Laserfiche WebLink
12. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board announced its approval of PR-6. Plaintiffs <br />have not been provided with the executed final decision as of this filings. <br />13. The instant action is timely filed and all prerequisites to suit, if any, have been satisfied. <br />14. In PR-6 Defendants acknowledged that all of the Morgan property within the New <br />Horizon 2 Mine PR-6 permit area consist of "prime farmland" as that terms is described in <br />DRMS regulations, R. 1.04(95). <br />15. In PR-6 Defendants acknowledged that the Morgan property within the New Horizon 2 <br />PR-6 permit area is used as "cropland" as described in DRMS regulations, R. 104(71)(a). <br />16. Plaintiffs have farmed the Morgan property within PR-6 continuously for a period of in <br />excess of 50 years, during which time they have engaged in irrigated agriculture, raising row <br />crops such as corn, oats, wheat, and alfalfa. <br />17. In PR-6 Defendants acknowledged that portions of the Morgan property containing prime <br />farmland had been mined by WFC without advance disclosure, study, or compliance with prime <br />farmland mining requirements of DRMS regulations and applicable law. <br />18. The approval of PR-6 was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to applicable statutes, C.R.S. <br />§ 34-33-101, et seq., and applicable DRMS regulations, 2 C.C.R. 407-2, et seq. Specifically, the <br />Board erred by actions which include, but are not limited to: <br />a. concluding that WFC was not currently in violation of the Colorado Surface Coal <br />Mining Reclamation Act, or that WFC had not engaged in a pattern of willful violations <br />of the Act; <br />b. failing to impose sufficient remedial requirements or sanctions to address areas of <br />the Morgan property containing prime farmland soils which were mined by WFC prior to <br />the approval of PR-6, in violation of applicable prime farmland regulations and the Act; <br />C. failing to declare the post-mining land use on the Morgan property as including <br />irrigated row crops--and specifically corn, as was the case prior to mining; <br />d. allowing the mixing of prime farmland soils with non-prime bench 1 subsoils in <br />areas which had been previously stripped of topsoil by WFC; <br />e. allowing unsuitable subsoil material to be emplaced in locations, and at a depth, <br />1 Undersigned counsel had not been retained by Plaintiffs as of the date of the Contested Hearing. As of this filing a <br />transcript of the hearing has been requested pursuant to Division rules, but it was not ready for review by counsel. <br />Accordingly, all factual averments in this Complaint are pleaded "upon information and belief."