Laserfiche WebLink
the grant of the Permit must be reversed and the MLRB's approval of the Permit <br />must be vacated. <br />C. The MLRB erred as a matter of law in interpreting the term <br />"affected land" in a manner inconsistent with the Reclamation Act and <br />the Construction Materials Rules. <br />As will be more fully brief in the Black Hawk-Central City Sanitation <br />District Opening Brief, which argument the City hereby joins and adopts by <br />reference pursuant to C.A.R. 28(i), the MLRB improperly interpreted the term <br />"affected land" in a manner that conflicts with the statutory definition of the term <br />at C.R.S. § 34-32.5-103(1) and the rule-made definition of the term at C.M.R. <br />1.1(3). <br />As with the local permitting issue, this Court's review of the MLRB's <br />interpretation of rules and statutes is de novo. C Bar H, Inc. v. Board of Health in <br />and for Jefferson County, 56 P.3d at 1192. And, while deference is given to an <br />agency's interpretation of its own statutes and rules, this Court is not bound by that <br />interpretation if the interpretation is not uniform or is inconsistent with statutory <br />provisions. Lobato v. Industrial Claim Appeals Offce, 105 P.3d 220, 223 (Colo. <br />2005); Washington County Bd. of Equalization v. Petrov Development Co., 109 <br />P.3d 146, 150 (Colo. 2005). <br />25 <br />