PERMFILE48077 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

05/31/2006 11;22 7192751715 CONST SERVICES BLDG PAGE 05 Motion for Continuance permit Applieatlon No. M-2005-OSO Page 4 of 7 6. As a fifth ground for this motion, Rule 6.4.7(3} requires the applicant to provide an estimate of all anticipated water requirements, including flow rates and annual volumes, for each phase of the proj eet, including, but not limited to, development, mining, and reclamation. Applicant has not provided an estimate of anticipated water requirements for each phase. Also, annual water demand volumes are not provided. Therefore, the application is incomplete. 7. As a sixth ground for this motion, use or evaporation of water exposed during mining operations will consume native water supplies tributary to the South Platte River and injure existing water rights. Applicant has not stated that any water is exposed as a consequence of mining x211 not be used for mining operations, or stored, without a substitute water supply plan approved by the Division of Water Resources. Rule 3.6.1.(a). Therefore, the application is incomplete. 8. As a seventh ground for this motion, Rule 6.4,12 requires the Operator/Applicant to provide the source of the Operator/Applicant's legal right to enter and initiate a mining operation on the affected land. As evidenced below, Apphcant does not have the legal right to enter and initiate a mining operation. Therefore, the application is incomplete. 8.a. Attached as Exhibit C to this Motion is a Contract to Quiet Title and Purchase Mineral Rights ("Contract"), executed on May 23, 2006 between Robert Cargill and Neighbors for a Desirable Park County. By this Contract, Mr. Cazgill states his parents, N.C. and Lora Cargill, did by virtue of the 1963 Warranty Deed, which deed is part of the DMG Public record and attached hereto as Exhibit D, "reserve one-half the sand and gravel" uzader the [proposed site) .. ,and has claimed ownership of all the sand and gravel under these lands." By virtue of this Contract, Objector, Keztt Rolf is "fully authorized and empowered to deal with the Reserved Interests in any mazmer necessary to protect Cargill's interests and/or prove up Cargill's ownership of Resezved htterests including, but not Iixnited to, filing and prosecuting quiet title actions on Cargill's behalf and in Cargill's name." 8.b. "The term `minerals,' as it applies to surface minerals, is inherently ambiguous"Kinney v. Keith, 128 P.3d 297, 305 (Colo. App. 2005) "However, Colorado cases deem bare mineral reservations to be inherently anbiguous and favor resolving that ambiguity by looking to the intent of the b~rantor." .Id. Tn this case, there is evidence that the grantor, N.C. Cargill and Lora )3. Cargill intended to reserve sand and gravel based on the affidavit signed by the Carg11's son, Robert Cargill, attached to the Contract as Exhibit A. 9. In its response to DMG's 3`' Adequacy Review, Applicant states "[g]old reserves on the proposed site have not been explored and, therefore, not confinxzed to exist." 9.a. The proposed site is historically known as a high producing are £or gold. Applicant should be required to research, test drill, and explore gold reserves on tlae mining site and