My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-05-21_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1999-05-21_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2021 5:01:42 AM
Creation date
5/3/2012 9:33:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
5/21/1999
Doc Name
Comments on Draft settlement
From
Attorney Generals Office
To
Burns, Figa & Will
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.
/
4
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
Page 2 <br /> Page 4, under AGREEMENT <br /> Paragraph 6, second line, add between"Agreement" and Pitkin County" the language of <br /> "including paragraph 9, below." This is to reflect that paragraph 6 is subject to the new <br /> paragraph to be added which reflects DMG's ability to join MCR, MidCon and\or the Trustee <br /> as parties if DMG is sued for reclamation or water quality issues by a third party, essentially <br /> the language used in paragraph 8. <br /> Page 5, under AGREEMENT <br /> In paragraph 7, in the ninth line, that line should be changed to read "related in any way to <br /> the Lawsuit or coal mining or reclamation activities performed or to be performed by the <br /> Division." This language is consistent with the agreement that MCR, the Trustee, and <br /> MidCon releases DMG from liability for any reclamation that it has conducted, or will <br /> conduct, in Coal Basin. <br /> Pages 5 and 6, under AGREEMENT <br /> Paragraph 8 is too broad in terms of the parties which can join the Division as a party and in <br /> terms of when they can do so. Only parties to the present lawsuit should be covered by this <br /> language and not the rest of the entities listed, such as MidContinent Minerals Corporation <br /> and all the agents, spouses, attorneys, etc. of MCR, the Trustee and MidCon. Accordingly, <br /> on page 6, in the continuation of paragraph 8, lines 1-4 should be changed to delete all the <br /> listed entities except MCR, the Trustee and MidCon. <br /> In addition, on page 6, line 4 of paragraph 8, language needs to be added to show that DMG <br /> has had some connection with the reclamation activities which are the subject of the lawsuit. <br /> Otherwise there is no basis for the Division to be brought into the suit as a party. Therefore, <br /> after "reclamation activities" add "performed by the Division." This same thought applies to <br /> the water quality issues. In line 6 of paragraph 8, add language to reflect that the Division is <br /> the permittee for the areas or outfalls which are the subject of the lawsuit. Again, without <br /> this connection, there is no basis to make the Division a party to the suit. <br /> Add a new paragraph 9 to reflect the Division's ability to join MCR, the Trustee, and/or <br /> MidCon to a suit brought against the Division concerning reclamation or for any claim <br /> concerning water quality liability. As we discussed in our telephone conversation on May <br /> 19, for the same reasons that your clients want to be able to join the Division as a party, the <br /> Division also must be able to join your clients if suit is brought against DMG by a third <br /> party. Accordingly, I suggest we use the language in paragraph 8, as amended, pertaining to <br /> MCR, the Trustee and MidCon's ability to join the Division as a party to reflect the <br /> Division's ability to join these parties to an action brought by a third party. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.