Laserfiche WebLink
order or decision or may remand the proceeding to the board for such further action as it <br />may direct." C.R.S. § 34- 33- 127(2) italics added. <br />5. Specifically, C.R.S. § 24- 4- 106(6) provides that "[ijn every case of agency action, <br />the record, unless stipulated by the parties, shall include the original or certified copies of all <br />pleadings, applications, evidence, exhibits, and other papers presented to or considered by the <br />agency, rulings upon exceptions, and the decisions, findings, and action of the agency." <br />6. Here, Defendants' argument misapprehends the purpose and scope of judicial <br />review afforded under the APA. In essence, Defendants seek to substantially limit the record so <br />that this Court will be unable to conduct a meaningful review of most of DRMS's and the <br />Board's actions in conjunction with PR -06. However, the APA does not contemplate that <br />Defendants can arbitrarily limit the record to restrict the scope of judicial review; the Colorado <br />legislature has expressly provided that judicial review is to take place upon the whole record <br />before the agency <br />7. For example, the Board's December 8, 2010 Order approving PR -06, which all <br />parties admit is the basis for the instant appeal, contains a number of conclusions implicating its <br />review of the entire permit application for PR -06, which are summarized as follows: <br />b. "Overall, there are no grounds to modify or reverse the Division's decision..." ¶ 34; <br />c. "Overall, the topsoil redistribution, soil suitability, and topsoil reconditioning <br />described in PR -6 will conform (and in some cases go beyond) what the Act the Rules <br />require." ¶ 36; and <br />d. "The management practices required for prime farmlands are including in PR -6 and <br />fulfill the statutory requirements." ¶ 38 MLRB Order, attached as Exhibit 1. <br />Each of these conclusions rests on the weight of the evidence in the Division's permit record for <br />PR -06. In fact, the Board expressly affirmed the Proposed Decision of the Division, Exhibit 1, ¶ <br />42, which itself contained numerous detailed references to the underlying permit application. In <br />turn, the Proposed Decision, which exceeds 60 pages in length, references in excess of fifty <br />permit sections, permit maps, attachments, and the like comprising the PR -06 submittal. See <br />Proposed Decision, pp. 1 -5, attached as Exhibit 2. Though the legality of the Board's action <br />depends on the entirety of its decision approving PR -06, the Defendants essentially ask this Court <br />to exclude the data and submittals which comprise the basis for the decision. <br />8. The extent of Defendants' overreaching is evident in their arguments respecting <br />Plaintiff's designation of "any exhibit offered by Plaintiffs at the November 17, 2010 hearing but <br />refused admission into evidence." DRMS Mot. ¶ 8; see also WFC Mot. ¶ 3(4). DRMS, for one, <br />asserts that "[tjhese letters were produced at the hearing and the Board determined that they were <br />not properly disclosed and therefore did not admit them as evidence at the hearing." DRMS Mot. <br />¶ 8. Thus, according to DRMS, these documents must be excluded from the record because they <br />3 <br />