Laserfiche WebLink
Similarly, the Appellee, Mined Land Reclamation Board ("MLRB") <br />mistakenly asserts that the MLRB's decision on this issue is entitled to deference. <br />This argument ignores the record and misstates the law as it applies to this case. <br />Deference is not appropriate when the MLRB's interpretation would defeat <br />the intent of Section 34-32.5-115(4)(d) C.R.S. and is contrary to the plain meaning <br />of C.M.R. 6-4-13. Colorado Department of Revenue v. Garner, 66 P.3d 106 <br />(Colo. 2003); AviComm, Inc. v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission, 955 P.2d <br />1023 (Colo. 1998). Here C.M.R. 6.4.13 is clear and unambiguous. The <br />requirement to identify what local permits an applicant will seek does not involve <br />any technical questions of fact uniquely within the MLRB's expertise or <br />experience. Either there is a list of local permits CCDWP will seek or there isn't. <br />Here no fist or identification of which local permits CCDWP has agreed to seek <br />exists. Thus, little or no deference should be given to the MLRB's finding of <br />compliance and this Court is not bound by the MLRB's misinterpretation and <br />misapplication of C.M.R. 6.4.13. Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U.S. 290, <br />303-04, 96 S,Ct. 1978, 1986-87, 48 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976); Arapahoe County Public <br />Airport Authority v. Centennial Express Airlines, 956 P.Zd 587, 592 (Colo. 1998) <br />and Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Pueblo County Board of Commissioner, 50 P.3d 916 <br />(Colo. 2002). <br />The Colorado legislature specifically provided that all mining operations are <br />required to comply with all federal, state and local law, permits and approvals. <br />Compliance with C.M.R. 6.4.13 is necessary to assure compliance with this <br />legislative intent and § 34-32.5-115(4)(d}, C.R.S. in particular. CCDWP was <br />required to identify the local permits, licenses and approvals that it will seek from <br />Gilpin County. It simply did not do so. <br />s <br />