PERMFILE124228

• Permit No: M1994005
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/4/2001
• Doc Name: COLONA PIT PN M-1994-005 RESOLUTION OF PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH IRRIGATION DITCHES
• From: DMG
• To: JANICE E BECKER
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman SL, Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX. [phone]
October 4, 2001
Janice E. Becker
21710 Highwa}' 550 South
Montrose, CO 81401
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III?F
999
COLORADO
... I ~ :' Go ~u:~..xi 6'~
Ga ,rrrf ~ 1 t-. dRJ~-~v,
Re: Colona Pit, Permit M-1994-005, Resolution of Problems Associated with Irrigation Ditches.
Dear Ms. Becker,
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Dw~sion Dveda
This is in response to }'our second letter of concern dated July 25, 2001, which we received from Stuart Chappell on
August 23, 2001, regarding the matter captioned above. I had postponed sending a written response to you until I
had obtained sufficient infom3ation about the various aspects related to your concerns. I must emphasize that the
jurisdiction of this agency does not exKend to all areas of the concerns in your letter, aztd the main respolrses in this
letter are limited to the areas of ourjurisdiction.
to response to your first letter of concern, received on May 3l, 2001, I inspected United Companies' Colona Piton
June 22, 2001, during which I noted several problems to be addressed. To correct the problem of a ditch with azr
alignment different than the approved plan, United Companies submitted a technical revision which proposes to
revise the type and location of irrigation ditches crossing their property, to be effective during the mining stage of
the operation.
The observations made during my inspection on June 22, 2001, fall both within and outside m}' jurisdiction.
Among the jurisdictional inspection observations, 1 noted that the rate of flow in the functioning ditch appeared
roughly the same on the upstream end of the permitted area as the downstream end; that United Companies was
not impounding water, or irrigating, or diverting water over the edge; there was no seepage of irrigation water from
the ditch into the pit or down the hill to the east.
United Companies w'as not conveying irrigation water across its site along an alignment or in a siphon structure in
confomrance with their approved plan. The approved plan reyuired that the water be delivered along the
southwestern perimeter to a siphon around the northwestern side. The lack of these was the reason for one of the
problems noted in the report. The water was entering the site via a new ditch configuration from the southeast and
extending up the eastern edge of the site, finally exiting at [lte correct point. The ditch arrangement in use at the
time of the inspection was functioning as a conveyance of water.
United Companies' requested revision is to allow the use of a temporary alignment of a surface irzigation ditch on
the southern portion of the pit property, but to include other aspects of the original)}'-approved plan. The irrigation
w'a[er will be supplied from the same Ouray Ditch headgate, enter the site at the formerly-approved southwest
corner and extend up the west side a short distance and, instead of entering a siphon, cross the southern phase of the
site to the existing ditch on the eastern edge, then extend up the eastern edge, and fmally exit the site at the
approved location on the northern edge (where it enters the Becker property). The original (1994) plan to install the
siphon system is still to be carried out, however, they propose to implement it prior [o when excavation will
intercept the surface ditch, which is expected to be in two or three years.