Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />has brought up many big rocks and disking has contaminated it with some gray dirt that we did <br />not have. <br />By accepting and approving Pr -06, they are in current day violation of the rules and regulations <br />and the Act. <br />After the 2008 meeting determining again prime farmland, they again violated the rules and <br />regulations with PR -06 by trying to change our 51 acres into dxyland because they had stolen our <br />soils and did not know how to put it back. This was WFC and the State. The State helped them <br />all the way trying to get our property classified as dryland. This was for over a year in PR -06. <br />Against all rules and regulations. We have written 100's and 2 00's of letters objecting fo Pr -06 <br />and if the Board would have even read part of pr -06 or even undersftd the value of topsoil, they <br />would not have been allowed to violated all of these rules and regulations. Without water or <br />topsoil, a farmer does not have a farm. They have destroyed a lot of these farms now with the <br />approval of Pr -06. Not just ours. They also hauled off more of our soils after this meeting. <br />Berry, we got it stopped again. Again a violation of 4.25 and our lease. No soils are to leave the <br />Morgan Property and since you can't get into leases, 4.25 states that the A, B and C lift must be <br />segregated if they intend to use any of the C lift which is the so- called suitable subsoil, <br />The Board refused to listen to MRCS letter that was sent to them before the formal hearing and <br />refused to allow me to submit what it said even though, I did get it into record. NRCS states that <br />they need to bring us our Barx soils back or get more Barx soils elsewhere because the suitable <br />subsoil is not suitable to what rue bad. In Pr -06, It also states that the State nor WFC should <br />assume that suitable subsoil that they have classified as suitable is actually suitable. It is <br />documented that there may never be a suitable soil to what we had since our B lift was Barx and <br />some of the very best in the country. It is stated in Pr -06 that this should have already been <br />decided. <br />Another current violation. All plans of reclamation, revegetation, soil salvaging, etc. had to all <br />be in place prior to any mining. The mine was not allowed to do any mining until this was done. <br />—b,= when they decided it was all prime farmland, the rnitrxe should have been shut down until <br />a pars were in place and all decisioris were'made..and-approved:..This is -the--rules and. - <br />regulations governing prune farmlands. They are very specific. They are not a pick and choose <br />to which they want to abide by and which they don't. They are mandatory. They are not a <br />situation as the Board has made it where they are saying accept this or else. Even our lease as <br />well as the rules and regulations with landowner consent. <br />Very important facts to remember is in 1998 when the lease was signed, the current permit <br />required a two lift operation. The renewal of the permit in 2002 also required a two Ifit <br />operations. The soil survey stated in 1998 specifically that all of our property was prince farmland <br />according to the National Soil Survey Handbook, the official document. It also stated in the <br />interpretation of the soil survey that "Bari soils as used in this survey is Not considered as Not <br />being prime. If WFC or the State had any question at all they could have got on the internet or <br />made a phone call to NRCS. They did not. NRCS had not been contacted at all concerning any <br />