Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />., <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />Gale A. Norton <br />Attorney General <br />Raymond T. Slaughter <br />Chief Deputy Attorney General <br />Timothy M. Tymkovich <br />Solicitor General <br />• <br />OF Co<O . ~ ~tl V i I ~~~ /~~2-G~- <br />,~F' H (~ <br />N O <br />t :7 *, <br />• X876 ~ <br />Llir ~'taYr of C~nlnr~dn <br />DEPARTMENT OF LAW <br />OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL <br />January 7, 1992 <br />110 16th Street - 10th Floor <br />Denver. Colorado 80202 <br />Phone 6201500 <br />FAX (303) 620-a130 <br />F~~~~f ~, ,~,~ <br />JAN 0 8 1992 <br />Mined land <br />B.J. Fett, Esg. RP~'an!ationC~•-~-~ <br />105 E. Vermijo <br />Suite 600 <br />Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 <br />RE: Mined Land Reclamation Division ("MLRD") and the First <br />National Bank of Florence ("Bank") <br />Dear Mr. Fett: <br />This is to convey the MLRD's concern over the letter, dated <br />December 30, 1991, that it received from W. Drew Lamoreux. A <br />copy of that letter is enclosed. <br />Mr. Lamoreux apparently drafted his December 30 letter before you <br />received my December 24 letter. Nevertheless, I would like to <br />take this opportunity to restate the MLRD's position. The MLRD <br />regards the issues concerning the Notice of Violation as sepacate <br />from the issues involving reclamation, including the removal of <br />the conveyor. The December 10 letter from the MLRD is an offer, <br />pursuant to §34-33-123(8)(c), C.R.S. to settle an enforcement <br />action. The settlement of the enforcement action in no way re- <br />lieves the Bank of its obligation to maintain and reclaim the <br />site and remove the conveyor. <br />Mr. Lamoreux appears to believe that the MLRD is offering to <br />relieve the Bank of its obligation to remove the conveyor or <br />repair any damage caused by the removal of the conveyor. That is <br />not so. The MLRD filed the action in the district court in order <br />to assist the Bank in performing its obligation to reclaim the <br />site. The lawsuit does not seek to relieve the Bank of its duty <br />to .reclaim the site and remove the conveyor. Rather, the lawsuit <br />aims to clarify title to the conveyor so that Mr. Strohecker may <br />remove the conveyor, thereby assisting the Bank in the perfor- <br />mance of its obligation. <br />The Bank's obligation to reclaim the site is due to its election <br />to perform reclamation rather than honor the MLRD's call on the <br />letter of credit. The Bank may discharge its obligation to per- <br />