|
Objection "). Because all the other objection letters received by DRMS (on October 26 and 29,
<br />2010) tend to repeat or attempt to support the statements in the Turner Objection, WFC will only
<br />briefly respond to issues raised by those other objections.
<br />Most, if not all, of the issues raised in the Turner Objection are either irrelevant to PR -06, or
<br />beyond the jurisdiction of the Board, or both. Thus, identifying the relevant issues in this
<br />particular objection will be no easy task for the Hearing Officer. The issues presented by the
<br />Turner Objection are (1) can the Board re -open or revisit past permit determinations by the
<br />Board and past regulatory determinations by the DRMS in this proceeding, when the statutory
<br />time limits to seek review of such determinations have long since expired, and (2) can Ms.
<br />Turner raise issues relating to lands in which she has no property interest, when the landowners
<br />in question have consented to the reclamation standards to be applied to their lands. In WFC's
<br />view, both questions must be answered in the negative.
<br />A. PR -06 is Not the Occasion to Revisit Past Board and DRMS Actions.
<br />Much of the focus of the Turner Objection has to do with actions that took place years before
<br />PR -06 was approved by the Division. The Objection raises, for example, questions and issues
<br />relating to the approval of PR -05, approved in the year 2000 after no objections were received by
<br />DRMS (see, DRMS Findings at page 4) , and TR -57, approved in 2008 after the Morgan family,
<br />acting through Ms. Turner, withdrew their objections (see, DRMS Findings at page 5). See, e.g.
<br />Turner Objection ¶¶ (25), (26), (27), (29), (30), (31), and (42) — (44). Ms. Turner also devotes
<br />extensive space to her attempt to re- interpret a soil survey that was completed in 1998 and relied
<br />upon by WFC in submitting and the DRMS in approving PR -05. See, e.g. Turner Objection ¶
<br />(49).
<br />Past Board approvals are not subject to reopening in the current permit proceeding. Rather, if
<br />Ms. Turner objected to those actions, her proper avenue was to seek judicial review as provided
<br />under Colorado law. However, the deadline render CRS § 34 -33 -119 to seek such review has
<br />long since passed. From a more common sense perspective, PR -06 has to do with actions that
<br />will be completed in the future, and permit approvals that were issued in past actions by the
<br />Board are relevant if at all only as background.
<br />Ms. Turner also attempts to raise issues she has no standing to raise. For example, following
<br />further action by WFC in obtaining additional water rights to permit extensive irrigation, all
<br />reclamation activities contemplated by PR -06 on the Morgan property will conform to Prime
<br />Farmland soil management practices. The property will be reclaimed as irrigated cropland as the
<br />Morgans have requested. Thus, comments in the Turner Objection relating to reclamation of
<br />certain lands as "DRYLAND" (Turner Objection ¶ 8) are completely irrelevant as far as the
<br />Morgan property is concerned. Ms. Turner lacks standing to raise such objections where other
<br />landowners have consented to reclamation of their land as dry land. See, e.g. Turner Objection ¶
<br />(11) (referring to the Benson East and West properties).
<br />Finally, the Turner Objection also contains frequent allegations that WFC and the DRMS have
<br />violated applicable Colorado statutes and regulations applicable to Prime Farmlands. See,
<br />Turner Objection, in the Introduction and in ¶¶ (1) — (3), (6), (17) — (19), (25), (32), (37), (38),
<br />PA
<br />
|