1995-04-14_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

violation within the contemplation of C.R.S. S 34 -33- 123(12) (1993 Supp.), and therefore, the plaintiff's claims must fail. The plaintiffs are requesting relief under C.R.S. § 34 -33- 123(12) (1993 Supp.) in the form of an order directing the defendants to reclaim the property or pay for the reclamation of the property, in accordance with the May 1991 Board Order and the Schedule contained therein. In light of the passage of time and the changed circumstances of this case, however, rendering that order ineffective, it is not possible for such relief to be granted or performed. It is not appropriate under C.R.S. § 34 -33- 123(12) (1993 Supp.) for this Court to enter relief as requested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claims that the defendants violated the Board Order by not reclaiming the mine site. The undisputed facts, however, show that Resources was performing reclamation at t e 5 ri /2 et. S ‘11-5 /7 / /A. / !" /}-c w d 1?.- rf / .Q 'C C e / r / 4 4 e mine site at the t me the complaint was filed, and up to the LY S— /•. e w e , /4- // ( 77 S e / f � 2 /T c e $ 5 /7 '7 Iv time the Division itself usted Resources and took over the 6e F-( ti -� G e c < - ,�,. ma c..� 'tae - e- S S reclamation, and that Resources' efforts in this regard were conducted in accordance with the law: namely, as contemporaneously as practicable. See e.g., CCR 407 -2, Rule 4.12. The defendants produced a letter and administrative decision, both prepared by the Division, which state that Resources was performing reclamation at the mine in compliance with the law before the State took over the operation. See Attachments J and K to Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary P; -Q17 6- e /-- Ca"-' er7P ark- 71-r-- N RfPe -' /cam of /2 e c `t "-aV ci.,"- 724 £T'd 992## WUTT:0T S66T `PT Jdd 9220TtiZ 20£ T :01 lye e. - 73 , S c /45 71 -