2015-03-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1999006

Home Browse Search

Summary Observations & Opinion to Part II: 34 -1 -305. Preservation of commercial mineral deposits for extraction (1) After July 1, 1973, no board of county commissioners, governing body of any city and county, city, or town, or other governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor. The State of Colorado prohibits development over a commercial mineral deposit. It would be an abandonment of the mission of the OMLR, serving no good purpose other than to also squander the approved beneficial end use of the approved permit. Varra Companies asserts that the observations of the Office are inconsistent and incompatible with state and federal law; the common law attributed to reasonable persons; and those things common to the definition and discernment related to the activity, accepted customs, the longer term established precedent, and the approved language of the permit. There are no conditions observed that warrant remediation on the ground or by statute. By acting to place a financial warranty of commercially viable product stockpiles, the Office would by this act evidence: • that the Office relies on factors which the Colorado legislature has not intended for it to consider; • that the Office entirely fails to consider several important aspect of the problem; • that the explanation for the position of the Office, and it's intended decision to post financial warranty on a commercially viable product, runs counter to the evidence before the Office; • that the perspectives and intended actions of the Office are so implausible that the intended consequence could not be anticipated. Neither can we otherwise ascribe our circumstances solely to a difference in view, or as it might pertain to the product of agency expertise; • that the Office would commit a clear abuse of discretion by acts not in accordance with the law, sound conservation practice, or understanding application of reason or the facts; • that by the abandonment any greater oversight of Office actions, where the Office may act in advance of such oversight, that any objector must appeal against an action instead of an intention, causing any Operator to be so perpetually disadvantaged as to compromise or abandon his self interest to expediency, ultimately threatening the very thing expediency by last measure was hoped for to protect; • that by defense we are not attacking those persons whose action(s) we oppose, or attempting to characterize their persons, but to hold all to an equivalent standard such that reason and good will are assured on the part of all. Our intent is not to harm but to prevent harm. To defend our interests, the interests of our permitted activities, all of which are operated with due diligence and deference not only to the law, but the spirit of the law. Varra Companies, Inc. correspondence of 30 March 2015 to the Colorado Office of Mined Land Reclamation in 15 reply to the OMLR Inspection Report of 28 August 2014 — Kurtz Project — M -1999 -006