Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1645 Court Plate, Suite 309 PAonelFa:: (303) 629-9335 <br />Denver. CO LISA 80202 E-M ail: lewiclci~i~eovi6ioocl.net <br />November 14, 1997 <br />Susan McCannon <br />Coal Program Supervisor <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street 2nd Floor <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re :Meeker Mines Landowner Requirements for sediment Pond Retention <br />Dear Susan: <br />• As we discussed, Byron Walker brought up a concern regarding Rule 3.03.1(3)(c) <br />regarding provisions for future maintenance of the "silt dams" by the landowner or the <br />permittee. Although I understand the intent of the regulation, I believe that a) it is <br />beyond the jurisdiction of the DMG to attempt to obtain a commitment from either the <br />landowner or operator for maintenance after bond release; b) it is unenforceable, and <br />will cause very negative feelings with the landowners we are dealing with, who already <br />think that many of the regulations are inappropriate; c) it will be seen by our <br />landowners as a way that the DMG can create an enforcement right on them for future <br />maintenance; and, d) it is certainty another way that a landowner can look for a large <br />"handout" from the coal company because the landowner will need the payment to <br />"perform maintenance" on ponds that the landowner wanted in the first place. It has <br />always been very clearly understood by all landowners at the Meeker Mines that they <br />will be responsible for pond maintenance after Enron is gone. In an effort to find an <br />amicable solution, I have enclosed the original letters from the landowners requesting <br />that the ponds remain, and I do believe that the existing letters and other information <br />previously provided clearly shows that the owners intended to. and will maintain the <br />ponds. <br />.Phil Jensen has asked that two ponds remain: one is the main sediment pond at the <br />Northern #1 site. The arguments that maintenance is already provided for are as <br />follows: <br />1) The enclosed letter dated July 29, 1995 not only states that this pond should remain, <br />• but also that it was an existing pond site prior to mining. The owner obviously was <br />using and maintainine this pond prior to Eriron's arrival. It is be understood that they <br />.. .>~~, <br />.: .. , <br />