Laserfiche WebLink
(L..( <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado <br />80203 <br />Attention: Sandy Browny '??2009 <br />Marcia Talvetti ?an?ation, <br />Dan Mathews Mining and Safety <br />RE: Permit Revision to NO: C-81-008 <br />I am opposed to Western Fuels revision for several reasons: _ <br />Western Fuels agreed to return the Morgan's land to the condition it was in prior to <br />mining. Now WF wants to return approximately one-half to irrigated cropland and the <br />other half to dryland because WF says the land owners don't own enough water to have <br />irrigated cropland. The Morganas own many shares of CC ditch water and can use it on <br />different areas of their land. The fifty shares they leased to WF can easily be augmented <br />with other water shares they own. All of the approximately 100 acres should be returned <br />to irrigated cropland as per WF's agreement with the Morgans <br />The Morgans have offered their time and equipment to help WF return the land to its pre- <br />mining condition. <br />Also, other land that WF has mined has been returned to its former condition (or better) <br />as soon as mining was finished. Why are the Morgans being asked to wait for a "bond <br />release period?" The Morgans produce a major portion of the hay for sale in this area. <br />This land should be put back in production as soon as possible, for the Morgans and for <br />local ranchers needing to buy their hay. <br />It seems that this is just a money issue for WF. Of course it is cheaper to return land to <br />dryland rather than irrigated cropland. However WF should not be allowed to-have this <br />revision They should stand by the agreement they made with the landowners and return <br />the land to irrigated cropland. <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Chem' Cooper