Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii • <br />Natual Resources Section <br />1525 Sherman, 3rd Floor <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone: 852-2541 <br />M E M O R A N D U Al <br />T0: GILBERT F. RINDAHL <br />DIRECTOR, RECLAMATTON STAFF <br />FROM: LYiVIQ OBERNYER <br />ASSISTANT ATTOR°IEY GENERAL <br />RE: SPECIFICATION AGGREGATES, IP]C, <br />DATE: September 15, 1976 <br />Gib, I believe you are misquoting me to Mr, Case. I believe I <br />stated that it sounded reasonable, but I wanted to see the file <br />before making a final decision. Upon reviewing the file I think <br />several comments are in order: <br />THE TERRY OF THE PERi4IT ISSUED ON OCTOBER 11, 1974. <br />I think the reason for the confusion is that the staff w<ls attempt- <br />ing to backdate the land stabilization and reclamation agreement <br />to cover all mining activities of the company since April 12, 1971, <br />even though the company did not come before the Board until <br />January 21, 1974, and did not submit a bond until October 11, 1974. <br />What should have been done was to have the correct dates on the <br />agreement and the permit, but add additional language backdating <br />the effective date of land covered to April 12, 1971. These errors <br />can occur when people become too attached to justfillinl;in blanks <br />on a form without considering their legal effects. I hope the <br />Staff and I can continue to work together and be flexible enough <br />to change forms when necessary to avoid such problems. The appro- <br />priate county gave approval to the operation in 1971. <br />I would suggest instead that the letter to Specification. Aggregates <br />indicate: <br />a. That when this type of question was raised in the <br />Peabody situation, my office advised the previous <br />board, that if an operator wished to argue that he <br />was entitled to have received a five year permit <br />from the Board, he was entitled to raise tl>at argu- <br />ment. If the Board wished to accept such ain argument, <br />it probably legally could do so. However, there is a <br />legal argument that can be made that although the <br />operator was legally entitled to a five year permit, <br />he waived such rights by failing to object to the <br />limitation placed on the term of the permit when he <br />