Laserfiche WebLink
The Boazd did not issue the subpoenas because its staff concluded that the witnesses were <br />not subject to subpoena. Vol. 3, pp. 1069-1074. Wallace Erickson appeazed at the hearing and <br />testified anyway. Yol. 3, pp. 1022-1024. The two witnesses from the WQCD did not appear. <br />Following the hearing, the Board approved the application. Vol. 3, pp. 1172-1173. The <br />Boazd issued its order on June 22, 2001 and the Plaintiffs filed this action. <br />SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT <br />The Board approved Four States' application for a reclamation permit after a hearing in <br />which it received overwhelming evidence in support of the application. The Plaintiffs allege that <br />the Board's adjudication of this application was not procedurally perfect. However, no error <br />affected the substantial rights of the parties. The Board followed its procedural rules and <br />afforded each party a full and fair opportunity to present his or her case. <br />Plaintiffs Akin and Stepe adopt and incorporate Plaintiff Boynton's brief by reference. <br />This Answer Brief addresses all Plaintiffs. <br />ARGUMENT <br />I. Standard For Judicial Review <br />Tn McClellan v. Meyer, 900 P.2d 24, 29 (Colo. 1995}, the Supreme CourC restated the <br />standazd of review established in § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S.: <br />A reviewing court may reverse an administrative determination <br />only if the court finds that the agency exceeded its constitutional or <br />statutory authority, made an erroneous interpretation of law,. acted <br />in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or made a determination that <br />is unsupported by the evidence in the record. Id. Based on this <br />standard, we may determine that an agency's action is either <br />4 <br />