GENERAL33107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• s 5. With regard to the boazds finding (conclusion) # 11, the boazd misstates the evidence on the record and ignores the other federal statues addressed at the hearing. First, the board bases its finding on inadmissible evidence. The letter from the USACE which on which the board relies pertains only to the "Tulloch rule" and the mentioned wetlands. The USACE letter was also outdated and obsolete at the time of the hearing as well as obsolete during floods of the Dolores River. Further, the board failed to make findings pertaining to the federal statutes raised by the objecting parties pertaining to the construction of obstructions in waters of the U.S. as proscribed under 33 U.S.C. § 403 (2001); 33 C.F.R. g 322.3(a)(2001). The board has also failed to address, in its findings, the complete lack of evidence in the record to support a fording that the applicant will comply with C.R.S. ~ 34-32.5-116(i) (2001). The Affidavit of Dr. Robert Blair, Ph.D. conclusively supports a finding that the permit cannot be granted for the applicant's failure to comply with C.R.S. § 34-32.5-116(i) (2001). Dr. Blair's affidavit is uncontroverted on the record by any competent evidence. The Boazd has failed to address the construction the applicant performed in the Dolores River and the river bank to stabilize the river bank adjacent to the river. Therefore, the boazd acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. 6. The boazd's finding that it does not have the authority to consider the "cumulative impact" of multiple gravel pits in the Dolores River Valley has no basis in law or fact. Therefore, the boazd acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. Therefore, the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of 5