Laserfiche WebLink
As DMG notes,C.R.C.P. 17(a) requires a claim to be prosecuted by the real party in interest As <br /> between BOCC and DMG,DMG is the real party in interest The attacks are against the way it has or <br /> will spend reclamation money and the way it has or will exact reclamation requirements in implementing <br /> the Coal Act <br /> The BOCC argues that it is very interested in the reclamation phase. However, mere interest by <br /> a citizen or governmental entity does not automatically grant the right to litigate. The BOCC also <br /> emphasizes two resolutions it passed some years ago concerning operations at Coal Basin. Clearly,under <br /> C&M Sand & Gravel, supra, BOCC has the right to regulate mining operations, excepting the <br /> reclamation phase. The fact it passed those resolutions does not circumvent the effect of preemption. <br /> The BOCC argues its interest in several buildings remaining at Coal Basin: C.RS. 30-15-401, which <br /> enumerates general county powers, states that a county can provide and compel "the removal of any <br /> building or structure, except for a building or structure on affected land subject to the 'Colorado Mined <br /> Reclamation Ace...'or on lands subject to the'Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act"' <br /> Under the legislative scheme,DMG is charged with oversight of the reclamation efforts,and, in <br /> an apparent attempt to avoid duplicating govemmental efforts,the legislature has excluded local counties <br /> from that task. <br /> Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court hereby strikes those portions of BOCC's Answer <br /> to Third-party Plaintiffs' Claims that are directed a Claims 1 through 4 of their Amended Third-party <br /> Complaint <br /> At a status conference held January 25, 1999, this case was set for another status conference on <br /> May 24, 1999, 10:30 am.,Aspen,Colorado. <br /> Dated: March 4, 1999 <br />