Laserfiche WebLink
which is the CC ditch not an individuals shares of water, and it must contain <br />PRIME FARMLAND SOILS. <br />Their examples at the bottom of the page are wrong. They have not been <br />here but 16 years and all of this permit area has been historically used for <br />cropland for the past. 50-90 years plus. If it was irrigated before and it <br />produced, then it needs to be irrigated again. It does not matter if the areas <br />that have been leased or sold to the mine do not have an adequate and <br />dependable water supply now, because at the time that they were acquired, <br />they had to be in production 5 out of 10 years. At the time they were <br />acquired, if there was prime farmland within that area they were NOT <br />allowed to even enter that property until a thorough prime farmland <br />investigation was done!!!! NOT 10 or 12 years later. ALL rules and laws <br />again broken!! And the mine at that time would have to have by law an <br />alternative water supply to return the property to as good or better than it <br />was. <br />TR57 again is illegal. A Technical Revision can only be used for MINOR <br />changes, not used to change our entire propertyM <br />The adequate and dependable water supply for this area is the CC ditch. <br />The reason Dean Stindt disqualified the first very small area was because the <br />water supply was CALAMITY DRAW which had not been designated as a <br />dependable water supply and there were no shares for this property and it <br />was very small. This was a very SPECIFIC piece and the letter was not to be <br />used for ANY other piece. LETTER ENCLOSED!!! <br />WFC Response: <br />WFC incorporates its response to Comment No. 6, above. For the sake of <br />accuracy in the record, the Morgan family objected to TR-57 but then withdrew <br />their objections on April 22, 2009. The result of TR-57 was a net benefit to the <br />Morgan family, because it was at this point that WFC began treating the Morgan <br />property as Prime Farmland. The soil survey authored by Dean Stindt is in the <br />record and speaks for itself, as does the letter supplied by Ms. Turner. <br />Comment No. 19: <br />2.04.9-17 "This issue was clarified in the August 4, 2009 letter from Jim <br />Boyd to Dan Mathews." Again, a letter used inappropriately. NRCS and I <br />talked to JIM Boyd extensively. When he wrote these letters, he was given <br />facts about SPECIFIC pieces of property and he was SPECIFICALLY talking <br />about a piece of property that he was told did not have any water and had <br />not been irrigated for many years and had not ever been cropped. This <br />information that he was given was all a lie. He based his letter on the <br />information on the facts or data that he was presented with. He said he does <br />not KNOW any of the rules or regulations and when he is given information