Laserfiche WebLink
-110- <br /> <br />sources. The terms of those negotiations and the -- identifying who those <br />people are proprietary. We can't conduct negotiations in public. And I don't <br />think we are intended to. The fact that we are in negotiations, water is <br />available, combined with a commitment to comply with Water Law, :[ believe <br />fully addresses the requirements of the regulation. It's not an area where <br />there's not -- where there's not water available. In concluding., I think <br />that's a risk -- I think ultimately it's a risk the Company faces with <br />Colorado regulatory scheme. You've got to weigh the risks and when you expand <br />how much money at which point in time and it really is a risk shouldered by <br />the operator as he moves through the process. I -- I hope that's -- that's as <br />responsive as I could be. I understand your problem with the wording of the <br />regulation, but we believe water is available -- we could take care of that <br />issue more, if you -- if you like. <br />MR. HOLDER: In a different forum, I'd love to argue this paint, but <br />right now, it seems to me that if we were to say that we have to assure <br />• ourselves that they have adequate water here then we ought to go back and <br />rescind every permit we've issued fora gravel pit along the Platte River. <br />MR. N. COHEN: I understand this creates problems for the Board. I have <br />no -- you know, I don't think there's a simple answer to this. I think -- I <br />think the reality, however, is that these are your rules, and that you are <br />required to follow them and I've cited authority in the brief and I have the <br />cases here if you'd like to see them. You are required to follow your own <br />rules, until you change 'em. You have the option to change 'em, but you have <br />enacted them. The language is perfectly clear. I don't think there's any <br />ambiguity about what's required. The fact that water is for sale is <br />irrelevant. You want to talk about relevancy, that is clearly irrelevant. <br />The question is whether or not they've got the rights. They haven't even <br />applied for the rights, let alone obtain them. Whether or not this is a risk <br />for the Company -- that's not the only issue. It's also a risk for the people <br />of San Luis. Because, if they go forward with their operations and begin to <br /> <br />