Laserfiche WebLink
operator, the Division, or the individual, seeking this information to make them aware of what the <br />rules and regulations state. It was up to Western Fuels to tell Jim Irvine, Jiro Boyd, Dean, Stindt. <br />Greg Lewicki, or any other ones that were used for support of what the rules state and to conform <br />their answers to satisfy those requirements. When the soil survey was requested, it was up to <br />Western Fuels to tell. Intermountain Resources, Jim Irvine, that the soil survey must meet the <br />requirements and standards of the National Soil Survey Handbook. When land uses are <br />documented., they must use the rules and definitions that are provided in 1.04 and give <br />descriptions that coincide with those definitions. <br />In Pr-06, it is documented that in 2003 a permit renewal was issued and a midterm was done in <br />2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Here a mid term review was dome for things that had not even <br />happened yet and took 5 years to do as well, as overlapping a new permit renewal application in <br />2007. PR-05 had not been approved and overlapped with TR-57 that should have been, a permit <br />revision. 'T'here are incorrect dates and incorrect information that has been provided. <br />The other issues in PR-06 have been stated many times but have not been changed to our <br />knowledge. We fertilize every year and always have. We do fertility test to see what fertRirr and <br />how much. We are "CASH CROP" faxmers and fertilizer can make the production or not so that <br />is one thing that we won't change. <br />We have not FLOOD kdgated for over 39 years and. we are not going luck to flood irrigating. <br />The big question here is WE cannot grow CORN under a sideroll and this property as they <br />returned all of the other properties can never be fimw irrigated again. The Division has <br />indicated in. the revision that water will run uphill and down hill and back up and we are not <br />g+akg to irrigate that way. Even in our documentatioan. of 1960 before we improved every year, it <br />was rrrowed even then. We had gated pipe, traveling big gun, and siderolls before mining and <br />if we cannot grow everything that we were growing prior to mining then it won't be put back that <br />way. We are not going to accept less than what we had. <br />We do not understand how 12 shares of water is being allowed to be removed from the permit <br />arrea and then Western Fuels stating that they do not have enough, water to irrigate these <br />properties as they were before miming and allowing them to dry up these properties. They must <br />be put back as good as or better than they were. We do not want all of this drryland in, <br />surrounding farms that had always been historically irrigated and cropped. Land Use <br />in.formatio'n,md. verbal guarantees that they will be returned as good as they were and now they <br />are dryland. • e Colorado Regulatory program is suppose to protect the community from this <br />happening. Laud use information state that they will be put back in agricultural use as they were. <br />This permit revision covers a lot of issues and statements that should not be permitted. It <br />included Morgans entire lease, which the Division has told us very abruptly that they cannot get <br />involved in leases. It allows interpretations of the lease and statements that Morgans were paid <br />an overwhelming amount. It states that the Division should not have to have landowner <br />involvement and consent since they are unable reach agreements with us. When we did reach <br />agreements, then the state wouldn't accept them. <br />It states that there are 6 letters documented as in favor or PR-06, but these letters are not and <br />have not been at the court house for public inspection. The comment period for PR-06 was 20