Laserfiche WebLink
Apart from Basin's fatal lack of standing, Basin is not entitled to judicial review of the June <br />order because DMG's decision to preserve its authority to take future enforcement action against <br />Basin (and the Boazd's affirmance of that authority) is notreviewable unless anduntil DMG actually <br />exercises that authority and Basin then exhausts the administrativereview process. In the meantime, <br />decisions whether to take future enforcement action lie within DMG's discretion. <br />Finally. with respect to Basin's petition for review of OSM's "good cause" determination, <br />this Court lacks jurisdiction because the federal law that Basin invokes does not impose an <br />enforceable duty on state officials. Moreover, authotity to conduct judicial review of OSM "good <br />cause" determinations lies exclusively in federal court. 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(2). 1n the following <br />paragraphs, the Tatums discuss each of these points in turn. <br />A. As a Matter of Law. Basin Lacks Standin to eek :[gdicial Review of the Tune <br />Order. <br />Judicial review of agency action is available only to persons who demonstrate that (1) the <br />action in question causes or threatens to cause injury-in-fact to that person's legal interests and (2) <br />the alleged injury falls within the scope of a legal right protected by the statutory or constitutional <br />provisions that the agency supposedly has violated. Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Trigen- <br />Nations Energy Co., LLLP., 982 P.2d 316, 323-24 (Colo. 1999). Although the injury-in-fact <br />element of standing does not require that a party undergo actual injury, where a party bases its <br />standing on allegations that an administrative action threatens to cause an injury, the threatened <br />injury "must be `sufficiently direct and palpable to allow a court to say with fair assurance that there <br />is an actual controversy proper for judicial resolution."' Id. at 324, quoting O'Bryanr v. Public Utils. <br />Comm'n.. 778 P.2d 648, 653 (Colo. 1989). A party seeking judicial review must show that "there <br />-4- <br />!l9-d Bl0/L00'd OE9-1 859E998EOE S3~8f10S3a ~tl8fI1tlN 100iY0Hd EI~ZI 1002-E2-9(1V <br />