Laserfiche WebLink
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r • <br />RECEIVED <br />APR 1Sscot°Clow <br />Oivisian of MInQ~~nli10!'dfa~5 <br />Dolores, CO 81323 <br />4/10/01 <br />Mr. Wallace Erickson <br />State of Colorado <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />701 Camino Del Rio <br />Durango, CO 81301 <br />Deaz Mr. Erickson: <br />AP <br />R ~ 1 ?00j <br />o'"s~'°'~ F~~$ ~e B <br />O/p•,,. <br />~,., • ,,. <br />Ff ~~C fC- ~ `r~r,~f n <br />PJ <br />6ljE ~;',e ~~~~Dp~~p~ <br />~, P. ~ <br />I have reviewed the revisions made to the Line Camp Gravel permit application, M-2001- <br />OOI,and Ihave no further technical objections to the application. The reason I am <br />writing to you is to clarify the process by which this application is being reviewed and <br />potentially approved. <br />Would you please clarify for me why it is that the applicant is allowed to resubmit the <br />application, for further consideration of obtaining a permit, with amendments that negate <br />what was stated in the original permit application? More specifically, it is stated on page <br />5, #2, of the original application and the subsequent revision that "the Board may suspend <br />or revoke this permit... upon a finding that... information contained in the application or <br />your permit misrepresented important material facts." This is one of the items for which <br />it is specifically required that the applicant initial in recognition of the importance of <br />understanding the ramifications of that statement. The applicant initialed it that he <br />understood those ramifications. Important material facts were misrepresented in the <br />application, such as availability of water quality data for the Dolores River and what lives <br />in the river. The quality of the water in the river and the regulations that provide for the <br />quality that four municipalities and a whole bunch of irrigators rely on are important <br />material facts. These were misrepresented. So why, then, do you intend to proceed with <br />a review of another "draft" of the application? <br />When the permittee misinterprets the specifications of the permit resulting in irreversible <br />damage to neighbors' property values and way of life, will they be allowed to "try <br />again?" I would appreciate some written clarification on this issue of what is a fact and <br />what is not. A literal interpretation of the part of the permit application that I quoted <br />above does not preclude the Division from issuing a permit based on nonfactual material, <br />but why waste our tax dollazs on issuing it and then revoking it? Thank you for your <br />time. <br />Sincerely, ~~/4 , <br />~/ <br />~ R~ev~a- <br />Scott Clow <br />