Laserfiche WebLink
be a minimum disturbance to the hydrologic balance on the basis <br />of this mining operation." (Vol. 3, p. 578.) There is no <br />evidence in the record to support such a finding. <br />III. THE BOARD VIOLATED CES' PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY <br />RELYING ON UNASCERTAINABLE AND INADEQUATE STANDARDS. <br />Where the Hoard fails to follow applicable statutes and <br />its own agency rules and regulations, it violates constitutional <br />rights of due process in that it deprives parties to the <br />application process of notice of standards by which applications <br />are considered and approved. See, e.q., Tri-State Generation, <br />etc. v. City of Thornton, 647 P.2d 670, 678 (Colo. 1982) ("Courts <br />have generally required that standards be incorporated into a <br />planned development ordinance [or rules for the determination of <br />mining applications] in order to protect against arbitrary state <br />action in violation of the right to due process of law"). <br />Such judicial and constitutional requirements cannot be <br />circumvented by the creation of standards which the agency is <br />free to ignore. See also Oil Shale Corp. v. Morton, 3'10 F. Supp. <br />108, 123-124 (D. Colo. 1973) (The basic notion of procedural due <br />process requires "government officials to follow the law as it <br />exists until that law is changed, and to notify individuals in <br />the change in law before it is applied against them to their <br />detriment"). Any action by the Board which disregards MLRD rules <br />and statutory authority is arbitrary, capricious, and outside its <br />statutory jurisdiction. <br />-15- <br />