Laserfiche WebLink
Sent ey: Tom Kennedy PC; <br />Ste+e Z++ick. L-scuire <br />San Mt^_uel County .4tto-[ey <br />August 23, 2000 <br />Pace 2 <br />• 970 72a 9a39 Aug~23-• 4:09PM; Page 3/4 <br />E. 1'ou state that "it is the considered position of the Board that [here is substantial <br />competent evidence to support the'`1ined Land Reclamation Board finding that the <br />Pathfinder Pit mining operation ... has ad+•ersely affected the stability of the Publtc <br />Service Company's penstock for the Ames Hydro Plant." Please provide any and all <br />supporting information relied tpon by the Counry in support of this contention. <br />Z. .9fler the fact, my client u•as made aware of a site visit that took place last Friday, August 18, <br />?000, presumably related to actions being considered by the Counry. \'~ith regard to the site <br />visit, please advise as follows: <br />A. ~'tfio attended the site visit, ++•hat ++as the purpose for the meeting, who called for the <br />meetins, ryas it noticed, what ++as stated and decided. Bear in mind that you advised the <br />BOCC that it could consider revie+v of t•arious permits and approvals previously granted <br />to Pathfinder (which determination I do not contra with under the circutttstances ofthis <br />marter). Should such considerations be ongoing, your client is absolutely acting itt a <br />quasi judicial capacity and cannot legally be conducting meeting and actions without fair <br />~ advance notice. My client u•as never advised of the site walk, ~•as unable to participate <br />in such a visit, was unable to hear or refute any assertions made about its legal permits <br />and entitlements, u-as unable to offer other information and, quite candidly, was very <br />much denied their procedural due process rights. Scort Smith is usually a pretty easy <br />person to find, chances are sood he vv~as probably even in the Counry offices the day the <br />site walk vvas being arranged. <br />II. Equally disconcerting to my client is the fact that some portions of the site walk <br />appazent]y occurred within the pri+•ate property of my client, without prior notice or <br />consent and without any entergenty circumstances warranting the need for an official <br />visit. Could you please advise me as to the legal and factual basis authorizing t;hat <br />would appear to be a trespass of my client's property. <br />Your letter to the DMG has created serious and extensive problems which my client contrnds is <br />unfounded in fact and for nhich my client must now try to refute. ?v1y client finds the tenor of the letter <br />and the broad natwe of the assertions to be remarkable, particulazly in light of the recent noticed meeting <br />that wg5 held by the BOCC on these very issues. I left the meeting understanding that the conccros being <br />expressed, to the extent that they had ]egitintacy, were caused by Pathfinder and Public Sm~ice <br />Company. Your letter, although recognizing many of the problems created by Public Service Company <br />(placing a fiberglass pipeline, not steel), seemingly reaches a conclusion chat Pathfinder alone is to blame <br />end must suffer the resulting consequences. Bear in mind, it is not the road that is the problem here, it is <br />the pipeline. <br />Please provide me a copy of eny levers that the BOCC have instructed you to send concerning Public <br />Sm•ice Company's use and maintenance of the penstock. Could you also please provide me with a copy <br />of the Counry review and approval of Public Service Company's application to convert the penstock <br />from a steel pipeline to a fiberglass pipeline as I belie+•e is required under CRS Section 30-28-127. <br />Assuming the Counry is serious in its rhetoric about protecting the public health and safety, l would have <br />thought that the County would have made sure an application under [he stated section would have been <br />administered long ago. <br />G:tCli rnis~pathfinder.d059 W61.Itr.wpd <br />