Laserfiche WebLink
are in agreement in all but a few minor respects. On the other hand, this did not <br />stop Ms. Turner from delivering more of her typical correspondence to us and to <br />DRMS including one of her usual tirades filled with all manner of abuse and <br />invective. Moreover, the very next day after receiving the company's written <br />apology, Ms. Turner delivered correspondence in which she threatened us with a <br />multi-million dollar lawsuit and demanded payment of $1.5 Million, among other <br />demands, in order to settle her supposed claim. <br />We believe that a pattern has now been established, and it is clear that while the <br />Morgans will agree to reasonable points having to do with ongoing activities on <br />their land, they intend to litigate their claims for past damages, which will only be <br />resolved either through litigation or through bowing to their outrageous and <br />overinflated claims. It is apparent to us that the Morgans perceive they have a veto <br />power over our permit, and intend to use that to leverage their demands for a cash <br />settlement from WFC. In this situation, litigation may very well be the only way <br />to finally resolve our issues with the Morgans, since there is no realistic chance <br />that the Morgans could recover anything like their demands in a court of law, and <br />until that is resolved there is little likelihood the family will give full and final <br />approval to the reclamation plan for their property in spite of anything we do, up to <br />and including meeting their current demands (which could well trigger new and <br />larger demands if we were to accept them). But what I find troubling about the <br />Division's communications with WFC concerning these issues is the apparent <br />expectation that WFC, faced with these patently unreasonable demands, will <br />"coordinate ... and resolve" all these disputed issues, including issues relating to <br />past damages, before DRMS will approve WFC' pending PR06 permit revision. <br />We are concerned because delaying approval of PR06 until the litigation runs its <br />course, or the expected negotiations are concluded, may well sound the death knell <br />for this mining operation, since either course of action is certainly of indefinite <br />duration and is likely to be protracted. WFC cannot afford to wait that long for the <br />permit revision to be approved. <br />In light of this factual background I asked our legal counsel to review the <br />applicable law and in particular the citations in your May 18, 2010 letter in order <br />to see if Colorado law truly requires WFC to go to these lengths, and if DRMS <br />really has authority to require us to do so as a condition of permit approval. Upon <br />conclusion of this review, there is a large disparity between what the regulations <br />actually say and what you represented them to say. <br />In your May 18, 2010 letter, you cited CRS § 34-33-102 and I I I(1)(h). You also <br />cited Rule 2.05.5(1)(b). There were no other citations in your letter, and legal <br />counsel after considerable research was unable to find other regulatory or statutory <br />citations directly relevant to landowner coordination (though citations bearing on <br />DRMS's authority to involve itself in private property disputes were discovered, as <br />described below). Based on your citations to the above three provisions, you <br />stated in your letter that WFC was required to reclaim the Morgan farm in <br />accordance with "the landowner's direction" (page 3, bullet 3), that "[s]pecific and