My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-06-17_REVISION - M1980244 (9)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2008-06-17_REVISION - M1980244 (9)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:52:14 PM
Creation date
1/17/2013 12:22:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/17/2008
Doc Name
Comments AM09
Type & Sequence
AM9
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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
interest in the site responsible for the release of contaminants <br />can be held strictly liable regardless of fault or intent," <br />because "liability under CERCLA is joint and several, regardless <br />of each party's degree of fault or responsibility . . . ." That <br />and the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act, Title 34 Colo. Rev. <br />Stat., Article 32, make it perfectly clear that CC &V cannot <br />expose Odin to liability without Odin's consent and an <br />opportunity to assert its interest in these proceedings; nor can <br />it deprive Odin of its fair share of the income from its property <br />necessary to compensate for damage done by the operator. See, <br />for example, Hecla Mining Co. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 811 <br />P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1991). <br />Furthermore, Odin points out that the old law, on which CC &V <br />relies, refers only to joint ownership of a "mine," and defines <br />the word "mine" in Colo. Rev. Stat. ' 34 -44 -102, as including <br />"all real property acquired, used, or chiefly valuable for mining <br />purposes," and defining "tenants in common" as any "two or more <br />persons" owning "any mine" as "common property." Colo. Rev. Stat. <br />' 34 -44 -103. Odin and CC &V do not own any mine as common <br />property. Unless and until the joint property is itself mined, <br />the proportionate shares of the net profits can be neither <br />calculated nor distributed, and, of course, no costs incurred <br />elsewhere than on the common property can be deducted from the <br />gross returns eventually realized. See Morton v. Laesch, 52 <br />Colo. 541, 125 Pac. 498 (1912), and People ex rel. Breene v. <br />District Court, 27 Colo. 465, 62 Pac. 206 (1900), two cases from <br />before 1923 which plainly still apply to tenants in common of a <br />property adjacent to other properties in which there is no <br />tenancy in common. <br />There is currently no arrangement or understanding <br />whatsoever between CC &V and Odin for any of CC &V's past, present <br />or future activities on Odin's 60% owned property. There is no <br />cotenant mine that currently exists between CC &V and Odin, nor is <br />there a cotenant mine proposed by CC &V in its application to the <br />Board. Consequently, CC &V's strained use of cotenant mining law <br />for justifying its desire to mine property for which it has no <br />legal authority to mine, fails from the start. <br />It follows that no permit can be issued in this case unless <br />and until there is agreement between Odin and CC &V as to joint <br />operation of the property in which both are tenants in common <br />with each other. Absent such agreement, Odin objects to <br />destruction of its surface and subsurface estates, and to <br />issuance of any permit to CC &V to mine the joint property absent <br />consent by Odin to the reclamation plan. <br />CC &V's basis for destroying Odin's entire property holding <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.