APPCOR11375 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • HOLLAND & HART • Mr. David Shelton February 2, 1984 Page 2 been raised subsequent to issuance rather than during the application period. It seems to me that if the substantive and procedural criteria for issuance were not satisfied, the permit is invalid and MLRD should promptly take appropriate action, regardless of whether the invalidity was called to its atten- tion prior or subsequent to issuance. Moreover, we consider it extremely important that, in addition to misrepresenting right- of-entry, the permittee did not comply with statutory require- ments for notification. Specifically, C.R.S. § 34-33-110(2)(8) requires that the name of mineral owners be included within the published notification. As MLRD's files show, the newspaper publication for the referenced permit did not include the name of the mineral owner, my client, Victor-American Fuel Company. This defect in the prerequisite notification only compounds the significance of other defects in the permit application. I am particularly cognizant of your concern that the MLRD not be used, in your words, "to adjudicate private property rights." As I told you on the telephone, that is not my pur- pose. In fact, it is the permittee in this case who is attempting to use the erroneously-issued mining permit in the pending litigation as evidence of a right to mine. There is no question as to my client's ownership of the coal within the permitted area; neither is there any question that the per- mittee failed to provide the statutorily-required documentation showing right-of-entry with respect to my client's coal. Under these circumstances, I submit that it is the permittee who is attempting to "adjudicate property rights" through your agency and that my client is legally entitled to have all errors asso- ciated with issuance of the permit remedied as promptly as pos- sible. In light of the significance of this matter and the indi- cations that informal resolution may not occur in time to pro- tect my client's rights, I would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you and other appropriate representatives of MLRD, and would further request that the attorney general assigned to your agency also be present at that melting. I have no orefer- ence, one way or the other, with respect to attendance by the permittee or its representatives, because I consider the mat- ters addressed in this letter to pertain to the relationship between my client, as a landowner, and MLRD, as the agency responsible for regulating mining in such a way as to protect my client's property rights.