Laserfiche WebLink
p.4 <br />ahead of the mine as we have been doing for the last two years. <br />Page 2. All of our property has already met ALL of the rules and criteria necessary for prime <br />farmlands and has been documented as such. Documented by MRCS, Documented by the <br />STATE, and Documented by WFC. But then the state allowed for another revision number 6 to <br />be put out. <br />Let's skip to TR -57. The claim of no objections, again. Ask the STATE and they will tell you <br />that attached to TR57 was a COVER letter from WFC guaranteeing that ALL, 107.96 acres <br />would be put back in Irrigated PRIME FARMLAND CROPLAND. This must have been an <br />oversight on the STATES part not to provide you with a copy of this letter. All lands ,107.96 <br />acres would be returned to Irrigated cropland and that ALL Parties agreed that the entire 107.96 <br />acres was prime Farmland. Then, Marcia verified that letter and that the entire 107.96 acres <br />would be returned to IRRIGATED CROPLAND in ALL aspects. This was in HER adequacy <br />report. Why would we have a reason to object when at that time, this was all we wanted. We <br />wanted our property to be returned to the irrigated cropland that it was prior to mining. Back to <br />irrigated alfalfa so that we could continue li� en been and agreed upon by ALL parties, <br />why of <br />all of those are in this letter and once k had <br />why would we find a need to file an objection. ? ? ? ? ?? It was also part of our lease that it would <br />be returned to alfalfa cropland. <br />Page 3. The STATE again made more errors. " BARX soil in this survey is NOT considered as <br />NOT being Prime." Double negatives. People speak using double negatives over here. This <br />sentence states that the Barx soils were primefarmland. Examples: I didn't say I wasn't going. <br />Double negatives. Your report cards grades are not to say you are not a good student. Double <br />negatives. That color of the blue truck is not considered as not being; blue. Your grades are not <br />considered as not being a 4.0. I'm trying to get Mr. Irvine to come here because WFC was told <br />that this was prime farmland. Todd was working here at that time and WFC was told that it had <br />lots of prime farmland. This was a class one soil survey. Better than anything available at that <br />time. Why would YOU allow them to even consider using another reference, an outdated 1978 <br />document. A document not even listed in the RULES, LAWS, or REGULATIONS governing <br />prime farmlands? Why would the STATE even permit such a document which is not any part of <br />your rules ? ?? If we were trying to use a document that was obsolete and you knew nothing <br />about, do you think you would of allowed us to use that document as a reference if it wasn't in <br />your rules? Hell NOM! ! ! 2.06.6 The official document, the OFFICIAL document to be used is <br />the National soil survey handbook. This is for the STATE, the FEDERAL, and NRCS. This is <br />the official document. I love the way the state says the Colorado Farmland document was the <br />current one available. A 1978 document that no one had ever heard of was the current one. This <br />was the CURRENT one available. ALL lies. The National Soil Survey handbook must be kept <br />in the DIVISIONS office at ALL times for a reference to determine prime farmland. Mr. Irvine <br />used the Colorado farmland inventory just as ONE reference, HE ALSO USED <br />E AND STATED <br />NATIONAL SOIL SURVEY HANDBOOK AS THE OTHER ALL OF THESE SOILS <br />ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL SOIL SURVEY HANDBOOK <br />WERE PRIME FARMLAND. Also, if you read the Colorado farmland inventory, on the page <br />prior to page 3, it also says 8.4 as did the national soil survey handbook. Talk about a deviation <br />