Laserfiche WebLink
JAMES A. BECKWITH <br />LETTER TO JAMES R. STARK, DRMS / COMMENTS TO PROPOSED DECISION ON SNOWCAP REPAIR PLAN / PG. 8 <br />shaft" shown in Fugro Exhibit 3). As it had concluded in April, Fugro declined to conclude that <br />there was a definitive connection between sinkhole and air ventilation shaft. <br />" The ERT survey cannot determine absolutely the cause of the anomalies <br />identified in the data." [8.23.16 Report; Pg. A14-15-9] <br />For itself, HBET ultimately admits, after review of Fugro's April and August, reports, <br />that it is only "apparent" and not "definite" that sub -surface "anomalies" connected to any <br />surface manifestations. (A14-15-1) <br />Based simply on these facts alone, a reasonable person could not conclude, as definitive <br />engineering or scientific conclusion, that there is a provable hydrologic connection between the <br />ferrel ditch sinkhole and the air ventilation shaft. The Fugro results simply do not support the <br />massive and permanent excavations now proposed by Snowcap, and presumptively approved by <br />the unidentified author of the Proposed Decision. <br />IV. The Inclusion of Contract and Titling Documents, And All Inferences Drawn <br />Or To Be Drawn from Such Documents Must Be Stricken As Lying Outside <br />DRMS Statutory Authority To Review, Interpret or Enforce. <br />The "non jurisdictional, contract and title materials" included by DRMS staff in the <br />Proposed Decision have already been identified in these Comments. These include: (a) Special <br />Warranty Deed, Fontanari-Snowcap4; (b) Contract for Purchase of Property, between Snowcap <br />Coal and Rudy and Ethel Fontanari 5; (c) a letter from Mr. John J. Justus to DRMS discussing <br />alleged damages waivers 6; and, (d) a letter from Mr. John J. Justus to Mr. R. Gregory Stutz, <br />counsel for Jason Carey.7 <br />Use, review, interpretation or enforcement of these documents is outside DRMS authority <br />and jurisdiction. DRMS is an agency of limited jurisdiction: meaning that it may exercise only <br />those powers granted it by the Colorado legislature. DRMS' enabling statute does not confer <br />upon DRMS the power to review, interpret and declare the legal rights of landowners, permit <br />holders or other persons adversely impacted by the actions of DRMS and its permittees. C.R.S. <br />§34-32-107. DRMS directors and officers are not required to be trained in the law of Contract, <br />Titles or Waivers. C.RS. §34-32-105(b) DRMS' rules, regulations and operations are subject to <br />the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act. C.R.S. §34-32-105(3), 108 Hearing officers, <br />Administrative Law Judges or DRMS Directors conducting hearings on matters (such as the <br />Repair Plan at issue here) are not given power to review, interpret and decide the rights and <br />liabilities or parties to deeds and contracts. C.R.S. §24-4-105 <br />4 Proposed Decision; Pg. A14-5-52 through 14-5-60 <br />5 Proposed Decision; Pgs. 14-5-61— 66 <br />6 Proposed Decision; Pg. A14-5-50 -51 <br />7 Proposed Decision; Pgs. A14-5-67 - 68 <br />