2003-08-28_REVISION - M2001090 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RECEIVED Randall W. Ktauzer Member. Colorado Bar KLAUZER & TREMAINE, LLC Attorneys of Law P.O. Box 774525, Steamaboat Springs, Colorado 80477 320 Lincoln Avenue -Second Floor Phone: (970) 879-5003 Fax: (970) 879-1131 kilaw com JUL 2.6 2003 Division of Minerals and Geology Claire E. Sollars Member, Colorado and Wyoming Ban J. Richard Tremaine Member, Colorado, D. C, and Virginia Ban July 25, 2003 State of Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology Atten: Tom Schriener 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, C0 fi0203 . James "Sand}' Homer Member, Colorado and Wyoming Hers Re: River Valley Res~qurce, Pe t No. M-2001-090; Amendment A plication Package AM-1 t96, jec¢len ~e12'tr C~ors: l2e%riarf ~~e:Seg t ,~ir~t Deaz Mr. Schriener: O This law firm represents Jane and Ervin O'Dell, and their living trust, the owner of real property which is immediately adjacent to that property which is the subject of the above-referenced permit application. Based'upan my review of the package of information that was forwazded to this office by you, please note the following objections and concerns on behalf of the O'Dells: 1. The O'Dells are concerned about a im act of the- ro osed avel o tion on their water supplies. They have a domestic water.we at will likely have both its quality and its quantity impacted by the L:aFazge industrial operation. In addition, the O'Dells have water rithts on the.Suttle Ditch: LaFazge proposes to relocate the Suttle Ditch on the property that it proposes to purchase, but has not obtained the approval of the O'Dells, or others, who have an interest in this ditch. In the fall of 2001, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a ruling, with respect to a property owner who had relocated.an irrigation ditch, without the consent of its downstream neighbor, and without approval of a court. That ruling appears to require either an agreement with downstream owners, or a court order, before such relocation can properly occur. See, Roarine Fork Club. L.P. v. St. 7ude's Companv, 36 P.3rd 1229,1231 (Colo. 2001). 2. From my review of the materials submitted to your office, by LaFazge, it still does not appear that LaFarge has fully responded to the issue of its "light to enter and initiate a minim operation on the affected land," as raised in the.April l 1, 2003, letter az aza D. Chiappone to Gary 7. Tuttle). Although LaFazge subsequently provided a letter. (June 2, 2003, John W. Rozetle to Barbara D. Chiappone) and attached a document from the More family purporting to authorize entry, this document fails to address the cloud on the More's title that is reflected in other documentation that was provided to you.