My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2024-08-05_REVISION - M1986123 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1986123
>
2024-08-05_REVISION - M1986123 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2025 6:59:13 AM
Creation date
8/5/2024 2:26:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1986123
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/5/2024
Doc Name
Objection
From
Witwer,Oldenbug,Barry & Groom, LLP
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM1
Email Name
JPL
JLE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
WITWER, OLDENBURG, BARRY & GROOM, LLP <br /> Page 5 <br /> Brush Ditch Co.The standard method of perfecting a security interest in water stock of this sort is to <br /> obtain physical possession of the original water stock certificates and ensure that the ditch company <br /> is adequately informed of the security interest. Thus, the O'Briens object to approving the Plan <br /> unless DRMS either: 1)ensures adequate perfection in the Hill&Brush Ditch Co.shares to facilitate <br /> any potentially-necessary DRMS foreclosure in the future; or 2) achieves an increase in the bond <br /> amounts to adequately cover the costs of either obtaining a court-approved augmentation plan or <br /> otherwise complying with water rights requirements. <br /> Careful attention to this detail is warranted. As mentioned in the September 20, 2023 <br /> enforcement hearing before the DRMS Board,Coulson has previously suggested that it may simply <br /> walk away from its responsibilities to complete reclamation on the Kirtright Pit. Similarly, in its <br /> May 6, 2024, response to Incompleteness Notice No. 1, Coulson again refused to acknowledge its <br /> financial responsibility to properly complete reclamation. <br /> Finally, in determining an appropriate size for the bond, additional scrutiny of Coulson's <br /> claims regarding the pre-1981 nature of the ponds in the Southwest part of the permit area is <br /> warranted.It is far from certain that these ponds will qualify as pre-1981 ponds.Thus,the size ofthe <br /> bond should cover the real possibility a water court decree cannot be obtained without either <br /> devoting more water rights to the augmentation plan,lining the ponds,or filling in the ponds.Any of <br /> these options would involve significant additional expense. <br /> 6. Additional Objections. <br /> The O'Briens also object to Exibit F to the Plan to the extent it calls for a unnecessary oval- <br /> like drive or road North and West of their home.This appears to be an inadvertent mistake,left over <br /> from a prior map that called for processing on the O'Brien property. <br /> The Plan also cannot be approved at present because Coulson still has not obtained a legal <br /> right to enter and conduct the operations that it has planned on the O'Brien property. Thus,the Plan <br /> is not yet in full compliance with DRMS Rules. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.