Laserfiche WebLink
128." In turn, Section 128 of SCMRA provides that "[t]he court shall hear such <br />petition or complaint solely on the record made before the board. The findings of <br />the board, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a <br />whole, shall be conclusive. The court may affirm, vacate, or modify any order or <br />decision may remand the proceedings to the board for such further action as it may <br />direct." C.R.S. § 34 -33- 128(2). In addition, the Administrative Procedures Act, <br />which applies to the extent it is not inconsistent with SCMRA, see C.R.S. § 24 -4- <br />107, states that a court can set aside final agency action if it finds that the action is <br />"arbitrary or capricious, a denial of statutory right, contrary to constitutional right.. <br />in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, or limitations, an abuse of <br />discretion.. or otherwise contrary to law.." C.R.S. § 24 -4- 106(7) emphasis added. <br />1. THE BOARD ACTED UNLAWFULLY BY FAILING TO ORDER <br />THE RETURN OF PRIME SOILS. <br />A central issue in this case is the fact that Board failed to take any action to <br />address prime farmland violations of SCMRA which occurred prior to February, <br />2008. Although the Board ordered prospective changes to soil handling in PR6, it <br />failed to remedy the violations that occurred on the portions of the Morgan <br />Property that had already been mined. <br />13 <br />