Laserfiche WebLink
<br />AANOLD & POI3TEA <br />Mr. Michael Long <br />December 9, 1992 <br />Page 6 <br />through the Area. This work will disturb about 1/10 to <br />1/5 acre in the middle of the Area, undoing part of the <br />previously completed reclamation work and potentially <br />disturbing other portions of the Area due to excavation <br />or erosion. It will also create difficult apportionment <br />issues regarding future responsibility for the Bonded <br />Area. <br />Thus, Harrison Western finds itself in an unusual <br />situation. It is required to undertake reclamation work <br />to protect a bond which should never have been accepted <br />by the Board and that, once accepted, should have been <br />released upon the expiration of its option. In return <br />for undertaking part of this work, it is being sued by <br />the landowner who is insisting that it construct a <br />potentially costly and elaborate drainage system to <br />benefit land that is not covered by the Bond. And now <br />the Division is proposing to allow a third party to con- <br />struct a haul road through the middle of the Bonded <br />Area, rendering some of Harrison western's work futile. <br />Reasons for Releasing the Bond <br />Harrison Western submits that the Bond should be <br />released for the following reasons: <br />1. The Bor <br />that administrative <br />is delegated by the <br />agencies must compl <br />utes, Rodgers v. At <br />813 (1979), and act <br />delegated authority <br />v. Gibson, 37 Colo. <br />Additional authorit <br />such authority is r. <br />jective and is exez <br />is Illegal. It is well established <br />agencies have only such authority as <br />legislature. Under Colorado law, <br />strictly with their enabling stat- <br />ncio, 43 Colo. App. 268, 608 P.2d <br />which exceed the scope of their <br />are void, City and County of Denver <br />App. 130, 546 P.2d 974 (1975). <br />may be implied by a court only when <br />cessary to achieve a statutory ob- <br />ised in a reasonable manner. See <br />tomobile Insurance Co, v. Barnes, 41 <br />App. 380, 585 P.2d 929 (1978) <br />In this ca <br />authority for the <br />from a guarantor <br />Surface Coal Mini <br />bonds are impermi <br />vision specifies <br />there is simply no statutory <br />and to accept a reclamation bond <br />e Harrison Western. Indeed, the <br />Reclamation Act indicates that such <br />ble. For example, the bonding Pro- <br />t the "aoolicant shall file a <br />