Laserfiche WebLink
C.R.S . (1995) (intent of enactment of coal statute is to require <br /> operators to reclaim land- as contemporaneously as possible with <br /> the mining operation so that the affected land can be put to <br /> beneficial use) . <br /> The primary means by which the Division can enforce the <br /> statute' s reclamation requirements is by having adequate funds <br /> available for reclamation of a site. To be fully able to have <br /> sufficient funds, the Division must have the ability to amend its <br /> cost estimate to reflect current economic conditions and to seek <br /> an award of damages based on that estimate. Otherwise, the <br /> Division would be hamstrung with a cost estimate which may have <br /> been done years before implementation of the reclamation plan, <br /> and which does not accurately reflect the amount of funds that <br /> will be necessary to reclaim the site. Such a position is simply <br /> not consistent with the purposes of the statute. <br /> The court' s application of equitable estoppel here to <br /> prevent the Division from seeking an award of damages which more <br /> accurately reflected the cost of reclamation than the Division' s <br /> prior estimate, undermined the legislature' s intent to reclaim <br /> mine sites to a beneficial use and undermined the Division' s <br /> ability to meet that legislative goal . As such, the court' s <br /> imposition of the doctrine was improper. See Muck v. United <br /> States , supra (estoppel against government disfavored when its <br /> application thwarts the enforcement of public laws) ; Emery Min. <br /> Corp . , supra (same) . See also Johnson v. Industrial Com'n of <br /> State, 732 P. 2d 1236 (Colo. App. 1987) , aff' d, 761 P.2d 1140 <br /> 23 <br />