Laserfiche WebLink
and benefits of Corrective Action No. 2 and its reasonableness, as the Act requires, making the <br />Order contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious? <br />Are the findings on which the Board relied (including statutory violations) to <br />order Corrective Action No. 2 unsupported by substantial evidence, and, thus, is the Board's <br />Order that Cotter implement Corrective Action No. 2 unlawful and arbitrary and capricious? <br />Is the Board's failure to address whether Corrective Action No. 2 can legally be <br />done under a technical revision ("TR") or whether, instead, it can only be lawfully authorized <br />through a permit amendment, contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious? <br />4. Did the Board act contrary to law or violate Cotter's due process rights and rights <br />under the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-4-101 to <br />-108, by having the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety of the Colorado Department of <br />Natural Resources ("Division") (which acted as the prosecutor) participate in deliberations? <br />Were the civil penalties ordered by the Board in excess of statutory jurisdiction <br />and authority and were the civil penalties unsupported by substantial evidence in the record? <br />6. Did the Board exceed its statutory jurisdiction and authority by ordering the <br />challenged corrective actions without having issued a "cease and desist" order? <br />STATEMENT OF THE CASE <br />This case seeks judicial review of, and for the Court to set aside and hold unlawful, the <br />portions of the Order on Mine Dewatering and Treatment, identified below, and to restrain <br />enforcement of those provisions. This case involves fears about uranium, about the unknown, <br />and about public opinion. It also involves extensive technical and economic issues. In these <br />circumstances, courts are essential to ensure that government agencies act by and in accordance <br />2