My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-11-27_REVISION - C1981041
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981041
>
2019-11-27_REVISION - C1981041
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2024 2:48:39 PM
Creation date
12/2/2019 9:21:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/27/2019
Doc Name
Response to Board Order
From
Law Offices of John R. Henderson
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
SL11
Email Name
CCW
JDM
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.
/
7
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
• <br /> The Colorado Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") plainly states that a suit to <br /> challenge an agency action (which, by definition, includes "the whole or any part of any agency <br /> rule," C.R.S. § 24-4-102(1)) "may be brought against the agency by its official title, individuals <br /> who comprise the agency, or any person representing the agency or acting on its behalf in the <br /> matter sought to be reviewed."C.R.S. § 24-4-106(4). Fontanari is none of these. <br /> Nowhere in the APA does it suggest that a private party can challenge the lawfulness of <br /> an agency regulation through an action against another private party. Nor does Snowcap cite any <br /> precedent for this proposition. To review Snowcap's motion on its merits would put the burden <br /> on Fontanari, as a private citizen, to defend the lawfulness of this Board's regulation—with <br /> possible consequences extending to "any person with a valid legal interest which might be <br /> adversely affected"by a proposed decision of the Office of Mined Land Reclamation("Office"). <br /> C.R.S. § 34-33-125(6).This is untenable and contrary to law. <br /> Should Snowcap wish to challenge the regulation's lawfulness, it must do so in <br /> accordance with the APA and bring an action against the Board, individuals who comprise it, or <br /> someone representing the Board or acting on its behalf. More simply, it should be this Board— <br /> not Fontanari—who defends the regulation. <br /> Snowcap's motion should be denied on this ground alone. <br /> II. SNOWCAP'S MOTION FAILS ON ITS MERITS. <br /> A. The Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act does not define issuance <br /> and this Board's interpretation is reasonable. <br /> The Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act ("Act") states that requests for <br /> adjudicatory hearings "must be received within thirty days of issuance of the proposed decision <br /> of the office." C.R.S. § 34-33-125(6). The Act is silent as to the meaning of"issuance." It never <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.