slopes less than b % <br />(3)adequate and dependable water supply which for this area is the CC ditch <br />(4) growing season of more than 90 days <br />(5)very little rocks in the soil <br />