Laserfiche WebLink
The first issue is whether the record shows that Basin was a "person havi ng an interest which <br />is or may be adversely affected by" DMG~s decision to vacate the NOV. Subject to review of the <br />entire administrative record thatthe Board ultimately produces in this action, the Tatums suggest that <br />Basin produced no evidence whatsoever (as distinct from argument of counsel) to establish any <br />interest of the company which was or might have been adversely alTected by vacation of the NOV. <br />Certainly, the Board's order does not address the subject, much less make any finding of fact or draw <br />any conclusion of law favorable to Basin's administrative standing. <br />Both Basin and the Board knew that Basin's standing to contest vacation of the NOV was <br />at issue in the Mttrch 21, 2001. hearing. The Tatums' pre-hearing papers expressly challenged <br />Basin's standing to resurrect the vacated NOV, noting that "persons who oppose an enforcement <br />action, as Basin dues itt this case, aze never persons who are or ma}• be `adversely affecled' by a <br />decision to vacate enforcement action." The Tatums f trrther pointed out that "Basin has suffered no <br />harm whatsoever as a result of DMG's vacation ufNotice of Violation No. CV-2000-009" because <br />"DMG's action wipes out a civil penalty that the agency had aesessed ag2irst Basin and removes a <br />potential blot on the company's history of violations." To the extent that Basin expended resources <br />in challenging the NO V prior to its vacation, the company succeeded in avoiding enforcement action <br />and thus had no reason to complains <br />' Contrary to Basin's argument to this Cotta. the Tatums have never contended that <br />Basin is nul a "person" within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. S 34-33-124(1)(a), nor do they make <br />[ha[ conlenlion Here. Basin is, indeed, a person. As a person, however. Rasin nonetheless lacks <br />standing to challenge the vacation of the NOV in this case because it has failed to show that its <br />interests are nr may be adversely affected by that action. indeed, such a showing is impossible as <br />a matter of law. <br />-13- <br />