Laserfiche WebLink
limit, the powers of the Board and DRMS, respectively. These statutes nowhere confer authority <br />upon DRMS or MLRB to interpret deeds or contracts; to determine rights or boundaries in real <br />property; or to grant declaratory relief to parties as to the rights and duties under written <br />instruments. (These limitations were acknowledged, for example, on November 4, 2015, when <br />DRMS requested additional data from Snowcap Coal on TR -69: one of which requests involved <br />determination of water rights owned by Fontana in Rapid Creek. DRMS readily and clearly <br />admitted it lacks any statutory authority to determine ownership of such water rights: which <br />rights is, under Colorado law, a legal interest in real property.) <br />DRMS and MLRB cannot adopt rules allowing them to interpret and enforce contract or <br />deed instruments. As set forth in C.R.S. §24-4-103(8) <br />"(8)(a) No rule shall be issued except within the power delegated to the agency <br />and as authorized by law. A rule shall not be deemed to be within the statutory <br />authority and jurisdiction of any agency merely because such rule is not contrary <br />to the specific provisions of a statute. Any rule or amendment to an existing rule <br />issued by any agency, including state institutions of higher education <br />administered pursuant to title 23, C.R.S., which conflicts with a statute shall be <br />void. (Emphasis Added) <br />Certainly, Rule 2.5.1, Mineral Rules, and Rule 1. 14(l), Coal Rules authorize declaratory <br />relief from the Board. However, both such rules limit these powers to determining <br />"...controversies as to the applicability of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of the <br />Board...". (Id) Neither rule allows the Board to interpret deeds, contracts or to determine the <br />extent of rights under easements. <br />Consent, or lack of consent, to Snowcap's proposed TR -69 "fix" of subsidence problems <br />is a focal issue in this matter. The Board and DRMS have few powers over the private <br />landowner who is not, itself, a mining/coal permit holder. Correlatively, the non -mining private <br />landowner has few rights to protect his lands. (For example, Fontanari has submitted its own <br />3 <br />