Laserfiche WebLink
JAMES A. BECKWITH <br />LETTER TO JAMES R. STARK, DRMS / COMMENTS TO PROPOSED DECISION ON SNOWCAP REPAIR PLAN / PG. 12 <br />15. What mining operations were conducted by Powderhorn Coal Company and/or <br />Snowcap Coal Company, under the management and direction of Mr. James E. Stove, P.E., in <br />the period 1978 to present below and beneath lands owned by Fontanari and Carey. <br />16. What maps exist showing the extent and nature of all underground mining <br />operations of the South Portal Mine since 1978 and, if such maps do not exist, whether <br />justification for the absence of such surveying and mapping can be demonstrated by Snowcap <br />Coal. <br />17. Whether Fontanari's transmission of water from Rapid Creek via the Martin <br />Crawford Ditch, under its adjudicated water rights to 5.3 cfs, have been adversely impacted by <br />subsidence, both surface and sub -surface, caused by collapse of underground coal caverns, <br />including the need for repairs, the cost for repairs, and the time for repairs. <br />18. Whether Fontanari has sustained or will sustain injuries and impairments to its <br />adjudicated water rights caused by subsidence, both surface and sub -surface, resulting from <br />collapse of Snowcap's underground coal caverns: including the identity of such injuries and <br />repair costs for such injuries. <br />19. What forms and methods of surface irrigation remain available to Fontanari and <br />Carey after subsidence damages caused by Snowcap as well as excavations to be conducted by <br />Snowcap under its Repair Plan. <br />20. Whether, as claimed by Snowcap, the landowners have "abandoned" all <br />agricultural pursuits due to alleged "bad soil" or, rather, whether the soils have clear arability and <br />the subsidence damages caused by Snowcap's intentional collapse of the underground coal <br />caverns have prevented the landowners from farming the surface with appropriate crops and <br />irrigation methods. <br />21. Fontanari reserves the right to assert additional issues for hearing determination as <br />the identity and need for which arise from further discovery, pleadings and testing occur in the <br />future. <br />DEMAND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE <br />Pursuant to C.R.S. §24-4-105, Fontanari herewith demands that the evidentiary hearing in <br />this matter be conducted by an Administrative Law Judge assigned from outside the Division of <br />Reclamation, Mining & Safety. Fontanari believes the existing record — as discussed herein — <br />clearly requires appointment of a non-DRMS hearing officer in order to protect the right to a fair <br />and impartial hearing on the issues involved in this matter. An affidavit under C.R.S. §24-4- <br />104(3) is not necessary, as the record speaks for itself. <br />