Laserfiche WebLink
revision, or renewal an applicant "shall have the burden of establishing that such <br />application is in compliance with all the requirements of this article." C.R.S. § 34- <br />33- 114(1). The Act requires that the applicant disclose in its application all <br />pending violations of SCMRA or any applicable Colorado or federal laws, and a <br />permit shall not be issued until the applicant demonstrates that the violation is <br />corrected or is in the process of being corrected. Id. at 114(3). Similarly, the <br />SCMRA regulations mandate, with respect to criteria for review of a permit <br />application: <br />"..the Division shall not issue the permit if any surface coal mining <br />reclamation operation owned or controlled by either the applicant or by any <br />person who owns or controls the applicant is currently in violation of the Act <br />or any other law, rule or regulation referred to in this paragraph." Rule <br />2.07.6 (1)(b) emphasis added. <br />Every permit issued under SCMRA contains the condition that the permittee "shall <br />comply with the terms and conditions of the permit, all applicable performance <br />standards of the Act, and the requirements of the SCMRA regulations. Rule <br />2.07.7(8). Thus, in this PR6 proceeding WFC had the burden of showing that it <br />was operating in compliance with SCMRA, and DRMS could not lawfully issue a <br />PR6 unless and until all violations of SCMRA were abated. <br />WFC will undoubtedly argue that it had not been cited for a prime farmland <br />21 <br />