Laserfiche WebLink
affirmative documentation of landowner consent must be provided with the PR06 <br />response" (page 3, bullet 8), that "WFC must coordinate directly with the <br />landowner to address and resolve the ongoing complaints and dispute regarding <br />these; soils" (page 3, bullet point 9) and that "[a]ffirmative documentation of such <br />resolution must be submitted" (id.) <br />Taking each of the statutory and regulatory citations one by one, none of them <br />support the quoted statements in your letter. CRS 34-33-102 is the "legislative <br />declaration" which serves as a preamble to the Colorado Surface Coal Mining <br />Reclamation Act. As such, it expresses the general aspirations and intent of the <br />legislature in adopting the statute, and may be useful in interpreting other parts of <br />the statute. This general preamble does contain several general references to <br />protection of private landowners. However, by itself it contains no binding legal <br />requirements, and grants no specific authority to DRMS whatsoever. I do not find <br />any support for the "requirements" stated in your letter in this statutory citation. <br />Next, CRS 34-33-111(1)(h) describes the requirements for what must be included <br />in each coal mining reclamation plan. The specific provision of subpart (h) <br />requires such plans to contain a description of "[t]he consideration which has been <br />given to making the surface coal mining and reclamation operations consistent <br />with surface-owner plans and with applicable state and local land use plans and <br />programs." That is the entire provision - it contains no other requirements. It <br />clearly requires WFC to take landowner concerns and plans into account, and to <br />describe them to the Division. However, it falls well short of requiring coal <br />operators to actually satisfy every single demand raised by every landowner, no <br />matter how unusual or outrageous it may be. In WFC's submittals to DRMS, in <br />particular the July 2, 2010 submittal, we have extensively documented our <br />continued efforts to reach agreement with the Morgan family and the successes we <br />have achieved in those efforts, as well as the manner in which those efforts have <br />been repaid. <br />Finally, Rule 2.05.5(1) is the rule that specifies the content to be included in <br />descriptions of post mining land-use plans to be included in reclamation plans. In <br />its entirety, the rule requires that "[t]he description shall be accompanied by a copy <br />of the comments concerning the proposed use by the legal or equitable owner of <br />record of the surface of the proposed permit area and the State and local <br />government agencies which would have to initiate, implement, approve, or <br />authorize the proposed use of the land following reclamation." Note that this <br />refers to approval by State and local government agencies, but not by landowners. <br />Nowhere does this language even suggest that landowners have a veto power over <br />the reclamation plans of coal operators. It appears to us reasonable that neither the <br />legislature nor DRMS provided this power to the landowner, since the potential for <br />opportunism and abuse of such power is obvious, and we believe has manifested <br />itself in the case of the Morgan family. <br />3