HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061937 Page 1 of 2
Esther Gesick
From: Myrna Folsom [myrna_ff2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:50 AM
To: Esther Gesick
Subject: mining
Esther: Please copy this to Bruce Barker, also. Thank you. John
To: Weld Board of County Commissioners:
Dear Commissioners:
My recollection is that most Surgface Use Agreements address only oil and gas extraction and not that
of access to sand and gravel deposits. However, the court ruling apparently does require the local
government having jurisdiction to "preserve access to mineral deposits". You might want to take this
into consideration when processing requests for changes in zone, PUDs, etc. Of course, this might result
in properties not being developed residentally, etc. that otherwise might be. John Folsom
Mr. Folsom,
Thanks for your email.
I took a look at the statutory reference you pointed out. A Colorado court ruled in 1983 that 34-1-305,
"does not require local governments to allow mining in any area where it is commercially practicable,
but only to preserve access to the mineral deposits." In most counties and municipalities, the permitting
process for building new homes and structures on property generally requires the surface rights owner to
enter into a "Surface Use Agreement" with the mineral rights owner. This allows the parties interested
in the subject property to adopt a separate agreement concerning the right to access subsurface minerals.
Where there are abuses, a subsurface mineral owner may seek redress in the courts.
Again, thanks for taking the time to contact me about this important issue.
Sincerely,
Brandon
On 7/9/06, Myrna Folsom<myma_f 2000(a yahoo.com> wrote:
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
July 9, 2006
Ladies and Gentlemen:
A Colorado statute [CRS 34-1-305(1)] states that local governments are prohibited from
permitting any use, such erection of houses and roads, on land that would interfere with the future
extraction of commercial mineral deposits, such as sand and gravel, from that land. This law is
ignored repeatedly by city, town and county governments. Even if adjacent property is currently being
mined, authorities having jurisdiction routinely permit development. As an example, this is happening
all along land near St. Vrain and Boulder Creeks in Weld County.
Unfortunately, the statute does not require an assessment of the value of the minerals on land
44L 7-/7-.2004-
7/12/2006 2006-1937
Page 2 of 2
that would make it fall under this prohibition. Municipal and County governments in
southwest Weld County being focused on growth, understandably, do not require engineers'
evaluations of mineral resources that might preclude development.
If a law is put on the books, there should be responsibility placed on an agency for monitoring
its enforcement it. If it knowingly is being ignored by those responsible for enforcing it, it has no
value.
John Folsom
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
7/12/2006
Hello