Laserfiche WebLink
meet the requirements of state Water Law and <br />State Engineer. And again we have made it <br />clear to the objectors, and to the public, <br />that the Mined Land Reclamation Board's and <br />Division's responsibility is independent of <br />that. In other words, we pursue whether the <br />Company can comply with the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Act and we're not concerned with <br />regard to whether the Company has met the <br />requirements of the State Engineer at this <br />point, for example. So those are independent <br />processes and what we have advised the <br />parties at this point is that the Board's <br />responsibility is to make a determination as <br />to whetter this permit application meets the <br />requirements of the Mined Land Reclamation <br />Act, and those requirements are essentially <br />technical requirements with respect to being <br />able to protect the environment during the <br />mining operation and being able to <br />demonstrate or demonstrating during the <br />permit application process that they can <br />reclaim the land as required by the law. <br />(Vol. 3, p. 454.) <br />The Hoard stated various reasons for its conclusion. <br />Chips Barry, a Board member and the Director of the Colorado <br />Natural Resources Department, admitted unfamiliarity with the <br />Board's rule. <br />I am troubled by the language of our own <br />regulation, which I have not referred to <br />often, which says, these sources and the <br />rights shall be investigated by the Board <br />blah-blah, prior to the Board's consideration <br />of the application. Now, I don't remember <br />having dealt with that language very often <br />before. <br />(Vol. 3, p. 557.) Likewise, Frank Johnson, Assistant eAttorney <br />General representing the Board, admitted that he "hadn't noticed <br />that language before. [Be was) not entirely sure what it <br />-8- <br />