2011-01-24_ENFORCEMENT - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

contained, and approved within those early permits as being erroneous and for historical purposes only. This is illegal. They cannot re -enter past permits that had already been approved and now say they contained all false information. This past permitting adversely affected our property and livelihood and has caused irreparable damages to us. This is something that should be corrected by OSM and not have to be another expense for the landowner to hire an attorney and spend thousands of dollars, again hurting the landowner to make the State and the operator follow the rules and regulations and the Act that was given to them. We should not have to suffer the consequences of their mistakes and their shortcomings. It was up the State to know their rules and regulations and the Act, it is not up to the landowner to make sure they enforce those laws. Prime farmlands are a very lengthy and detailed part of the rules and regulations and the Act. The Board accepted the Colorado Prime Farmland Invento in n Pr -06 and even this violates their rum and regulations. of just one of therm, but many rules and regulations. The Rules, regulations, and the Act specifically state that the Reference used for the criteria for Prime Farmlands is the National Soil Survey Handbook and is the only reference that can be used. This is stated in 13 different places within the rules and regulations and there is not one rule or regulation that recognizes the Colorado Farmland Inventory. Also the Board states in their findings that these so called Barx soil determinations for prime farmland were negative in 1992 and 1996. This again is not true. The 1992 determination made by Dean Stindt specifically stated that Barx soils were prime soils if irrigated. The analysis in 1996 was for Progresso soils and had nothing to do with Barx soils. So, again false information was provided. And the Board accepted this documentation without further investigation and approved those findings , again against rules ands regualtions. Also, neither one of these were a prime farmland investigation. And how can they make a determination out of these two sources when our property was not evert leased until 1998 and our property was not even checked into until 1998. All expansion areas had to be "Site Specific ", that is the rules and regulations. And, if there was even a CHANCE that they contained prime soils, or was cropland it had to have a prime farmland investigation to even get a negative determination and this was never dome, neve:r] The Board accepted all of these falsehoods, when they accepted and approved PR -06. Also, if they had ever actually read the Colorado Farmland inventory which they use over and over and again not in compliance with the rules and regulations or the Federal rules and regulations or Public law 95 -97, they would see that on page 2 of this document that the PH for prime farmlands were 4.5 to 8.4 which is correct. On page three of this document where they claim is the typo error of 7.4, if they had actually read it, it states that 7.4 is high conductivity for prime soils of less than 40 inches to Bedrock which our soils were well over that up to 72 inches deep. So, if in facts it was a typo error, it still did not apply to our soils because of the depth alone. The Board also accepted as part of PR -06 that our "A" lift is up to 36 inches deep and our `A' lift is well over 48 inches as the pictures I have sent indicate and they state in PR -06 that our "B" lift is 5 or 6 feet deep and as indicated in the pictures, our "B" lift is well over 15 to 25 feet thick. Again false documentation. Our C lift is up to 55 feet thick and our alfalfa roots go down to 25 feet thick as is documented in PR -06.