Laserfiche WebLink
(6)prime farmland soils have been determined which are soils with the best physical and <br />chemical characteristics. " in the reclamation plan, lands are labeled IC" They have ours labeled <br />as IP. All the maps are wrong and this is not acceptable. <br />Irrigated Cropland" There is no such designation in the riles and regulations. Cropland is a legal <br />designation, not irrigated cropland. For those people who live around. dove creek and, only have <br />dryland, they raise beans, wheat, corn sunflowers and. many CROPS and their properties are <br />designated CROPLAND. There is no such designation in rule 1.44 that designates irrigated <br />cropland and Cropland or cropland that has been irrigated DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PRIME <br />FARMLAND TO BE CROPLAND. PRIME FARMLAND MIDST BE CROPLAND BUT <br />CROPLNAD DOES NOT HAVE TO PRIME FARMLAND. These rules and laws were made <br />and developed and signed into place by President Carter for a reason. If the rules and, regulations <br />state how you should designate a piece of property, USE THAT SPECIFIC designation. DON"t <br />add you own words to them. <br />"The acreage of irrigated cropland in the pre -mine category cold be different that in the post mic <br />category since water availability could change as in the case with the Morgan fields in the SW <br />comer of the permit" This is ALL BULLSHIT! ! ! They better quit doing this and if the STATE <br />don't put a stop to this, then I am going to just go ahead and go to court and add more charges. <br />All of our property was in irrigated cropland as it stated even in the lease and it was all prime <br />farmland and as documented by every .rancher in this area that One share will do 2 acres and Jim <br />Boyd from MRCS said ask the farmer. He can give you data and a starting point, but only the <br />farmer knows for sure what he used to irrigate with. It was UP TO WFC TO LEASE <br />WHATEVER AMOUNT OF WATER NECESSARY BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE <br />PROPERTY.THAT IS THE LAW. AND IF IT WASN'T ENOUGH THEY NEEDED TO <br />LEASE MORE OR PROVIDE OTHER SOURCES BUT THIS ALSO HAD TO BE DONE <br />BEFORE, THEY BEGAN MKING. THEY CAN'T CHANGE OUR CROPLAND <br />DESIGNATION JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK WE PROVIDED THEM WITH <br />ENOUGH WATER IT WAS ALL IN CROPLAND PRIOR TO MINING! Mr. Morgan has <br />historically irrigated and cropped that piece that is being mined for 5o years with 50 shares of <br />water and that alone should be documentation enough. <br />Ross Gubka said side rolls are more efficient. If that is true, how come they want 60 sb.ares to do <br />what we ALWAYS did with 50 shares??? . <br />Page 2.04.9 -19 "The original permit area contains an area of D7013 soil which is prime farmalnd <br />soil." Right here in 1992 is proof that they already knew Barx was a prime farmland soil. <br />"He concluded that there was not adequate supply of water nor was it historically managed to a <br />high degree to be considered prime farmland" This is all a lie. Read the attached letter. He <br />concluded that this VERY small area was not prime because it did not have an adequate and <br />dependable water supply. But, that BA.RX soils are prime soils. And if they would have actually <br />asked him WHY, he would have told them that he talked to the irrigator and they told him they <br />irrigated out of Calamity Draw which that source of water is not shares and it could not be <br />considered as a dependable water supply. It has nothing to do with management because in fact, <br />it had been historically irrigated and cropped but the water source was not acceptable. Again, <br />