My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:18:46 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 7:52:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/22/2013
Doc Name
Answer Brief of Western Fuels Colorado 2010 CV548
From
Christopher Kamper, Stewart McNab Carver, Schwarz Mc Nab & Baily, LLC
To
District Court, Montrose County Colorado
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
DAB
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.
/
43
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
Court awarded the senior Morgans $200,000 in damages as compensation for <br />future lost productivity of the Morgan property. Id. at p. 7, last paragraph. <br />SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT <br />Because judicial review of agency action is limited to evidence before the <br />agency at the time it made its decision, this Court may not consider evidence that <br />only came into existence after the Board made its decision, and may not consider <br />evidence properly excluded by the Board. <br />The Board correctly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the <br />pre -2008 topsoil management constituted a violation of the Colorado Coal <br />Program. No statute authorizes the Board to take up an alleged violation sua <br />sponte and without following the procedure specified in C.R.S. § 34 -33 -123 and <br />124. The result of that procedure in this case was a finding by DRMS that Western <br />Fuels - Colorado's topsoil management practices did not violate the Colorado Coal <br />Program. Also, other aspects of the topsoil management had already been <br />reviewed and approved in TR -57 after plaintiffs withdrew their objections. The <br />time for any further appeal or review of TR -57 expired more than a year before the <br />hearing on PR -6. <br />The Board properly found that the reclamation plan meets statutory <br />requirements for several reasons. The suitability of the Bench 1 material as subsoil <br />00145923 2 ; 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.