Laserfiche WebLink
N L <br />constituted a separate adtninistrativeproeeeding and to grant the Tarums' limited motion to intervene <br />ut that separate proceeding. After hearing the testimony of one DMG witness regazding the decision <br />to vacate the NOV. five member of the Board voted in favor ol'a motion to enter the "Final Aoazd <br />Order" at issue in this proceeding. Two members of the Doard dissented. Basin presented nu <br />evidence at the hearing to establish how the company was, or might be, adversely af2ected by DMG's <br />decision to vacate the NOV that Basin had adamaatly opposed. This action for judicial review <br />followed. <br />This Court Has Jurisditrtion to Conduct Judicial Review of the "Final Board Urdcr" <br />Pursuant to Colo. Rcv. Stet. § 34-33-128(1), this Coivt (indeed. this Court alone) has <br />jurisdiction to review "~a)ny order or decision issued by the board in a civil penalty prueecdittg, nr <br />in a proceeding under section 34-33-126 to establish an unsuitability designation, or in any <br />proceeding requirc3 to be conducted pursuant to article 4 of title 24, C.R.S." (Emphasis supplied.}' <br />As noted earlier, this Court's jurisdiction under § 34-33-128(1) is nut limited to "final agency <br />action;' as it would be under Colo. Rev. Stet. § 24-4-1 D6(2), if that starute applied. <br />"fhe latter statute does not app]y because § 34-33-128(1) is a special provision governing <br />judicial review ofl3oard orders and decisions under the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation <br />.Act, while § 24~-1 D6(2) is a provision governing judicial review ofagenc:y actions in general. 1'he <br />Supreme Court ofColorado established this common sense principle in Maurer v. Young Lij~, 779 <br />Y.2d 1 ? 17 (Colo. 1989). The Maurer case posed the question, among others, whether the Colorado's <br />Yrnperty "1'ax Administrator had standing, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stst. § 39-2-117(6), 1GB C.R.S. <br />' Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stet. § 34-33-124(1)(b), proceedings on Rosin's objection to <br />the vacation of the NOV at issue in this case were "required lobe conducted pursuant to article 4 of <br />title 24, C.R.S." <br />-6- <br />