Laserfiche WebLink
Fifth, the Objectors' two-year argument is much ado about nothing, King Mountain has <br />been the authorized operator of the mine since September 10, 2004. It has been the permitted <br />operator for over two years. Even if the Objectors' interpretation of the Act is reasonable - <br />which it is not -the Objectors' argument is moot. As of September 10, 2006, King Mountain <br />has held the permit fot over two years. This dispute has already been resolved by the passage of <br />time. The Objectors' policy arguments in support of the two year limitation, such as providing <br />an opportunity to determine whether the operator is qualified to operate the mine, have already <br />been accomplished. See Motion at 4. The Board has statutory jurisdiction to process King <br />Mountain's application under either the Board's or the Objectors' interpretation of the Act. <br />CONCLUSION <br />For these reasons, King Mountain respectfully requests that the Board deny the <br />Objectors' Motion to Dismiss and proceed to the scheduled January ]0-11, 2007 Board hearing <br />on King Mountain's financial warranty. <br />Respectfully submitted this 4th day of December, 2006. <br />Ezekiel J. Williams (#24$44) <br />Katharine L. Schaeffer (#37898) <br />Faegre & Benson, LLP <br />3200 Welts Fargo Center <br />1700 Lincoln Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203-4532 <br />Telephone: (303) 607-3600 <br />Facsimile: (303) 607-3700 <br />Email: zwilliams@faegre.com <br />kcchaeffer@faegre.com <br />ATTORNEYS FOR KING <br />MOUNTAIN GRAVEL, LLC <br />