Laserfiche WebLink
Continent. That is one reason for the change in Resolution #91- <br /> 21 from the previous Resolution #91-13 that you will note in <br /> Paragraph 28. 1 on Page 3 . You will recall that I said at our <br /> meeting in Glenwood Springs that I would recommend that the <br /> County' s action reflect the State's technical revision to the <br /> Mid-Continent Permit regarding the water treatment plant. As it <br /> turned out, the Commissioners rejected my recommendation on the <br /> grounds that the 60-day period which you provided to complete <br /> installation of the plant after the resumption of coal mining was <br /> too lenient and could easily lead to another round of delays. <br /> They were adamant that no further coal production take place in <br /> Coal Basin until the new treatment plant is fully installed and <br /> operational. Our attorney's preliminary opinion was that the two <br /> requirements are complimentary rather than contradictory. I <br /> would appreciate your Department' s official opinion as to whether <br /> or not this requirement is invalid because of the discrepancy <br /> between it and the State Permit. <br /> The other terms of the Amendment are self-explanatory and have <br /> not been protested by Mid-Continent. We think that Paragraph <br /> 28. 3 . regarding the relocation and redesign of the gas and diesel <br /> tank facility is appropriate for inclusion in the Mid-Term Review <br /> and we urge you to consider such an action. <br /> Mid-Continent's objections to this Amendment centered on their <br /> contention that the suspension of the Special Use Permit as it <br /> relates to coal production amounted to a revocation of the Permit <br /> and as such was contradictory to the intent of both the State <br /> Permit and the federal coal leases. They also objected on the <br /> grounds that the suspension was unnecessarily vague and would <br /> diminish the value of their property by introducing too much <br /> uncertainty into the ability of a new owner to operate. The <br /> Commissioners rejected those arguments and passed Resolution #91- <br /> 21 . This Resolution supercedes Resolution #91-13 and is now an <br /> official part of the Mid-Continent Permit. Enforcement of the <br /> Amendment may be stayed if Mid-Continent files a civil suit under <br /> Rule 106 (b) , but we have no indication that they will do so. <br /> I also want to register our concern about the final reclamation <br /> of Coal Basin if in fact Mid-Continent' s efforts to sell their <br /> facilities are unsuccessful. We want to support your efforts to <br /> secure an adequate bond against the cost of final reclamation and <br /> to set a timetable for moving into final reclamation. The worst- <br /> case scenario for Coal Basin, from our point of view, would be a <br /> situation in which the mine is idled for an extended period (say, <br /> one year or longer) while reclamation and maintenance gradually <br /> deteriorate. We feel that a firm timetable for beginning final <br /> reclamation would be appropriate, especially in light of the <br /> ongoing problems with road reclamation and water quality under <br /> the current circumstances.- <br /> Finally, I want to let you and the other agencies represented at <br /> 2 <br />