REP41761 - 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 ]casts that have been issued on these lands and neighboring lands for decades. Mineral interests were originally reserved on our property by Harry Dtutsmoor and Peazl Dunsmoor in a deed dated June 24, 1957, recorded at Book 240, Page 8 of the records of the clerk and recorder of Montezuma County, Colorado. The Dunsmoors reserved three-quarters of all oil, gas and other minerals. Jn 1972, J. P. Young and I.izue Young reserved one-half of the remaining minerals in a deed.dated Apri128, 1972, recorded at Book 430, Page 34. At the 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 gnvel 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 inacctrrate description of substances included 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 are entitled to under the laws of Colorado and the United 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 Newhohn 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 To the contrary, we believe the reference comes from a decision on other property which was subsequently withdrawn by the Montezuma County Dsstrict Court Mr. Kinney's non-0wnership of sand and gravel is not the only reason for our objection. No consideration 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 [his regazd, the proposed reclamation plan states that "no entry of surface owners" will be perrrritted anal the completion of mining and reclamation, many years from now. (Exhibit E, Paragraph 6). Additionally, the water infortnaaon section (Exhibit G) is incomplete and internally inconsistent. Mr. Kinney states, "There aze no known springs, stock ponds or wells oa the affected land." (Exhibit G, Paragraph 3). Yct the Soil Conservation Service report attached to the application contradicts this very conclusion. (Exhibit I). Part of our property is included in the SCS description for the "AQ" tract That SCS description includes the following: 00327