Laserfiche WebLink
for extraction... " (Emphasis added). The enactment of these provisions in 1995 effectively <br />overruled dicta in prior cases such as C&M Sand & Gravel v. Board of County Commissioners, <br />673 P.Zd 1013 (Colo. App. 1983) suggesting that county regulatory approval must be obtained <br />before this Board could grant an application. <br />2. Here, applicant CCDWP has pledged to seek out all necessary federal, state or <br />local permits or regulatory approvals. This assurance fully satisfies the current requirements of <br />state law. This Board lacks authority to require more. <br />3. In Town of Frederick v. Nortk American Resources Co., 60 P.3d 758 (Colo. App. <br />2002), and other recent cases, Colorado appellate courts have offered new guidance on the issue <br />of state and local preemption. Among other things, these cases declare that state agencies may <br />only enforce state law, and local governments may only enforce local laws. In Town of <br />Frederick, the court of appeals declared that a fine imposed by a local government for an alleged <br />violation of a state regulation was unlawful. 60 P.3d at 765-66. <br />4. Here, Gilpin County proposes a condition declaring that any violation of county <br />zoning regulations should also be deemed a violation of the l12 permit. Any such condition <br />would violate Town of Frederick. This Board's enforcement jurisdiction is limited to that <br />granted it by the Colorado General Assembly. <br />PROPOSED CONDITION 2: APPLICANT MAY NOT <br />BEGIN OPERATIONS UNTIL A <br />CDPS PERMIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED <br />5. Under Town of Frederick and other law, this proposed condition asks the Division <br />to exceed the jurisdiction granted i[ because the Colorado General Assembly has vested another <br />state agency with this responsibility. The Colorado Department of Public Health and <br />2 <br />