REP39693 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

December 1, 1994 Page 2 In fact, this expansive new definition of leasable substances conflicts dramatically with the terms of prior mineral leases that have been issued on these lands and neighboring lands for decades. Mineral interests were originally reserved on our property by Harry Dunsmoor and Peazl Dunsmoor in a deed dated June 24, 1957, rewrded at Book 240, Page 8 of the records of the clerk and recorder of Montezuma County, Colorado. The Dunsmoors reserved three-quartets of all oil, gas and other minerals. In 1972, J. P. Young and r ;,Te Young reserved one-half of the rema;n;ng minerals in ~ deed dated Aprii 28, 1972, recorded at Book 430, Fage 34. At t;,e time those reservations were made, none of the parties contemplated that the term "oil, gas and other minerals" meant a reservation of the sand and gravel that is a main component of the surface estates. When we purchased this property in 1974, we intended to acquire the entire surface estate, which Mr. Kinney now seeks to destroy through use of a new, inflated, and inaccttrate description of substances incltded in the mineral estate. This attempt by Mr. Kinney to confiscate our sand and gravel violates concepts of fairness, as well as the property ownership rights which we aze entitled to tinder the laws of Colorado and the Uttited States. In addition to the Newholm lease, Mr. Kinney has attached a series of relatively recent deeds and oil and gas leases where the terms have been expanded from the normal meaning of "oil, gas and other minerals" to include gravel and mineral aggregates. Each of these documents suffers from the same basic problem as the Newholm lease. In support of his contention that "oil, gas and other minerals" contained in deed reservations means sand and gravel, Mr. Kinney has provided a quotation that he attributes to the Montezuma County District Court. The lack of a reference makes the quotation almost impossible to verify, but certainly does not involve any case in which we were made parties. To the contrary, we believe the reference comes from a decision on other property which was subsequently withdrawn by the Montezuma County District Court - Mr. Kinney's non-0wnership of sand and gravel is not the only reason for our objection. No considendon is provided in the plan for continuation of flows in the Henry Bolen irrigation ditch, which serves our property and many ranch properties to the south. Even if Mr. Kinney had some right to mine our sand and gravel, which we deny, some provision in this plan would be necessary to preserve without interference the valid vested rights that many of us have in that ditch. Not only are specific provisions lacking in this regazd, the proposed reclamation plan states that "no entry of surface owners" will be perotitted until the completion of mining and reclamation, many years from now. (Exhibit E, Paragraph 6). Additionally, the water information section (Exhibit G) is incomplete and internally inconsistent. Mr. Kinney states, "There are no known springs, stock ponds or wells on the affected land." (Exhibit G, Paragraph 3). Yet the Soil Conservation Service report attached to the application contradicts this very conclusion. (Exhibi[ n. Part of our property is included in the SCS description for the "AQ" tract. That SCS description includes the following: O O O 8 2