Laserfiche WebLink
' Rationale for Approval Recorr ndation May 8, 2001 <br />Four States Aggregates, LLC. • <br />17. Objection letter from David B. Wuchert, dated April 3, 2001, received by DMG on <br />Apri! 4, 2001; <br />18. Objection letter from Leslie M. Sesler & Timothy D. Hovezak, dated April 5, 2001, <br />received by DMG on April 9, 2001; <br />19. Objection letter from Pete & Cheri Robinson, dated April 5, 2001, received by DMG <br />on April 10, 2001; and <br />20. Objection letter from Marilyn Boynton, dated April 8, 2001, received by DMG on <br />April 10, 2001. <br />Issues Raised by the Objecting Parties <br />Issues raised by the objecting parties are represented by italicized bold print. DMG <br />response to the objection issues follows in standard print. <br />References to the Act are from the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of <br />Construction Materials, 34-32.5-101 et sec ., C.R.S. 11995 Repl.Vol.). References to the <br />Rules are from the Construction Material Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined <br />Land Reclamation Board, effective October 1995, amended January 2000. <br />1. The legislative declaration provides statutory directive to "...protect and <br />promote the health, safety, and genera/ we/fare of the peop/e of this state,"and <br />establishes police power to DMG and the MLRB without limitation... Therefore, <br />DMG and the MLRB must address each and every issue raised by the pub/ic. <br />In these proceedings, DMG jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the specific <br />requirements of the Act and Rules. DMG considered all timely submitted comments in its <br />review of the application. However, DMG can only address the issues that directly relate <br />to the specific requirements of an application, as stated in the Act and Rules. The <br />specific requirements of The Act and Rules delineate how DMG is to comply with the <br />directives of the legislative declaration, as stated in C.R.S. 34-32.5-102. Several <br />objectors incorrectly interpreted the legislative declaration to mean that DMG must <br />address issues that are clearly beyond the authority provided by the Act and Rules. <br />2. A// of the operation and reclamation issues are preempted by federal <br />law... therefore DMG does not have any jurisdiction. <br />C.R.S. 34-32.5-109(1) requires that before engaging in a new operation, an operator shall <br />first obtain from the Board or Office, a reclamation permit pursuant to Section 34-32.5- <br />110, 34-32.5-111, or 34-32.5-112 C.R.S. Additionally, C.R.S. 34-32.5-107(2) states <br />that the Board may delegate authority to the Office as necessary to efficiently carry out <br />3 <br />