Laserfiche WebLink
Reclamation Act or the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act". R: 7834. As part of <br />the PR -6 technical review the Division made an affirmative finding that WFC's pre -2008 <br />activities did not violate the Act and Rules. <br />A central argument presented by Plaintiffs is that the Board could not legally approve <br />PR -6 because WFC, by removing the prime farmland soils prior to 2008, was automatically in <br />violation of the Act and Rules. Opening Brief, pp. 13, 20. Therefore, the Board's approval of <br />PR -6, without ordering the return of prime soils, is invalid. Id. By asserting this interesting, but <br />legally incorrect theory, Plaintiffs misstate the law and disregard the very foundation of due <br />process related to regulatory enforcement actions. Under Plaintiffs purported scenario an <br />operator is presumed to be in violation and must prove its innocence. <br />1. Plaint's Theory of "Automatic Violations " under the Act is both <br />Incorrect and Contrary to the Act and Rules. <br />The two types of administrative hearings are procedurally very different and Plaintiffs' <br />attempt to convert the PR -6 permit appeal hearing into an enforcement hearing was correctly <br />rejected by the Board. R: 7422 -7423, 7428. A permit revision is required when there is a <br />significant change to the reclamation plan. § 34 -33- 103(19). PR -6 was submitted and reviewed <br />pursuant to § 34 -33 -115 and Rules 2.08.4 and 2.07, which set forth detailed hearing procedures, <br />notice, and public comment requirements. The hearing was set based on Plaintiffs' appeal <br />pursuant to § 34 -33- 119(4) and Rules 2.08.4(6)(a) and 2.07.4(3). <br />In contrast, enforcement actions are governed by § 34 -33 -123 and Rule 5.03. Nowhere in <br />Rule 5.03 does it state that an operator can be in automatic violation of the Act and Rules, <br />without Division or Board affirmatively finding a violation. Enforcement of the Act and Rules <br />25 <br />