2018-05-30_REVISION - C1983059 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C.R.S. § 24-70-106(2)(d) ("Section 106"). However, Section 106 does not apply to the publication requirements for a complete permit renewal application for the following reasons. First, the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules do not use the generic term "four weeks" that Section 106 defines; instead, the Act and Rules unambiguously express that notice must be published "once a week for four consecutive weeks." Section 106 only applies "except as otherwise expressly provided" and does not apply "for the purpose of increasing any period of publication or the number of publications required by any statute." Thus, by its own language, Section 106 does not apply to the publication requirements in the Act and Rules. In addition, although Colorado courts have not opined on this matter, the Wyoming Supreme Court specifically held that publishing "notice of their [coal mining] application on June 21, June 25, July 2 and July 9, 1985" under Wyoming's coal mining act "fulfilled the statutory requirement of publishing the notice once a week for four consecutive weeks," which language mirrors Colorado's Act and Regulations. Grams v. Envtl. Quality Council, 730 P.2d 784, 788 (Wyo. 1986). Second, even if the language from the Act and Rules was ambiguous, the rules of statutory construction establish that an operator must publish notice for four, not five, consecutive weeks. As a matter of law, a more specific statute is controlling over generic statutory language. See generally Colo. Mining Assn v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 199 P.3d 718, 733 (Colo. 2009). The Act and Rules tailor publication requirements that are specific to coal mining applications by stating "once a week for four consecutive weeks." In contrast, Section 106 applies only to generically define and clarify ambiguities in statutes requiring publication of notices, but does not apply if the statute expressly provides otherwise. For over thirty years, the Division has consistently interpreted the "four consecutive weeks" as requiring four consecutive publications. The Division's reasonable interpretation of its Act and Rules is entitled to deference. Colo. Ethics Watch v. Gessler, -- P.3d --, 2013 COA 172M, 1(21-22 (Colo. App. 2013). Thus, Section 106's general requirement is inapplicable. Third, the Division's interpretation is consistent with the overarching federal requirements. To regulate coal mining, a state must achieve "primacy," i.e., must be delegated authority pursuant to the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 1201 – 3128 (SMCRA). A state is delegated authority only after the federal Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSM) review and approval of the state's enacted legislation and promulgated rules. Colorado has had primacy since 1980. Colorado's language— "once a week for four consecutive weeks"—mirrors its federal counterparts in 30 U.S.C. § 1263(a) and 30 C.F.R. § 773.6. The Division has consistently interpreted and applied this language to require four, not five, publications since achieving primacy and OSM has not objected to the Division's interpretation. Lastly, any publication error is harmless as it is undisputed the Trust received notice and timely submitted comments. See Chostner v. Colo. Water Quality Control Comm'n, -- P.3d --, 2013 COA 111,10 42-43 (Colo. App. 2013); Wunder v. Dep't ofRev., 867 P.2d 178, 181 (Colo. App. 1993). Even if a notice is statutorily defective, an agency decision is not reversible if the party was not prejudiced or adversely affected by the improper notice. Wunder, 867 P.2d at 181. Applicable here, the Trust timely submitted its comments and has not demonstrated how it has been prejudiced or adversely affected by the published notices. Terror Creek complied with the Act and Rules by publishing notice for four consecutive weeks. B. The Act prohibits the Division from resolving private property rights disputes. Trust's Objection: The gate on the haul road is "maintained in a closed and locked position, preventing the Requestor from its lawful access to the easement." Objection Letter, p. 2. Response: The Act prohibits the Division and the Mined Land Reclamation Board from resolving private 5