My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-03-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2012-03-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:55:41 PM
Creation date
2/21/2014 9:54:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/30/2012
Doc Name
Defendants Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisd 2010 CV 367
From
Christopher Kamper, Craig R. Carver, Carver, Schwarz, McNab & Baily, LLC
To
District Court, Montrose County, Colorado
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
DAB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CRS § 34 -33- 123(1) (emphasis added). In cases where the violation is not deemed to cause an <br />imminent danger or a serious environmental harm, the Division has the same authority, however, <br />in such cases the procedure is different: the Division may issue an order "fixing a reasonable <br />time, but not more than ninety days, for abatement of the violation." CRS § 34 -33- 123(2). The <br />Division may also assess a civil penalty not to exceed $5000 per violation, and every day during <br />which the violation is not abated can constitute a new violation for purposes of assessing this <br />penalty. CRS § 34- 33- 123(8)(a). Knowing violations can lead to fines and imprisonment under <br />CRS § 34 -33- 123(9). <br />Thus, in responding to the plaintiffs Notice of Citizen Suit (Exhibit 4) and the citizen <br />complaint that was forwarded to the Division as a TDN (Exhibit 5), the Division had full <br />authority to require Western Fuels to fix the problem had it found a violation. Indeed, if <br />warranted, the Division could have ordered the exact "mandatory injunctive relief' that plaintiffs <br />seek herein. If warranted, the Division could have ordered repair or restoration of the Property <br />and could have enforced its order with an array of potential penalties. <br />Moreover, should any of these remedies have proven inadequate in any way, or should <br />WFC "fail or refuse" to implement them, <br />The Division or Board may also request that the attorney general "institute a civil <br />action for relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, <br />or any other appropriate order in the district court of this state for the district in <br />which the surface coal mining and reclamation operation is located or in which <br />the permittee thereof has its principal office. <br />CRS § 34 -33- 123(12) (emphasis added). In such a proceeding, the Division or Board, unlike a <br />private litigant, would have its findings of fact and conclusions of law subject only to deferential <br />review under CRS § 34 -33 -128. The agency could therefore obtain any relief that plaintiffs can <br />obtain in this Court, while enjoying a more favorable standard of review in the process. <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.