Laserfiche WebLink
Reclamation Act contemplates that the Division have control of <br /> reclamation after permit revocation and bond forfeiture, such as <br /> is the case here. See Sections 34-33-104 , 105 , and 124 (4) , <br /> C.R. S. (1984) . Consequently, earlier this year, the Division <br /> informed Resources that the Division would be the procuring party <br /> for reclamation contracts using funds from the liquidation plan. <br /> (Exhibit D) . <br /> The defendants' claim that they cannot perform reclamation <br /> because Resources is not in control of reclamation is without <br /> merit . Resources is bankrupt . The defendants are in and of <br /> themselves liable for reclamation as agents of Resources. The <br /> fact that the Division, not Resources, is the procuring party for <br /> reclamation contracts does not prevent the defendants from <br /> performing reclamation within certain boundaries. <br /> At this stage, the Division has about $343 , 000 for <br /> reclamation purposes from Resources' liquidation plan. In order <br /> to put out a bid for reclamation work, the Division needs the <br /> money in hand . If the Division receives the money, puts out a <br /> bid, and finds an acceptable contractor, the defendants can <br /> perform reclamation outside of the work specified in the bid. <br /> The reclamation performed by the defendants would need to be <br /> consistent with the reclamation being done by contractors and <br /> would need to be performed under the supervision and approval of <br /> the Division. with these conditions, the plaintiff's request for <br /> injunctive relief remains appropriate in this case. This Court <br /> has the authority to fashion a remedy suitable to the specific <br /> -8- <br />