INSPEC11548 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Permit#: ,rl~i~l99-n~/ Confidental?: Class: G.~~ ~~' Type-Seq.: From: ~«! r ~ ~~ n TO: P~/YYrz~ Doc. Name: e Doc. Date (if no date stamp}: /(A~ wn Farms S WCR 28 P-atteville, Colorado 80651 7 August 2002 Mr. Cazl Mount Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman Street Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 RECEIVED AUG 0 92002 Division of Minerals and Geology RE: Inspection report dated 27 June 2002 concemirrg Varra Companies performed by Kate Ihcldord. Deaz Ivtr. Mount, The purpose of this letter is to request a meeting with the DMG. We firmly believe that a re-inspection is warranted in response to our original complaint transmitted to the DMG by letter dated l3 June 2002. The factual basis underlying that complaint m„ainc uncontested by and inadequately dealt with by the inspection report dated 27 June 2002. Inspector Kate Pickford submitted i[: - No attempt was made to contact the complainants, Sruce & Roberta Wtlson, [o ascertain which wells in the vicinity were purported to be dry, experiencing problems, or had experienced "documented" drops in water levels. We were not permitted the courtesy of being a party to Dither the inspection or the report. The data we possess in support of the potemial for damage to water levels due to the mining & dewatering was simply ignored - The substance of the report dismissing the complaint centers on the fact that crops in the vicinity bad not failed (report observations 5 c@ 6). I fmd this to be both an appalling and mostly irrelevant factor in assessing whether or not area wells had experienced a drop in water levels. I sincerely hope that the standard used by DMG to assess whether or not well damage is occurring is not the euistence of crop failure. 1 would azgue that such a standard is obviously too little/[oo late. Our firinre livelihood demands a more immediate test of the possibility of injury and the implemerdation of remedial measures. - The visual inspection by the Inspector ignores the use of surface water rights for irrigation. She cites, "1'he Wilson property appeared ro be welt irrigated during the inspection..."(Observation 5). In fact, my fans south of WCR 28 is irrigated solely with surface water rights. There aze no irrigation wells on this farm. Additionally, the report observes: (Observation 6) "A pond north of the Wilson property was full the day of the complaint..." This -"pond" is Wheeler Lake. It is resupplied solely from water from the Lupton Meadows Ditch Again, no water is supplied by wells. (Observation 5) °... Adjacent pivot irrigation systems were operational and the crops served by these systems appeared to be successful ° At least one of the systems referenced here would be the pivot operated by the Pyeatt Family farms. It is located southeast of the mine. The pit for the pivot is adjacent to WCR 28. It is about %z mile from the Vazm dewatering operation. That pivot is supported by Lupton Meadows ditch water, as well as an irrigation well. Therefore, the simple observation that the pivot was operating is dangerously biased as to whether or not there might be a problem with the well. In fact, the well serving this pivot is one of the wells now experiencing problems. The owners recently had to install a surge valve to protect the pumps because the water was surging The well is currently pumping about 400GPM. The prior norm was SOO.GPM. The well immediately to the north can now be observed to be surfing, It is easity observable from WCR 28. The pipe appears to vary from Y. to about %z full.