Laserfiche WebLink
Despite this fact, Pitkin County argues that it should have a voice, through some sort <br /> of public process, on any changes to the reclamation plan that may occur as a result of this <br /> case. The Division generally agrees with Mid-Continent Resources' depiction of the <br /> requirements of county or public participation under the Coal Act. Under that act, formal <br /> hearings and county participation are only at issue during the application process or during <br /> the term of the permit. <br /> Here, although Mid-Continent Resources (and potentially its agents) remain liable for <br /> reclamation,2 the Mined Land Reclamation Board has revoked Mid-Continent Resources' <br /> permit and has forfeited its bond. In addition, Mid-Continent Resources is bankrupt. <br /> Usually in a situation such as this where the permittee is bankrupt and/or absent, and <br /> reclamation funds are limited, the Division pursuant to its statutory authority', uses available <br /> funds to implement the reclamation plan to the extent the funds allow, making professional <br /> Judgment calls along the way as to what reclamation is necessary and what priority each <br /> reclamation task should be given. <br /> The present situation is more complicated than the usual one because the Division <br /> must contend with a competing interest: Mid-Continent Resources, a bankrupt entity, and the <br /> Creditors' Trustee do not want to pay for certain reclamation tasks out of liquidation funds. <br /> This interest is at direct odds with the Division's desire to perform what it believes in its <br /> professional judgment to be necessary reclamation at the site, keeping in mind that funds for <br /> reclamation are limited because of the bankruptcy of Mid-Continent Resources. Obviously <br /> this presents a difficult situation in which the Division must exercise its regulatory authority. <br /> Given these circumstances, it is imperative for the Division to have the discretion to make <br /> judgment calls on how best to address this situation. <br /> 'Section 34-33-123(12),C.R.S.authorizes the Division to file a civil suit whenever a permittee or its agent fails to comply with, <br /> or violates a Board order such as an order imposing reclamation obligations,or interferes with,hinders,or delays the Division in <br /> carrying out the provisions of the Act. Case law has interpreted this provision as allowing a Court to hold agents personally <br /> responsible for performance of ordered reclamation See United States v Aiken, 867 F 2d 965 (Gth Cir 1959); United States v <br /> Pcerv, S62 P 2d 367(Gth Cir 19SS), United States v. Disc Foik Coal Co ,692 F 2d 436(Gth Cir. 1952), Rice v 4labama Surface <br /> Nlimnz Commission,»> So?d 1079(Ala 1959). <br /> }Section 34-33-124(4)states that if the Board revokes a permit, the permittec shall cease coal mining activities and shall <br /> complete reclamation,or the Board shall forfeit the performance bond The proceeds from the bond shall be a"ailablc to the <br /> Division and used for"reclamation of the area covered by the bond." <br /> 7 <br />