Laserfiche WebLink
language, SCMRA does not mandate exhaustion of remedies prior to bringing suit, and it is <br />beyond the power of this court to insert terms into the statute that the legislature did not. WFC's <br />motion must be denied as to Count Two of the FAC. <br />3. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO EXHAUST REMEDIES IN AN <br />OVERSIGHT PROCEEDING BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND <br />THE STATE OF COLORADO. <br />Even assuming, arguendo, that the foregoing legal analysis does not apply, WFC's <br />motion still fails because it conflates a Federal oversight proceeding with DRMS internal <br />procedures that apply in the case of a mine operator rule violation. WFC places great weight on <br />the fact that Plaintiffs failed to appeal a letter notice from the Federal Office of Surface Mining <br />(OSM) following a complaint to that agency. As WFC puts it, Plaintiffs' claims were reviewed <br />and rejected by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety (DRMS), and Plaintiff <br />failed to seek review of that "decision" before the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board, the <br />administrative appeal body designated in the Colorado SCMRA. This argument is specious <br />because in the proceeding in question the DRMS was defending itself from Federal oversight, <br />and the document characterized by WFC as an "order" was simply a letter to OSM explaining <br />the agency's position. <br />The Colorado DRMS administers SCMRA subject to Federal oversight pursuant to the <br />terms of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. 30 U.S.C. § 1254(b) and 1271. The <br />letter relied upon by WFC and identified as Exhibit 2 in its Motion was the response by DRMS, <br />dated April 23, 2010, to a ten day oversight notice issued by OSM. As such, the proceeding was <br />between the OSM on the one hand, and DRMS on the other. Nevertheless, WFC argues that <br />Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by appealing to the Colorado Mined <br />Land Reclamation Board pursuant to C.R.S. § 34- 33- 124(1)(a) [WFC Motion, T 141. This <br />argument plainly fails under the text of Section 124, which provides: <br />7 <br />