2011-01-24_ENFORCEMENT - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

make all of the 51 acres that they had stolen our soils from into dryland. Again, violating all rules and regulations governing prime farmlands. All prime farmland had to be returned to cropland which was normally grown prior to mining. Marcia and Ross decided if they would call it Potential Cropland which is Dryland that maybe they could squeeze it by everyone an no one would notice since they used the words potential cropland. Even the director wrote a letter to me after I wrote the Governor and told me that all of the Morgan property that was irrigated would be returned to cropland and that there was to be no dryland on our place. She had not read the permit either which half of our place was dryland and the better half. We .then wrote articles in the paper requesting the help from the community. WFC replied stating that the State did all of this and there was nothing that anyone could do because Mr. Morgan did not have enough, water to irrigate with. Mr. Morgan was and is the largest strockholder and had enough water to flood the entire p lace, in to a lake. He also had historically irrigated and cropped this place for 59 years and we were strictly a cash crop since 1987. (22) We have been done wrong since the very beginning and we should not have to suffer the consequences of WFC or the States action. The State has made numerous comments that WFC was allowed to remove our prime soils based on the current permit. This is another untrue statement. The permit that was current at the time they removed our soils had a two lift operation and a two lift operation is required on all soils no matter whether it is pasture or prime farmland. The rules and regulations state that all topsoil must be salvaged and it must be done in two lift.. (23) Minor revision number 51 and 57 which were not only misleading and was not a part of an existing permit. These minor revisions changed the current permitted two lift operation into a one lift operation on our property. It also was not publicized nor was the landowner informed of these changes to his property. Again, a total violation of all rules and regulations. PR -06 did not a acknowledge that nor did they acknowledge the fact that this was very damaging to our property, irreparable damages .Minor revisions are exactly what they say. They are suppose to be Very minor and not do any changes to a landowners property. (24) They guaranteed us that all of our property would be returned to the prime farmland and cropland all irrigated as it was before mining and gave this to us in writing. This is when they slammed us with PR -06. PR -06 was all false documentation. It stated that none of us had irrigation or irrigation pipe, furrows, siderolls, or anything prior to the mine coming here. This is when we decided to ao to war. This is when I 201al d that all of the documentation that they were Mritmg was false and that this was a deliberate attempt to ruin us and this prOperry. (25) The prettiest place in the whole valley with the most prime soils anywhere, they were trying to turn it into dryland. We fought this for well over a year with the State and with WFC. Rules and Regulations state that NO major changes can be done to a landowners property without written consent and approval of the landowner. They stole our. soils and now they were trying to turn it into dryland. tven a variance to change any lands even with the landowners consent must be for a better use. ° They have taken 12 shares of water out of the. permit and then changed some beautiful farmland into dryland_ According to Federal and State rules and regulations and the Act, they cannot do that. The land must be put back better than it was to a higher use or better use achieved even if they grant a variance_ This property was purchased by WFC and contained