Laserfiche WebLink
However, the text of the argument presents no record evidence that this solution <br />was (1) feasible; (2) required by any statute or rule; or (3) would make any <br />difference in the final reclamation of the Morgan property. <br />The Board's response to the pre -2008 topsoil management practices rests <br />upon two solid foundational pillars. First, the Board correctly determined that it <br />had no jurisdiction to consider allegations that Western Fuels- Colorado's pre- <br />February 2008 conduct violated provisions of the Colorado Coal Program. <br />Second, the statutory scheme contemplates that a permit may be approved if an <br />alleged violation is being addressed "to the satisfaction of the board." C.R.S. § 34- <br />33- 114(3). Either one of these arguments vindicates the Board's action. <br />A. The Board Properly Ruled that It Lacked Jurisdiction to <br />Consider Allegations that Western Fuels- Colorado Was in <br />Violation of the Act. <br />The Board made the following finding in response to plaintiffs' allegations <br />that Western Fuels - Colorado's pre -2008 conduct violated the Colorado Coal <br />Program: <br />The Objectors have raised numerous objections regarding the <br />classification and handling of the Morgan property's topsoils. <br />Many of the objections concern events that occurred prior to <br />prime lands determination in February 2008 and prior to Western <br />Fuels submitting PR -6. These events are beyond the Board's <br />jurisdiction. <br />(00145923 2 ; 18 <br />