Laserfiche WebLink
Notice of Violation or another interested parry has sought review of their decision <br />not to do so, in either case under C.R.S. § 34- 33- 124(1)(a). <br />Here, not only had DRMS not issued a Notice of Violation, it had expressly <br />found in a well- reasoned, 14 -page decision that no violation had occurred. DRMS <br />Letter, R. 8520 -8533. DRMS determined, "Western Fuels- Colorado is in <br />compliance with Permit No. C- 1981 -008 and the requirements of the [Colorado <br />Coal Program]." R. 8531, last paragraph. That this was the only extant agency <br />action at the time that pertained to plaintiffs' allegations, the Board would have <br />violated due process by bringing an extra - statutory appeal of this determination on <br />Western Fuels- Colorado during a proceeding concerning the company's mining <br />permit. As a matter of law under the Colorado Coal Program and basic <br />considerations of due process, both Western Fuels - Colorado and the Board were <br />entitled to rely upon this negative determination and the lack of any issuance of a <br />Notice of Violation by DRMS. Indeed, the Board lacks any statutory authority to <br />do anything but rely upon the action of DRMS: nothing in the Colorado Coal <br />Program authorizes the Board to take up an alleged violation sua sponte and <br />without action following the required statutory procedure by DRMS. The statute <br />provides a detailed procedure that ensures protection of the operator's rights, <br />which may not be tossed aside as plaintiffs suggest. <br />{00145923 2 1 21 <br />