Laserfiche WebLink
11/09/98 17:37 FAX 3037962777 BURNS FIGA & WILL IE004/031 <br /> A. The statutes and case law prohibit Pitkin County from regulating reclamation. <br /> The Coal Basin reclamation is governed by the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclatnatidn <br /> Act, C.R.S. § 34-33-101, et seq. ace, C.R.S. § 34-33-121_) Colorado passed that statute in 1979 <br /> as a response to federal legislation known as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of <br /> 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq., which required states to comply with provisions set forth in that <br /> federal statute. <br /> C.R.S. § 34-33-109(4) sets forth the State of Colorado's intention to pre-empt local <br /> regulation of coal mining reclamation. That section states, "No governmental office of the state, <br /> other than the board or office, nor any political subdivision of the state shall have the authority to <br /> require reclamation of lands affected or proposed to be affected by surface coal mining operations." <br /> In California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co_,480 U_S_ 572(1987),U.S_ Supreme <br /> explained that state law can be pre-empted in two different ways: <br /> 1. Where congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling <br /> within that field is pre-empted; or <br /> 2. If federal legislation has not entirely displaced state regulation, state law is still pre- <br /> empted if it actually conflicts with federal law. 480 U.S. 591. <br /> Accord, Brubaker v Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County, 652 P.2d, 1050, 1055 <br /> (Colo. 1982)_ Just as state law can be pre-empted by federal law, local regulation can be pre-empted <br /> by state law. That is the case here. <br /> In C&M Sand& Gravel Division of C&M Readv Mix Concrete Co. of Boulder v. Board <br /> of County Commissioners of Boulder Count . 673 P.2d, 1013 (Colo. App. 1983), the Coup <br /> discussed the question of the extent to which a county could regulate a gravel mining operation. <br /> 3 <br />