Laserfiche WebLink
On December 21, 2015, Snowcap and DRMS entered into an agreement amending Permit <br />C-1981-041 under which Snowcap accepted the duty to: investigate and report on hydrologic <br />connections in "...lands owned by Fontanari..."; and, to repair such connections as it found in <br />Fontanari lands. <br />On November 4, 2016, DRMS staff requested of Snowcap evidence that the landowners <br />involved in TR -69 had consented to the proposed reclamation activities. On November 14, <br />2016, Mr. John Justus, counsel for Snowcap, submitted his letter to DRMS (Exhibit Q <br />providing his interpretation of 125, Purchase and Sale Agreement: relating solely to the <br />easement. It is notable that Mr. Justus' letter does not cite 113 as the basis for Snowcap's <br />contention that Fontanari had either consented to the TR -69 repairs or had waived any objection <br />thereto. <br />Basis for Motion <br />At first blush, the language of 113, Agreement, is far broader than the relevant language <br />of 125. If, under law, Fontanari waived objection to any reclamation activity performed by <br />Snowcap then that portion of the easement reserved by Snowcap and allowing insertion or <br />installation of a reclamation activity would be superfluous and immaterial. Also, at first blush, <br />the Commitments made by Snowcap appear to conflict with 1113 and 25, Agreement. By the <br />Commitments, Snowcap appears to have agreed to undertake to perform the very reclamation <br />activities it has, or had, no obligation to perform — unless the Commitments supersede the <br />provisions of the 2003 Agreement or otherwise constitute Snowcap's waiver of the 2003 <br />Agreement. This is a legal issue which this Board lacks any statutory authority to resolve. <br />This Board, and its - subordinate Division, are administrative agencies of limited <br />jurisdiction and authority. As relevant here, C.R.S. §34-32-107 and §34-33-107 describe, and <br />E <br />