Laserfiche WebLink
Introduction <br />In this action, Basin petitions for judicial review of two sepazate administrative actions taken <br />by two separate administrative agencies, one state and one federal. On the one band, Basin asks for <br />review of a June 11, 2001, order ("the June order") of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />("the $oard"). The Tune order concludes that Basin failed to establish standing to challenge the <br />decision of the Coiorado bivision of Minerals and Geology ("DMG") to vacate Notice of Violation <br />No. CV-2000-009, which DMG had eazlier issued to Basin. The June order also concludes that in <br />any event, DMG had authority to vacate its own enforcement action prior to commencement of the <br />administrative review heating Basin requested. In addition to requestingreview of the June order. <br />Bali n also seeks review in this Court of the subsequent determination of the federal dffice of Surface <br />Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ("O5M") that DMG demonstrated "goad cause" to vacate <br />Notice of violation No. CV-2000-009.' <br />It is important to note that Basin does not quarrel with DMG's decision to vacate the <br />enforcement action in question or with OSM's approval of that decision. as faz as those actions go. <br />Instead, Basin challenges DMG's refusal to vacate Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009 "with <br />prejudice" - that is, DMG's refusal to bar itseJ£from taking similar enforcement action in the future. <br />' The Tatums recognise that Basin has cleverly pled its federal law claim so that it <br />appears to run against DMG and the Board rather than OSM. However. the regulations that Basin <br />invokes to support its federal claim impose duties only upon OSM. Those regulations simply do not <br />establish a claim for which relief may be granted against DMG, the Board. or the Tatutns. As <br />pointed out in detail later in this memorandum, those regulations at most establish a claim against <br />OSM which only a "person who is or may be adversely affected by a coal exploration or surface coal <br />mining and reclamation operation" has standing to assert. See 30 U.S.C. ~ 842. ] 5(a). Under that <br />test, Basin plainly lacks standing even to obtain any relief from OSM's "good cause" determination. <br />Even if Basin were a proper patty to complain, however, the only relief available for the supposed <br />wrong that DMG or the Boazd have committed would be a federal inspection by OSM, not the relief <br />Basis asks this Court to grant. <br />-2- <br />lie-d etoieoo•d oee-t eeeeseaeoe S3~e00sea 1tl801YN 100-wOtld et~ti toga-ea-snv <br />