Laserfiche WebLink
DECEIVED <br /> Douglas Grant SEP 0 8 202� <br /> PO B 1027 110 w Homstead Dr. DIyIS10N 0��OtpMp,TION <br /> Basalt,CO 81621 MINI1i0XNDSAFEly <br /> 970-927-3201 H <br /> 970-274-0543 <br /> douggrant@sopris.net <br /> August 30, 2020 <br /> Mined Land Board/Reclamation Mining and Safety <br /> 1313 Sherman ST. Room 215 <br /> Denver Colorado 80203 <br /> Response to Scott Contracting reply to comments regarding 112 permit application No. M20200008 <br /> Dear Mined Land Board/Reclamation Mining and Safety: <br /> Dear Mr., Lucas <br /> Response No.1 The drain ditch that crosses our property is not the ditch that is on Scott Pit <br /> property.The drain ditch does not cross Scott property. The ditch that runs from south of 170 <br /> around and over our property was dug in the 1940 era by the US Soil conservation Service to drain <br /> water from crossing our property and enhance agriculture. This is a different ditch in the drain <br /> system with different affected owners. Scott Contracting has no legal right to discharge to this ditch <br /> crossing our property. There is no prescriptive easement for a new use of dewatering a gravel pit. <br /> 3000 gallons per minute or 7CFS is hardly negligible and may continue for 6 months than reduce to <br /> lesser flow year round. (Hahn Water Resources LLC report). When the drain ditch flows at 7 CFS we <br /> have more infiltration into our pit (more pumping time and cost). 40-50 Gallons per minute the <br /> dewatering 4 inch pump in the pit is to discharge is way different than 3000 gallon per minute. The <br /> last statement that Grant Bros Ranch LTD property already conducts dewatering on our property <br /> including discharge into the Island park ditch is totally false. We have a discharge point to the drain <br /> ditch that is for emergency use only. Island Park on that section of the drain ditch revoked our <br /> license to discharge into the drain ditch many years ago. <br /> Response No.4 The water rights on the property for augmentation of the pond evaporation is <br /> important. Water rights for irrigation affect us by virtue of tail water going back to the river by the <br /> drain ditch. Water rights for irrigation seem to be nonexistent. No water rights associated with the <br /> Scott property would mean there has been no water to irrigate for years and years. Which means <br /> the water in the ditches are runoff tail waters from other ditches and other property water rights. If <br /> the Scott property has no historic irrigation water right the property has not used or needed a tail <br />