Laserfiche WebLink
District Court Record, Volume II, pp. 419 (Vol. II, 419). The District Court did <br />not apply the correct standard of review. <br />The Applicant, in its Answer Brief, cites to a "reasonable basis" standard <br />and a "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept" standard. Answer <br />Brief of Clear Creek District Water Providers, L.L.C. at 10 (Applicant Br. at 10). <br />Neither of these standards of review is found in the statutes, which simply require <br />"substantial evidence." Substantial evidence to support the MLRB decision is <br />lacking in several respects as set forth in the Sanitation District's Opening Brief. <br />C. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY AFFIRMED THE <br />ISSUANCE OF THE RECLAMATION PERMIT BASED UPON AN <br />ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "AFFECTED <br />LAND" THAT DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE PLAIN <br />LANGUAGE OF THE AGENCY'S GOVERNING LAW FOUND IN § <br />34-32.5-103(1), C.R.S. <br />Under § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. an agency action shall be overturned if it is <br />"...in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes or limitations..." The <br />MLRB's statutory authority is defined in Title 34, Section 32 of the Colorado <br />Revised Statutes with regard to the definition of "affected land." <br />The term "affected land" is a significant concept in the mining permit <br />statutes prescribing an area within which the permit and its reclamation <br />requirements apply. The definition of "affected land" is contained in § 34-32.5- <br />103(1), C.R.S., which states in part: <br />3 <br />