Laserfiche WebLink
Operator's/Applicant's legal right to enter and initiate a mining operation on the affected land. <br />The documentation provided to the Division by Mr. Wisely regarding the minerals rights to the <br />property are in the form of a patented deed recorded on April 18, 1874, and a Warranty Deed, dated <br />June 27, 1963, identifying that one half of the minerals rights -oil, gas, and other minerals in and <br />under the property -belong to Paul A., Ethyl R., and David L. Ansley, their heirs and assigns. None <br />of the documentation supplied by Mr. Wisely indicates that sand and gravel aze included in the <br />reservation of the mineral rights for the property. <br />The Applicant provided the Division with a copy of the Warranty Deed, dated March 7, 2005, <br />identifying the owners of the property where the activity is proposed, as Jack and Susanne Allen. <br />The warranty deed supplied to the Division does not mention exceptions for severed mineral rights <br />for the property. The Applicant has also supplied the Division with a copy of a notice published in <br />the Park County Republican and Fairplay Flume on July 15 and July 22, 2005, identifying the pazcel <br />of land for the proposed operation and noticing the proposed rezoning of the site for a gravel <br />operation. This notice, required by Pazk County as part of their permitting process, requested that <br />any party with mineral interests at the site contact the name listed in the notice. No responses were <br />received. <br />Mr. Allen's attorney addressed the minerals rights issue to the Division by stating, "In summary, <br />under Colorado law, sand and gravel aze not normally treated as minerals with a mineral reservation <br />like that contained in the 1963 Warranty Deed. The language in the 1963 Warranty Deed does not <br />indicate an intent to reserve sand or gravel, and similar or identical language has been interpreted by <br />Colorado and federal courts to pertain only to energy or hard rock minerals." <br />Pazk County possesses two permits on the property located to the north of the proposed site, which <br />are also included in the property defined by the documents supplied by Mr. Wisely regarding <br />mineral rights. These two sites are active gravel operations. <br />Division Comment <br />This issue was not raised during the public comment period and therefore is untimely. Even if the <br />issue was timely, the Division, in consultation with the Attorney General's Office, believes that the <br />possibility that a party other than the current landowner (Operator) has claim to or will claim the <br />rights to sand and gravel at the site as a portion of the mineral rights is unlikely. Likewise, the <br />allegations regazding interference with any reserved minerals because of the mining of sand and <br />gravel, is at this time speculative. Mr. Wisely is the only person who has raised this issue with the <br />Division and Mr. Wisely does not personally hold any rights to the sand and gravel or to the <br />minerals reserved in the deeds associated with the property. The Applicant has supplied sufficient <br />documents and a legal opinion to support the assertion that the Operator has legal right to enter and <br />mine the sand and gravel at the site. <br />The Division does, however, as a condition to the permit, recommend requiring the Operator to <br />notify the Division within 48 hours should a legal ruling related to the rights to the sand and gravel <br />at the site be made. <br />