Laserfiche WebLink
In addition, there was no intentional or unreasonable delay <br /> or affirmative misconduct by the Division in recalculating the <br /> cost of reclamation. See Bijou Irr. Dist . v. Empire Club, 804 <br /> P.2d 175 (Colo. 1991) (doctrine of estoppel requires more than a <br /> mere delay; it must be an unreasonable or prejudicial delay) ; <br /> United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp, supra (estoppel not <br /> justified where EPA within rights in making ruling and no <br /> evidence that EPA intentionally misled the defendant) . Rather, <br /> the Division completed the recalculation as soon as was <br /> practicable. <br /> It should be noted that in order for the Division to <br /> implement MCR' s reclamation plan, the Division was required to <br /> insert more specificity into the plan, which potentially changed <br /> the costs of reclamation. Revisions to MCR' s reclamation plan <br /> had been made as late as mid-1994 (v. 2 , p. 415) . Further, when <br /> the Division received limited money for reclamation from MCR' s <br /> liquidation plan in July 1994 (v. 1, p. 109) , the Division had to <br /> give the reclamation plan greater detail in order to implement it <br /> (v. 2 , pp. 414-16) . Specifically, after receiving limited funds, <br /> the Division was required to write invitations to bid for the <br /> performance of reclamation work (Id. ) . This process enabled the <br /> Division to obtain a better knowledge of reclamation costs (Id) . <br /> Any delay by the Division in recalculating the cost of <br /> reclamation was not unreasonable, and considering that the <br /> defendants were notified of the change in the estimate during the <br /> discovery phase of the case, three months before trial , any delay <br /> 18 <br />