Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> <br />The application contains an adequate weed control plan. <br />The applicant has applied for, or has stated its intention of applying for, all other <br />applicable permits. <br />g. The reclamation plan is adequate and complete. <br />h. The proposed reclamation bond is adequate. <br />The record indicates that disturbances to water quality, both during and after mining and <br />during reclamation, will be minimized in accordance with § 34-32.5-116(4)(h), C.R.S. <br />The record indicates that disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected <br />land and of the surrounding area, including floodplains and wetlands, both during and <br />after mining and during reclamation, will be minimized in accordance with § 34-32.5- <br />116(4)(h), C.R.S. <br />k. Temporary Cessation is allowed by Construction Materials Rule 1.13. <br />The staff has no't been biased in its review of the application. <br />m. The operation should not be considered a Designated Mining Operation (DMO). <br />10. The Akin/Stepe and Johnson parties asserted in their objections that the Boazd is authorized to <br />consider any issue raised in an objection to a reclamation permit application pursuant to its <br />police power as set forth in the Legislative Declazation to the Construction Materials Act, § 34- <br />32.5-102, C.R.S. The cited section states in part: "It is the further intent of the general assembly <br />to ...protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of this state." <br />With respect to this "broad police power" argument, the Boazd finds the following: <br />a. The cited language above is the legislature's enumeration of its own police power, the <br />power it invoked in order to enact the statute. The language is not a grant of police <br />power to the Boazd. <br />b. Legislative declazations are not binding authority; they aze merely the legislature's <br />declaration of the public policy of the state in matters of statewide concern. Town of <br />Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000). <br />c. The statute states that the Boazd "shall not deny a permit" except upon a finding of any of <br />the circumstances listed in § 34-32.5-115(4), C.R.S. As such, the statute shows that the <br />legislature intended a much narrower grant of authority than the objectors assert. <br />d. The Boazd concludes that it does not have broad police powers to address every issue <br />raised in an objection to a reclamation permit application. Rather, the Board may only <br />consider issues that pertain to whether the application should be denied pursuant to § 34- <br />32.5-1 IS(4), C.R.S. <br />3 <br />