2011-01-24_ENFORCEMENT - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

r r r alluvials. It also was very well irrigated unlike what is documented in PR -06 and produced three cuttings of hay every year. This is in non - compliance with rules and rcgulations and that property irregardless who it belongs to should have to be put back as good as it was. That is the Ir States rules and regulations that they are suppose to uphold. They are not allowed to pick and choose. These properties that have been historically irrigated and cropped should have to be put back to those conditions. (22) They have violated the use of the ternunology in 1.04. Cropland is anything that is harvested. Grasses, oats, hay, alfalfa, anything and they have misused these definitions again a violation. (23) Our property was originally classified by WFC in the documentation that we were given as cropland which it is. It has been historically irrigated and cropped for 59 years and is documented as such. WPC documented it to us as such and then gave the State that it was pasturelands. We have been a cash crop since 1987 and NRCS has us documented as cropland since 1973 and the USDA since 1960. Pr -06 did a land use chhnge from pastureland to cropland. It was always documented as cropland and should have never been allowed to be documented by the State as anything else. The State has it documented in all of their early permitting as cropland and beautiful hay fields on the west side of 2700 road. Harry Ranney and Ton Waldron both documented the extensive haylands and croplands in this area. (24) They are in current violation because the so called suitable subsoil that is down does not meet the standards of 4.25 governing prime farmlands_ Even if they say only 87 acres was prime soils, the entire place has been documented as prime farmlands and it must meet the prime farmland criteria of 4.25 not 4.06 as they have stated in Pr -06. (25) The prime farmland requirements of 4.25 state that they trust segregate "A" 14 "B" lift and any portion of "C" lift that they are going to use in the reconstruction of this prime farmland and that all substitute soils must be equal to than the soils that existed in the natural and I repeat natural e.cistence and that these soils must be put back.to the quantity and depth that was in the natural existence. They did not segregate any of the soils on the first 51 acres nor did they segregate the so called suitable subsoil and as an on ground violation since that has been already put down it does not meet the requirements by the rules regulations or the Act. We are not going to accept this type of changes made to our property and any changes that adversely affect the land owner and is a major change can not be done without landowner written consent. We are not accepting PR -06 or the damages that has happened to our property. These are irreparable damages done by the State and by WFC and we are not going to allow for our property to be returned to less than what it was. (26) In the lease and the lease agreement, there was no mention of a pond ever being put on our place and we objected to the.pond from day one. According to the rules and regualtions, the aggregate total of prime farmland cannot be decreased nor can any ponds be built on our property without written consent front all landowners. That is the law. They also do not grant to mine where the pond is and they want to leave this pond until bond release. We are not going to agree to that and we want the pond out here. It should have never been allowed, again in non-