2012-03-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008

Home Browse Search

judgment); City of Boulder v. Public Serv. Co. of Colorado, 996 P.2d 198 (Colo. App. 1999) (dismissed statutory and contract causes of action). As stated in City of Boulder, We are not bound by the form in which the plaintiff asserts its claim, but rather it is the facts alleged and the relief requested that decide the substance of a claim, which in turn is determinative of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. 996 P.2d at 203 (citations omitted). Continued the court, "[w]here administrative remedies are available and have not been exhausted, the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed." Id. III. The Colorado Coal Program Provides Complete, Adequate and Speedy Remedies. "If complete, adequate, and speedy administrative remedies are available, a party must pursue these remedies before filing suit in district court." United Air Lines, 8 P.3d 1206, 1212; Egle v. City & County of Denver, 93 P.3d 609, 612 (Colo. App. 2004). The remedies available under the Colorado Coal Program to address violations of a permit condition or its requirements are legion and easily meet this test. Regulation of surface coal mining is within the jurisdiction and expertise of the Division and the Board. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 1201 -1328 ( "SMCRA ") established a system of regulation for surface mining that divides regulatory power between the federal OSM and state regulatory agencies in states that have achieved "primacy" over in -state surface mining. A state achieves primacy when it obtains OSM approval of a state- designed regulatory program, and once the program is approved, the state assumes "exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations." 30 U.S.C. § 1253(a). OSM retains "oversight' powers in primacy states. In Re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litig., 653 F.2d 514, 519 (D.C. Cir. 1981). E