Laserfiche WebLink
• iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii <br />HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />ITOO BROADWAY <br />DENVER, COLORADO B02D0 <br />TE LE PHONE 1303) BOLT 000 <br />KENNETH J BURNE _ TELEA 496490 !RANCH OFFICE: <br />LOLORA 00 SP RING S. LOCO RADO <br />TELGpNQ NG.;D02N1338~0 ~ ",~ ~,~ <br />~! 6 r <br />August 9, 1979 ~-~'~_~'-~ ' `.. __. <br />Mr. Chips Barry t''•~`= 1 ~J ~9~~ <br />Director, Mined Land Reclamation <br />723 Centennial Building ('~ii1VGU i_1i,tiU rlc!,_F~19AilU?J <br />1313 Sherman Street CoIU. Uept. of te'at~.:ral haS~urCes <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Re: Cotter Corporation - JD-7 Open Pit Mine <br />Your File No. 79-94 <br />Dear Mr. Barry: <br />Cotter Corporation has asked us to respond to a <br />portion of a letter dated July 9, 1979 which was sent to <br />Cotter by Robert C. Campbell of your staff. The letter <br />enclosed a copy of a Memorandum from Hal D. Simpson of the <br />State Engineer's office to Harris Sherman as Secretary of <br />the Mined Land Reclamation Board (NLRB) dated June 21, 1979 <br />(copy attached). The basic thrust of the Memorandum focused <br />on the State Engineer's belief that if Cotter intends to use <br />the water removed from the mine during its normal dewatering <br />process for "mining purposes," they must obtain "the necessary <br />water storage rights and well permits rp for to Board approval." <br />It is to the issues presented by this statement that we wish <br />to address ourselves. <br />Summary <br />The first issue involves the proposed requirement <br />that Cotter "obtain" water storage rights, but it is not <br />clear whether the adjudication of such rights is being <br />referred to. In any event, water storage rights in Colorado <br />are created only by the act of water storage and the subse- <br />quent application of stored waters to a beneficial use. <br />This process provides a vested water right entirely in the <br />absence of governmental intervention. Accordingly, the <br />first portion of the sentence in question is unnecessary <br />since court decrees merely confirm that an appropriation has <br />occurred. <br />The second issue involves the proposed requirement <br />that Cotter secure a well permit for water produced by its <br />