Laserfiche WebLink
supported by this Court, it should be given'`great deference" as required by the Colorado <br />Supreme Coup. Smith, 9 P.3d at 340. <br />Because in the underlying judicial revietiv proceeding the Plaintiffs will face the burden <br />of proving [hat the Boazd's reasonable interpretation of its own organic statute was incorrect in <br />the face of the "great deference" that the Court will show the Boazd's interpretation, the <br />Plaintiffs ca.~tnot show a'`substantial likelihood that they will prevail or. the merits o: the <br />judicial review action. For that reason, they have not met the threshold requirement for <br />obtaining temporary relief, and the Application for Temporary Relief should be denied. <br />B. The Plaintiffs Mav Cause Harm to Their Own Priem and Land if Thev Are <br />Granted Temporary Relief <br />In the Application for Temporary Relief the Plaintiffs request postponement of the NOV <br />hearing scheduled for April 25, 2001. As is indicated by the Plaintiffs' original complaint letter <br />to the OSM, as well as by the inspection report generated after the Division inspected the <br />Plaintiffs' property. the longer the Plaintiffs wait for a determination of whether Basin has <br />caused damage to their property the more likely it will be that the damage worsens. Because the <br />Boazd may determine that Basin caused the damage to the Plaintiffs' property in the April 25, <br />2001, heazing, a delay of th~r hearing m~v result ~~ more damage ro the Plaintiffs' Property. It <br />makes no sense to grant the temporary relief the Plaintiffs seek when there is a possibility that <br />they will be vindicated shortly by a denial of that temporary relief. For those reasons, the Boazd <br />further urges this Court to deny the Application for Temporary Relief. <br />l~ <br />