My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-09-24_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2010-09-24_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:23:28 PM
Creation date
10/1/2010 2:21:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
9/24/2010
Doc Name
Complaint for Judicial Review, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
From
Cotter Corporation
To
DRMS
Violation No.
MV2010018
Email Name
AJW
DB2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
61. The Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law in its Final Order, including, <br />but not limited to, its conclusions on whether water from the mine pool has been reaching <br />Ralston Creek, and the relative cost-benefit analysis between the ordered remediation efforts and <br />the status quo, were so unsupported by the record before the Board that its decision rose to the <br />level of being arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, unsupported by <br />substantial evidence when the record is considered as a whole, abusive or clearly unwarranted <br />exercise of discretion, and based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are clearly <br />erroneous on the whole record. <br />62. The Board also abused its discretion when it failed to rule on material questions, <br />such as whether the mine dewatering plan in Corrective Action No. 2 could be dealt with as a <br />"Technical Revision" under its regulations, that would have been necessary prerequisites to the <br />corrective actions ordered in the Board's Final Order. <br />63. To the extent that the Board's Final Order is serving, and may serve, as a basis for <br />further future enforcement actions against Cotter, Cotter lacks a plain, speedy and adequate <br />remedy at law. <br />64. Because it has abused its discretion in reaching its Final Order, the Board's Final <br />Order should be set aside. <br />THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF <br />(Declaratory Relief Pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-51-106 and C.R.C.P. 57) <br />(Against all Defendants) <br />65. Cotter incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. <br />66. The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Law, C.R.S. § 13-51-101 to -115, and <br />C.R.C.P. 57, provide that any person whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by <br />a statute or contract may seek a judicial determination of its rights or status under that statute or <br />contract. <br />67. Cotter is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory <br />Judgments Law and C.R.C.P. 57 for the purpose of terminating an existing legal controversy <br />which has arisen between Cotter and the Board regarding the application of the Board's <br />regulations and the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act to the enforcement proceedings <br />concerning In The Matter of Cotter Corporation's Possible Violations, Cease and Desist Order, <br />Corrective Actions, and Civil Penalties, File No. M-1977-300, Notice of Violation No. MV- <br />2010-018. <br />68. Specifically, Cotter is entitled to a declaration that the Board's decision to accept <br />new evidence from the Division after the Board had announced that testimony was closed, <br />without affording Cotter an opportunity for rebuttal, deprived Cotter of its due process rights to a <br />full and fair hearing. <br />12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.