2010-11-15_REVISION - C1981008 (3)

Home Browse Search

cl�t% YChzn I replied to Western Fuels but the Forum refused to print it. My petitions were all stolen, so anyone wishing to resign or would like me to bring the Permit - Revision by for you to read, please call me at 433 -5437. We are trying to save our livelihood and just have all the property put back the way it was. We have plenty of water and all of that was false information given by WFC in the paper. We do not raise cattle or any livestock, we raise Hay and that is our only means of support. -If all of this land is put back into sagebrush, it will be of no use to anyone. This was to WFC: Have you even read the 139 page Permit- Revision? This is not a Revision by DRMS. NRCS, EPA, MSHA, or any other regulatory agency. This is a Permit- Revision by WFCs' Chief Engineer. This is a Permit - Revision put out solely by WFC to change irrigated farmlands, haylands, pastures, and prime cropland to DRY LAND, consisting mostly of sagebrush and on page 24 of the Revision and I quote" Although attempted in the past, Irrigation will not be employed on Dry Land Pasture." This affects East of 27 Road, also. Properties designated for Irrigated pasture will also be converted to DRYLAND. I'm not the one misrepresenting facts. No one has questioned WFC as being a respected member of the community and so am I, but I only have ONE face to do it with. The law states and I quote page 348 " All areas affected by surface coal mining operations shall be restored in a timely manner: (1) To conditions that are capable of supporting the Uses which they were CAPABLE of supporting before ANY MINING. (2) To a HIGHER or BETTER use achievable under criteria and procedures. So, putting farms and crop land into dryland is a higher or Better use? Page 349 of the law. This is the law that WFC has used and changed to suit themselves. " �• Proposals to CHANGE( this is a key word Change)pre- mining land use of Range, fish and wildlife habitat, forest land, hayland, or pasture to a post mining cropland, would require sufficient water and topsoil quality We already had plenty of water and prime soil. We are not trying to CHANGE anything. Put it back like it was! It was irrigated alfalfa and corn fields before you entered the property, put it back like it was and like WFC agreed. WFC took Prime crop land and got WFCs' coal and we want it put back in the well - irrigated prime fields that they were before you entered the property. 360 tons of alfalfa and 643 tons of corn had been produced off this property where Patty Morgan made her home and it was very beautiful and had NO Dry land, put it back like it was! All of that property has plenty of water and it has been proven. There are absolutely NO facts, NO documentation, NO decisions from the DRMS, NRCS or any other agency that proves we have insufficient water. We have been told and so has WFC by NRCS many times, ASK the Farmer, he's the one that has been irrigating for 50 years, ask the farmer how much water he uses to irrigate his property. The farmer is the one who would actually know. WFC has an unscientific weather station mounted on a metal building with a metal roof, concrete side walks, next to other buildings in an unscientific setting and WFC wants to dispute all scientific data by CSU and others to prove we do not have enough water. WFC asked Mr. Morgan how many shares it took to irrigate the piece of property WFC was going to mine and MR.Morgan said 50 shares. Now, it's being taken out of context as to that's all WFC could have and in fact WFC told MR. Morgan that this was in there to protect him so WFC could not take more than 50 shares without consulting him or discussing it with him, but there was more water available. WFC has kept it out of production for 10 years already. l