2011-05-26_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

the legislative declaration, requiring that environmental benefits and economic reasonableness be considered. Aside from the legislative declaration, the definition of "reclamation" in the Act also imposes an obligation of reasonableness on the Defendants. Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34 -32- 103(13), reclamation means procedures reasonably designed to minimize as much as practicable the disruption from a mining operation. The Defendants certainly must consider reasonableness in identifying corrective actions. B. The Board Failed to Consider the Economic Reasonableness of Ordering Cotter to Dewater the Mine, Thus Rendering the Order Unlawful and Arbitrary and Capricious. The Defendants argue that consideration of economic reasonableness does not require the Board to balance economic costs against environmental benefits or to perform a quantitative analysis of potential costs. Answer Brief at 53, 55. Without at least some reasonable estimate of costs, however, it would be impossible to balance those costs against the environmental benefits to be obtained. The Defendants argue that they can meet the requirement to consider economic reasonableness by "implying" or "inferring" the costs of Corrective Action No. 2. Answer Brief at 50 -53. The Order and the administrative record, however, lack any facts from which such costs can be implied or inferred. See Caldwell v. PUC, 613 P. 2d 328, 332 (Colo. 1980) (Commission statement remanded because Court could not even conclude that the necessary findings were "implied" by the Commission from its determination of the other issues presented to it "); cf. Board of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146, 150 (Colo. 1988) (testimony related closely to implied findings.) While the Defendants point to evidence regarding the technical requirements of dewatering and treating the discharge, Answer Brief at 51 -52, such testimony cannot be used to make inferences regarding whether the costs of 6