Laserfiche WebLink
establishes the importance of Powderhor having a viable bond to assure that reclamation <br />occurs. <br />The very commentary that Powderhom cites to support its argument also undermines <br />its argument. The commentary to which Powderhom refers simply does not comtemplate a <br />situation in which the operator has already ceased extraction operations and has filed a <br />petition in bankruptcy. Therefore, the reasoning of the cited commentary does not apply to <br />the case at hand and does not establish that requirement of replacement and/or forfeiture of <br />the bond is not disallowed by federal law. <br />Moreover, Powderhor fails to establish that replacement of a bond is more stringent <br />than requiring reclamation. Accordingly, § 34-33-108, C.R.S. would not be violated by <br />requiring Powderhom to submit a valid, compliant bond, and if it fails to replace the bond, <br />then instituting forfeiture proceedings. <br />VI. <br />DMG HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INSTTTUTE FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS <br />Contrary to Powderhorn's azgument, the applicable regulations authorize the Division <br />to forfeit the Frontier bond. Rule 3.04.1 specifies that if a petmittee has violated the terms <br />and conditions of the bond and has failed to take corrective actions, the Boazd shall forfeit a <br />bond. 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule 3.04.1(1)(a). Here, Powderhor has violated the conditions of <br />the bond. All performance bond are conditioned upon the faithful performance of all the <br />18 <br />