PERMFILE100574 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c Motion for Continuance Pemilt Application No. M-2005-080 Page 4 of 7 6. As a fiRh ground for this motion, Rule 6.4.7(3) requires the applicant to provide an estimate of al] anticipated water requirements, including flow rates and annual volumes, for each phase ofthe project, including, but not limited to, development, mining, and reclamation. Applicant has not provided an estimate of anticipated water requirements for each phase. Also, annual water demand volumes aze not provided. Therefore, the application is incomplete. 7. As a sixth ground for this motion, use or evaporation ofwater exposed during mining operations will consume native water supplies tributary to the South Platte River and injure existing water rights. Applicant has not stated that any water is exposed as a consequence of mining will not be used for mining operations, or stored, without a substitute water supply plan approved by the Division of Water Resources. Rule 3.6.L(a). Therefore, the application is incomplete. 8. As a seventh ground for this motion, Rule 6.4.12 requires the Operator/Applicant to provide the source of the Operator/Applicant's legal right to enter and initiate a mining operation on the affected land. As evidenced below, Applicant does not have the legal right to enter and initiate a mining operation. Therefore, the application is incomplete. 8.a. Attached as Exhibit C to this Motion is a Contract to Quiet Title and Purchase Mineral Rights ("Contract"), executed on May 23, 2006 between Robert Caggill and Neighbors for a Desirable Park County. By this Contract, Mr. Cargill states his pazents, N.C. and Lora Cargill, did by virtue of the 1963 Warranty Deed, which deed is part of the DMG Public record and attached hereto as Exhibit D, "reserve one-half the sand and gravel" under the [proposed site] ...and has claimed ownership of all the sand and gravel under these lands." By virtue of this Contract, Objector, Kent Rolf is "fully authorized and empowered to deal with the Reserved Interests in any manner necessary to protect Cazgill's interests and/or prove up Cazgill's ownership of Reserved Interests including, but not limited to, filing and prosecuting quiet title actions on Cazgill's behalf and in Cazgill's name." 8.b. "The term `minerals,' as it applies to surface minerals, is inherently ambiguous" Kinney v. Keith,128 P.3d 297, 305 (Colo. App. 2005) "However, Colorado cases deem bare mineral reservations to be inherently ambiguous and favor resolving that ambiguity by looking to the intent ofthe grantor." Id. In this case, there is evidence that the grantor, N.C. Cargill and Lora E. Cargill intended to reserve sand and gravel based on the affidavit signed by the Cazgll's son, Robert Cazgill, attached to the Contract as Exhibit A. 9. In its response to DMG's 3rd Adequacy Review, Applicant states "[g]old reserves on the proposed site have not been explored and, therefore, not confirmed to exist." / 9.a. The proposed site is historically known as a high producing are for gold. Applicant should be required to reseazch, test drill, and explore gold reserves on the mining site and