Laserfiche WebLink
land reclamation board or the office, when considering the <br />requirements of reclamation measures, shall evaluate the benefits <br />expected to result from the use of such measures. It is also the <br />intent of the general assembly that consideration be given to the <br />economic reasonableness of the action of the mined land <br />reclamation board or the office. In considering economic <br />reasonableness, the financial condition of an operator shall not be a <br />factor. <br />Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34 -32- 102(2) (emphasis added). The Defendants argue that they are not <br />bound by this language, and must consider very few factors in carrying out their responsibilities. <br />Answer Brief at 45 -46, 53 -55. Under the Defendants' view, they could require an extremely <br />expensive corrective action with no environmental benefits, and a regulated party would have no <br />judicial recourse. Courts presume that the General Assembly intends a just and reasonable result <br />when it enacts a statute, and courts do not follow a statutory construction that defeats the <br />legislative intent or leads to an unreasonable or absurd result. People v. Grady, 126 P.3d 218, <br />220 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). <br />The Defendants argue that the language in this legislative declaration can be ignored <br />because it does not constitute a statutory mandate. See Answer Brief at 53. The Order itself, <br />however, admits that the requirements in the legislative declaration applied to any corrective <br />actions ordered against Cotter. See Order ¶ 35, AR:00851. <br />Despite their previous admission, the Defendants try to avoid the language of the <br />legislative declaration by arguing that the operative provision of the Act, section 34 -32 -116, does <br />not impose such requirements. See Answer Brief at 53 -54. This section, however, simply states <br />that reclamation plans and their implementation are to conform to certain general requirements. <br />See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34 -32- 116(7). It does not need to set forth the overarching considerations <br />required in evaluating particular reclamation measures, because those requirements have already <br />been set forth in the legislative declaration. When interpreting statutes, courts adopt the statutory <br />3 <br />