|
.y
<br />federal, state, county, or municipal government." [Emphasis added.] Thus, under the Rules, any
<br />person, including a county or municipal government, has the right to submit written comments
<br />objecting to any application for a permit, and Black Hawk's written comments objecting to the
<br />application were properly received by the Division.
<br />In order to be a party to an application under Rule 34.1, a person must demonstrate that
<br />"he/she/it is directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the conduct of a mining operation,
<br />proposed mining operation, or an order of the Boazd and whose interest is entitled to legal protection
<br />under the Act." Pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-32.5-103(1.5) and Rule 1.1(4), "`Aggrieved' means
<br />suffering actual loss or injury, or being exposed to potential loss or injury, to legitimate interests.
<br />Such interests include, but are not limited to business, economic, aesthetic, governmental,
<br />recreational, or conservational interests."
<br />This standard for standing adopted by the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for theExtraetion
<br />of Construction Materials (the "Act") and the Mined Land Reclamation Board (the "MLRB")
<br />parallels the well-established threshold for establishing standing recognized and applied in all
<br />Colorado law. In Colorado, parties to lawsuits benefit from a relatively broad definition of standing.
<br />Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851, 855 (Colo. 2004). Colorado courts follow atwo-part test to
<br />determine standing. Parties have standing if they: (I) have suffered or are likely to suffer an injury in
<br />fact; and (2) the harm is to a legally protected interest. Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 Colo. 163, 168,
<br />570 P.2d 535, 539 (1977); Garhart ex rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/Healthone, L.L.C., 95 P.3d 571,
<br />579 (Colo. 2004).
<br />Black Hawk has standing to sue under the tests set forth by the Colorado Supreme Court and,
<br />similarly, is an "aggrieved person" under the standard articulated in C.R.S. § 34-32,5-114. The City
<br />has demonstrated actual or potential injury to its legitimate, legally protected interests resulting from
<br />the application, including, but not limited to, the following:
<br />1. Black Hawk's water rights.
<br />Both the Act and the Rules explicitly provide for the protection of water resources, both in
<br />quantity and in quality. See, e.g., Rule 3.1.6: Water -General Requirements; Rule 3.1.7:
<br />Groundwater -Specific Requirements; C.R.S. § 34-32.5-103(19) ("`Reclamation' means the
<br />employment, during and after an operation, of procedures reasonably designed to minimize as much
<br />as practicable the disruption from an operation and provide for the establishment of plant cover,
<br />stabilization of soil, protection of water resources, or other measures appropriate to the subsequent
<br />beneficial use of the affected lands. Reclamation shall be conducted in accordance with the
<br />performance standazds ofthis article: '); C.R.S. § 34-32.5-116(4)(h) ("Disturbances to the prevailing
<br />hydrologic balance of the affected land and of the surrounding area and to the quality and quantity of
<br />water in surface and groundwater systems, both during and after the mining operation and during
<br />reclamation, shall be minimized."); see also p. 2 of October 12, 2005, Memorandum from the
<br />Division of Minerals and Geology re: Citizen Participation in the 1 ] 2 Reclamation Permit
<br />Application Process, "Issues related to ground water quality are under the Board's jurisdiction."
<br />Water rights are real property under Colorado law. C.R.S. § 38-30-102. Black Hawk has
<br />
|