ENFORCE34390 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

events. The Tatums also filed this actiun to establish the important legal principles that (1) Colorado statutes and regulations authorise DMG, at any time prior to the conclusion of administrative review, to vacate enforcement action which tht agency has taken and (2) Colorado law does not allow any coal operator to challenge a DMG decision to vacate the ent'nrccment action that the operator opposes. Under Colorado's special statute pertaining to Board orders, this Court has jurisdiction lu conduct judicial review regardless of whether of the Board's order in this instance is a "fatal order." Unlike the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act, which expressly limits judicial review is most instances to "final agency action," Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4-106(2), the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamstinn Act authorizes judicial review of"~a)ny order or decision issued by the Board" Colo. Rev. Sta[. § 34-33-128(1). However. even ifthis were not so, this Court would have jurisdiction to review the "1•'inal Boazd Urder" at issue in this case because that order concluded an entirely separate administrative proceeding that Basin initiated to wntest DMG's decision to vacate Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009. At thi s j uncture, the Tatums urge the Court to exercise its jurisdiction by granting "temporary relief," the statutory equivalent of a preliminary injunction in cases arising under the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act. Temporary relief is necessary and appropriate to preserve the status quo and avoid an unnecessary, expensive, and potentially confusing adtrriuistrative hearing pendutg this Court's decision whether any further administrative proceedings are warranted in the unusual factual and legal ciretunstances this case presents. ' The action is styled Jim Turum er al. v. Basin Resources, loc., No. OI-CV-25 (f)ist. Ct. Las Animas County, Colo.). _3.