My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE114384
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE114384
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:10:30 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 11:32:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2003037
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/9/2004
Doc Name
In the Matter of the Appl of Haldorson and Sons Inc
From
Susan L. McIntosh P C
To
DMG
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.
/
2
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
Susan L. McIntosh, P. C. `~~ <br />RECEIVE® Past office sax ~oi9, ouray, calaraaa stay <br />970.318.1215 telephone/970.325.9844 facsimile <br />SmcinloshC~ mon}rose. ne} <br />JAN 13 2004 ~ d <br />January 8, 2004 <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />:IAM p g ?~ -.- <br />Tyson Powell, Esq. 1fq~ <br />State of Colorado Department of Law r~ ~R~F <br />Office of the Attorney General / ~~ <br />1525 Sherman St. 5"' Floor <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re. In the Matter of the Application of <br />- Haldorson and Sons, Inc. <br />MLRB File Nd.-M-2003-037- <br />Dear Tyson: <br />Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today about procedural matters <br />relating to the Haldorson Petition far Reconsideration in the above referenced <br />case. Today I represented to you that I did intend to file a response and <br />objection to the Haldorson Petition. I indicated that my objections are factual, <br />legal and technical (hydrology) and both procedural and substantive. We <br />agreed that while I will have an opportunity to object to the Petition and to its <br />substance, the time for doing se is, at this moment, premature. I understand that <br />the State and the Board in particular still need to consider and determine their <br />own position on the appropriate process to follow in this situation. <br />Accordingly, 1 will not file a written response to the Haldorson Petition until the <br />State determines what its process will be, and whether that process will be a two <br />stage inquiry, with a threshold determination of the appropriateness of the <br />Board's consideration of the Petition. I expect to hear back from you or one of <br />your colleagues regarding the Board's determinations in this regard. You <br />indicated to me that such contact may not occur until after the MLRB January <br />hearing this month. I have no objection to waiting to file a response, and I agree <br />with you that doing so is the most efficient path at this point. Nevertheless, I want <br />to make certain that I do not prejudice my clients' right and opportunity to <br />communicate their objections to the Board prior to any decision the board may <br />make specifically regarding the Haldorson Petition. I appreciate you assurances <br />that no prejudice will occur as the result of delay until the Board determines its <br />preferred procedure. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.