Laserfiche WebLink
safety from imminent and identifiable harm, the cost of which is <br />entitled to an administrative priority even under In re Pierce. <br />The other case cited by Debtors, In re N.P. Mining Company, <br />Inc., 963 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir. 1992) is inapposite. That case <br />involved civil penalties. The Eleventh Circuit expressly noted, <br />at 1458, that the penalties would not be used for site clean-up. <br />Debtors also contend that the Board is not entitled to an <br />administrative claim because it has not yet expended any funds <br />performing reclamation of the quarries. If the motion to abandon <br />the property is denied, the trustees should be required to per- <br />form reclamation notwithstanding the fact that the Hoard has not <br />expended any funds reclaiming the site. Assuming that the motion <br />to abandon the property is denied, the Debtors, as trustees, will <br />have an obligation to perform reclamation. The Debtors should <br />not be able to escape their obligation by arguing that the cost <br />of reclamation is only entitled to an administrative expense if <br />the Board actually first incurs costs performing reclamation.. <br />The Hoard, unlike a private entity, does not have statutory au- <br />thority to expend funds from some other source for reclamation, <br />and then seek reimbursement later. The Board must first recover <br />the funds with which to perform reclamation. see, Colo. Const. <br />art. V, §33; §34-32-118(6), C.R.S. (1984). The Board is seeking <br />an order requiring the Debtors, as trustees, to expend the unen- <br />cumbered funds of the estate to reclaim the quarries as required <br />-6- <br />