Laserfiche WebLink
and complete reclamation of Resources' mine site. The Division <br /> is in no way asking this Court to grant it a windfall. The <br /> Division here has made out its claim of injury. There is no <br /> question that the site needs to be maintained and reclaimed; the <br /> defendants do not dispute this. There is no question that the <br /> site is not fully reclaimed. Nor is there any question that <br /> there are insufficient funds to perform maintenance and full <br /> reclamation. Moreover, complete funding for reclamation from the <br /> liquidation plan has not occurred and there is no assurance that <br /> it will occur . In the meantime, maintenance and reclamation must <br /> take place. This entails bidding out work weeks or months in <br /> advance of the commencement of the work (unless the defendants <br /> perform this work) . One outstanding issue here is the amount of <br /> damages. See Martinez v. Shapland, 833 P. 2d 837 (Colo. App. <br /> 1992) (recovery of damages may not be denied merely because <br /> amount is difficult to ascertain) . <br /> Under section 34-33-123 , C.R. S. ( 1984 ) , this Court has broad <br /> authority to enter an "appropriate order" to accomplish justice <br /> in this case . See Airborne, Inc. , v. Denver Air Center„ Inc. , <br /> 832 P. 2d 1086 (Colo. App. 1992 ) ("frier of fact is clothed with <br /> wide discretion in determining amount of damages) . These <br /> defendants are liable for reclamation costs as agents of <br /> Resources. The Division does not seek any more money than is <br /> necessary to accomplish maintenance and reclamation in full <br /> compliance with applicable law. Given that the liquidation funds <br /> have not yielded sufficient money to reclaim the site and that <br /> -11- <br />