Laserfiche WebLink
L.AW OFFICES OF <br />CHARLES G. KINNEY <br />90 NEW MONTGOMERY 11100 <br />SAN FRANCISCO, CA 9!105 <br />I115i 5161030 <br />December 26, 1994 <br />5826 PRESIEV WAV <br />OAKLAND, CA 91618 <br />(5101 6515133 <br />Reclamation Board <br />Dept. of Natural Resources <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />State of Colorado <br />Attn: Jim Stevens <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Response to Objection to Application No. M-94-115 (ORION PIT) <br />Applicant: Stephen H. Kinney (Reg. Operation 112 Recl. Permit) <br />Location: Secs. 2 and 11, T35N, R14W, N.M.P.M. <br />County: Montezuma County, Colorado <br />Dear Mr. Stevens: <br />This is in response to the letter from Tom Gillis, Environmental <br />Protection Specialist, Durango Field Office, dated December 19, <br />1994, on behalf of Stephen H. Kinney, regarding the following <br />written statement: <br />In regards to the letter signed by Raymond E. Keith. dated December <br />15, 1994• <br />1. The above permit is in complete conformity with the existing <br />laws and regulations of Colorado, since those laws and regulations <br />hold that the "mineral owner" is the owner of gravel (especially <br />when the gravel is belay the surfacQ, as it is in this case) . <br />Furthermore, regulatien~ regarding the right of entry allow the <br />"mineral owner" (not the "surface owner°) to pain such entry. <br />In the present case, Mr. Keith wishes to change the laws and <br />regulations (and have a "surface owner°' own the gravel). We can <br />only assume that Mr. Keith wishes to gain some advantage over Mr. <br />Kinney before the pending trial of Keith v. Kinney, Montezuma <br />County District Court, Case No. 94 CV 97. <br />Until the District Court holds otherwise, gravel is still a mineral <br />(belonging to the "mineral owner", Mr. Kinney), and this Board <br />cannot assume differently. <br />we hope that the Division has not misled Mr. Keith into believing <br />that the "ownership issue be fully resolved" (and right of entry be <br />established) before the Division's consideration of application M- <br />94-115 (ORION PIT). There is clearly a difference between this <br />application [M-94-115 (ORION PIT) by a "mineral owner"] compared to <br />the withdrawn application M-94-067 (KEITH PIT) by a "surface <br />owner". Regardless, the Division must recommend, and the Board <br />O Reply to Oakland <br />L <br />T~~~ RECEIVED <br />DEC 3 0 1994 <br />Division of mmarais a Neology <br />,s >•, ~~,~0. 00118 <br />~~~j <br />