Laserfiche WebLink
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />IN THE MATTER OF $ASIN RESOURCES. JNC., NOTICE OF V]OLATION N0. CV-2000- <br />009, RECONS]DERATION OF THE BOARD'S APRIL 10, 200]. ORDER ON REMAND <br />FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, LAS ANIMAS COUNTY <br />This maner came before the Board on May 2?.2001. for reconsideration of its order in this <br />maner issued April 10: 200 is on remand from the Dis-sict Court, Lzs Animas County, Colorado. <br />At the hearing. B~~in Resouuces, lnc., was represented by Scot Anderson, the Division of <br />Minerals and Geoioev wzs represented by Steven BrowTi. and Jim and Ann Tatum were <br />represented by Walton Moms (anending via teleconfe: ence). After hearing the presentations by <br />the ponies, and being fully informed of the premises herein. the Board enters the following <br />Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law: and Order in this maner: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />1. Following a hearing on March 21, 2001, the Boazd issued an order in this maner on April <br />10, 200], entitled FINAL BOARD ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE BOARD'S <br />CONSIDERATION OF AN OBJECTION TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE <br />HEARING ON NOTICE OF V10LAT10N NO. CV-2000-009 ("April Order'). <br />2. In the April Order; the Boazd explicitly concluded, rased on its interpretation of the <br />relevant portions of the Colorado Surface Coo] Mining Reclamation Act, §§ 34-33-10] to <br />137; C.R.S. ("Coal Act's, that the Division did nor have the unilateral authority to vacate <br />Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009 ("NOV'~ v~ithout prejudice after Basin Resources, <br />1nc., had requested a hearing on the NOV. <br />3. While the Boazd did not make specific findings of fact or conclusions of law on the <br />mater in the April Order: the $oazd implicitly granted Basin Resources, lnc., sanding to <br />challenge the vacation of the NOV in the Mazch 21, 2001, hearing. <br />4. On or about April 10, 2001, the Tatttms appealed the April Order by filing a petition and <br />complaint for judicial review in the District Court, Las Animas Cottnty ("District Cotut'~. <br />In their petition for judicial review, the Tatums alleged, in part, that the April Order-was <br />incoaect in its conclusions regazding the Divisions authority to vacate an NOV without <br />prejudice and the standing of Basin Resowces to challenge the vacation of the NOV. <br />5. On the same day the Tatums filed their petition for judicial review, they also petitioned <br />the District Court for an order granting the Tattrms temporary relief from the April Order <br />pending the resolution of their judicial review case. In their request for temporary relief, <br />the Tatttms asserted that they had a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of <br />their judicial review case. <br />6. On April 23, 2001, the District Court held a hearing to consider the oral azguments of the <br />parries on the request for temporary relief. At the conclusion of the heaxinq, the District <br />era-d tta~eto d eoe-1 essesseeoe S3~tlfI0s3a 1tl8f11tlN 100-W08d se~st tonz-at-93a <br />