Laserfiche WebLink
SENT=BY~NiELSOP',~ INC. -20-98 ~ 1448 NIEL50NS CORTEZy 910 247 5104~ii 5 <br />• <br />the farm "exploration", such "order" to apply to ell operators, applicants, <br />and explorers, state-wide. <br />DISCUSSION <br />1) De~etlon of the exemption of 1600 square feet from the definition of <br />exp/orsrtion (formerly prospecting) was not discussed In the Board's <br />"STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND <br />PURPpSE (Page 4), at the time of amending THE RfGL/LAT/ONS, <br />indicating that the omission from THE ACT was an inadvertent mistake <br />and not a deliberate attempt to omit the "exemption". <br />2) The ~gxempdon is consistent with all former versions of THEACTand of <br />The Board RULES & REGULAT/ONS. <br />3) Rul<31.1 (13) clearly retained the exempt/on in all amended veralons. <br />4) Cfi~nges In the polioy of The Board must In all fairness, (f not by law, <br />be +~dvertised, published, posted, mailed to constituents, and t6ated In <br />the 'Drum of public dlacusslon before changing the modus operandi, <br />5) E~.forcement action of such an alleged vio-ation would be highly <br />arbitrary if not applied to all such explorations in the state by all <br />operators since the 31 May 1996 adoption of C.R.S 34 - 32.5. The <br />R.T B, unduly maligns the applicant before the Board in his application <br />hearing. This Ir+Justice must be rescinded. <br />~UMMA~r <br />The petitioner maintains that The 6oerd must act to preserve their own <br />integr=ty and to preserve the conslatency of their own regulations. A <br />demor stration of good faith to the public would be to uphold Rule 1.1 (13) <br />In its ,; resent form, until properly amended or defined by legislative action, <br />based upon the flexibility granted to The Board by THE ACT for <br />interki station of the intent and for adminiatretive procedures of T/iEACT. <br />RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, <br />.............................................. Petitioner <br />