Laserfiche WebLink
Once the Division issues any "order or notice of violation" pursuant to its enforcement <br />power under CRS § 34 -33 -123, or any "termination or modification thereof," review may be <br />obtained by anyone whose interests are "adversely affected" thereby. CRS § 34- 33- 124(1)(a); 4 <br />CCR 407 -2, Rule 5.03.5. The right of review is thus not limited to direct recipients of the order. <br />Plaintiffs' arguments run into a brick wall when they attempt to deal with the Board's <br />express finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review their claims based on plaintiffs' failure to <br />seek timely review. Exhibit 8 page 3 120. As described in the Opening Brief, the Board <br />concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' claims because the plaintiffs failed to present <br />them within 90 days of the Division's determination, which was the issue Western Fuel briefed <br />to the Board in Exhibit 7. The Board's construction of its own rules in response to that briefing <br />is entitled to deference from this Court, and is also a determination that can only be challenged in <br />the companion case, 10 -CV -548. See, Argument Section III.C. below. <br />B. The Division's May 18, 2010 Letter Does Not Create Jurisdiction. <br />Next, plaintiffs reference a May 18, 2010 letter the Division sent to Western Fuels during <br />the course of its review of PR -06. Response Brief Exhibit A. The issuance date was within the <br />90 -day period when review by the Board of the Division's April 23, 2010 determination was still <br />available. That explains the Division's statement that "further review of the written record ... <br />may cause the Division to reassess its initial determination." Id. at 1 (emphasis added). <br />However, the Division never did so, and does not do so in the letter. In its last briefing to this <br />Court before it was dismissed, the Division stated: <br />Although the Division has continuing interest in this matter ... its interests are <br />limited to permitting and regulatory matters.... To date, the Division has not <br />found WFC to be in violation of the Act related to the removal and handling of <br />prime farmland soils. <br />11 <br />