Laserfiche WebLink
arguments or defenses, is thus an incompetent tribunal` as it violates this most fundamental <br />element. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The objections by opposing parties to the Fontanari Repair Plan places this Board in a <br />difficult position with regard to Due Process. C.R.S. §34-33-120 requires post -mining <br />reclamation for the express benefit of one party: the landowner (whether public or private). <br />Nothing in Title 34, Article 33, C.R.S., empowers this board to ignore, disregard or override the <br />landowner's objection(s) to the permit holder's proposed reclamation(s). Nothing in Article 33 <br />empowers the landowner to unilaterally see a particular project of reclamation. On its face, <br />C.R.S. §34-33-115 (and its corollary Sec. 34-33-116) limits the Board's consideration to only <br />those acts of reclamation which Snowcap cares to make: prohibiting consideration of alternate <br />reclamation plans proposed by anyone else and, most particularly, by the objecting landowner <br />into whose land Snowcap proposes insertion of useless "plugs". <br />If the Board upholds Snowcap's argument, then it denies Due Process to Fontanari as the <br />Board would be an incompetent tribunal lacking subject matter jurisdiction: i.e., the power to <br />consider and resolve all parties' claims and defenses. If the Board considers the Fontanari <br />Repair Plan, then Snowcap will assert that the Board violates Secs. 34-33-115 and/or 34-33-116. <br />The conflict is exacerbated by the fact the statutory language of Article 33 is clear and <br />unambiguous: thereby preventing this Board from attempting to interpret the statutes in pari <br />material (if, under statute, this Board even has such power). In such a predicament, this Board's <br />choice is clear: the landowner's right to appropriate reclamation of his land, at his consent, <br />5 For example, misdemeanor criminal trespass charges often involve a determination whether the victim <br />is, or is not, the owner of the land upon which the defendant trespassed. However, a county court lacks <br />authority to determine title and boundaries to land. C.R.S. 13-6-105(1)(e) The trespass case, then, cannot <br />be tried in the County Court, but must, instead, be tried in the District Court. <br />D] <br />