My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998-11-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1998-11-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2021 8:46:19 PM
Creation date
5/2/2012 2:23:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
11/9/1998
Doc Name
Fax, Response to Pitkin County's motion for leave to file
From
Burns, Figa & Will, P.C.
To
Cheryl Linden
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
11/09/98 17:38 FAX 3037962777 BURNS FIGA & WILL Z 008/031 <br /> again begins with the phrase, "During the term of the permit. . ." Further, any such notice and <br /> hearing requirements are completely inconsistent with court proceedings_ Those provisions deal <br /> with the functioning of an administrative agency,not the judicial branch. If the County could boot- <br /> strap its way into litigating claims one through four with such an argument, any governmental <br /> agency, group or individual citizen could make the same argument which would result in the <br /> potential for dozens of third-party defendants in this case. <br /> D. Long expired permits cannot form the basis for Pitkin County's ability to litigate <br /> claims one through four. <br /> In a last ditch attempt to manufacture a basis for participating in claims one through four, <br /> Pitkin County attaches two resolutions regarding special use permits granted to Mid-Continent <br /> Resources long ago. This attempt fails for a number of reasons_ The biggest problem is that the <br /> resolutions were directed toward Mid-Continent Resources and its use of Coal Basin as a coal inine <br /> (in the Case of Resolution 86-139) or merely suspending the use permit temporarily until a new <br /> buyer could be found to operate the Coal Basin coal mines(in the Case of Resolution 91-21). The <br /> current situation could not be more different. Instead of(1) a private party, (2) mining coal, the <br /> private party has been replaced by (1)the State of Colorado, which instead of mining coal is now <br /> (2)performing reclamation work_ The absurdity of Pitkin County's position can be seen here where <br /> apparently it is attempting to regulate a state agency. Just because Pitkin County made a claim of <br /> regulatory jurisdiction in resolutions issued years ago, doesn't confer that authority if it doesn't <br /> otherwise exist. <br /> Further,the permits expired long ago. Resolution No. 86-139,mas issued in 1986 for a period <br /> of five years, expiring on December 8, 1991. Resolution No. 91-21 was concerned with an "interim" <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.