1999-03-10_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

matter,see generally Brubaker v.Board of County Comrn'rs of E1 Paso County,652 P.2d 1050, 1055 (Colo. 1982);City and County of Denver v.Tihen,77 Colo.212,221,235 P.777, 781 (1925),overruled on other grounds by State Farm Mut. Ins.Co.v.Temple,176 Colo. 537,542,491 P.2d 1371,1374(1971);second, preemption may be inferred if the state statute impliedly evinces a legislative intent to completely occupy a given field by reason of a dominant state interest,see C4 of Golden v. Ford. 141 Colo.472,476-79,348 P.2d 951,953-54(1960);and third,a local law may be partially preempted where its operational effect would conflict with the application of the state statute,see National Advertising Co v Department of Highways,751 P.2d 632, 637-38 (Colo. 1988);Lakewood Pawnbrokers, Inc v.City of Lakewood, 183 Colo.370,374-77, 517 P.2d 834,836-38 (1974). The Coal Act gives DMG power to effectuate the Act and to exercise jurisdiction over persons and property necessary to carry out its duties. C.RS. 34-33-109(4) unequivocally states that no political subdivision, such as a county, has authority to require reclamation of lands affected by coal mining operations, such as Coal Basin. This is an express preemption ousting a county from requiring reclamation of property used in coal mining operations. The Coal Act does not prohibit the county from regulating by local permit land use aspects of coal mining, C.RS. 34-33-111(1)(c) and 34-33- 120(2)(b); Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners v. Mined Land Reclamation Board, 809 P.2d 974 (Colo. 1991). The parties do not dispute that we are presently in the post-mining reclamation phase. Clearly, the first four claims for relief are confined to that phase; and therefore, the BOCC's authority for this phase is preempted.' IAs noted above, for coal mining operations themselves, a county can indeed regulate by local permit, C&M Sand & Gravel v. Board of County Commissioners, supra.