Laserfiche WebLink
that the operator has not reclaimed the land it has disturbed. Simply put, according to <br />Powderhom, an operator should not have to have a bond posted during reclamation activities. <br />Powderhorn's argument must be rejected. The purpose of requiring a bond is to <br />ensure reclamation. Bond liability does not end until bond release, nor should it. By <br />accepting Powderhorn's argument, this Boazd would be undermining an essential <br />requirement of the Coal Act mandated by the Colorado General Assembly to have a bond <br />until that bond is released. Powderhorn's azgument would, in effect, transfer the risk of <br />payment of the cost of reclamation from the operator and the surety to the taxpayers of <br />Colorado. The Board should reject such a proposition and require Powderhom to replace the <br />bond or face forfeiture proceedings. <br />V. <br />DMG'S REQUIREMENT OF A REPLACEMENT BOND <br />IS NOT A VIOLATION OF § 34-33-108, C.R.S. <br />Powderhom furtlter argues that if DMG is correct in requiring replacement of <br />Frontier's bond, then Colorado's regulatory scheme would be more stringent than the federal <br />regulatory scheme in violation of § 34-33-108(1), C.R.S. Powderhor asserts that OSM has <br />rejected an approach which requires forfeiture proceedings if an operator fails to replace a <br />bond. Rather, Powderhom azgues that the proper remedy if an operator fails to replace the <br />bond is to order the operator to cease mining operations and to start reclamation. <br />16 <br />