My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-02-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1999-02-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2021 5:06:15 PM
Creation date
5/3/2012 9:34:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
2/9/1999
Doc Name
Response to motion to strike
From
US District Court
To
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. & DMG
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.
/
10
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
Complaint. These claims involve allegations regarding certain, sometimes unspecified, <br /> reclamation activities done or to be done at the Coal Basin mine site. Mid-Continent <br /> Resources' request is made pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(f) which provides that the objection to a <br /> responsive pleading that it fails to state a legal defense may be raised under this rule by a <br /> motion to strike. Mid-Continent Resources argues that the county has no legal basis for <br /> asserting any defenses to claims one through four because these claims concern reclamation <br /> and the county is preempted from attempting to regulate or second-guess reclamation <br /> requirements determined by the Division. <br /> In response to the Motion, Pitkin County concedes that the Division is the agency <br /> with the authority to set reclamation standards but states that it is not attempting to regulate <br /> "day-to-day"reclamation activities. Rather, the county alleges that it has land use authority <br /> pertaining to post-mining land use of the site and in conjunction with certain special use <br /> permits, and has certain other general interests in seeing that reclamation occurs. The county <br /> therefore asserts it should be allowed to raise defenses to claims for relief one through four as <br /> well as to the fifth claim for relief regarding injunctive relief against demolition of buildings <br /> and structures. <br /> From the Division's perspective, the interests asserted by Pitkin County are a mixture <br /> of land use based interests and interests that any citizen would have in completion of <br /> reclamation. The county's land use authority relates only to the injunctive relief claim (fifth <br /> claim for relief) concerning demolition of buildings and structures and not to claims one <br /> through four. Mid-Continent Resources has no objection to Pitkin County being a third-party <br /> defendant to the fifth claim for relief, nor does the Division. However, the county's authority <br /> concerning post-mining land use does not appear to support the county's participation in <br /> claims one through four. <br /> Pitkin County also asserts it has authority to litigate claims one through four by way <br /> of certain special use permits. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Division will leave <br /> the dispute as to the applicability and/or effectiveness of the special use permits to Nlid- <br /> Continent and Pitkin County. However, the analysis set forth by the Division will address <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.