Laserfiche WebLink
<br />...shall include a statement of findings and conclusions upon all the <br />material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented by the record and the <br />appropriate order, sanction, relief, or denial thereof." To date, the MLRB <br />has failed to comply with the provisions of C.R.S. § 24-4-105(14)(a) <br />(2001) because it has not included in its decision a "statement of findings <br />and conclusions upon all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion <br />presented by the record and the appropriate order, sanction, relief, or <br />denial thereof...." as required by statute. Therefore, the board acted <br />arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory <br />rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, <br />acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and <br />limitations, acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of <br />discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the <br />admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. <br />10. Regarding the boazd's finding #'s 9(i), 9(j), & 9(m) the boazd has no <br />evidence to support the findings. This is particulazly true in light of the <br />testimony on the record of mercury contamination in the floodplain at <br />the proposed site (and the Dolores River Valley in general) and the effects <br />of the "remobilization" of the mercury and other contaminants as they <br />would affect the water quality. There is no admissible evidence on the <br />record to support a finding that the hydrologic balance will not be <br />disturbed. The un-contradicted testimony on the record shows that the <br />operation will result in the release of toxic materials and toxic forming <br />materials. Therefore, by law, the operation is a DMO. Therefore, the <br />board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their <br />statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the <br />objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, <br />purposes, and limitations, acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted <br />exercise of discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by <br />the admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. <br />Dated this Wednesday, June 27, 2001 <br />James .Preston <br />Atto y at Law <br />Att ey for John E. Akin & Carol Stepe <br />P. O. Box 1416 <br />Dolores, Colorado 81323-1416 <br />970-882-4245 <br />7 <br />