(1) The general assembly hereby authorizes the department of public health and environment to participate in federal implementation of the "Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978", and for such purpose the department has the authority to:
(a) Enter into cooperative agreements with the secretary of energy to perform remedial actions at processing sites designated by the secretary;
(b) Obtain written consent from the record owner of a designated processing site to perform remedial actions at such site;
(c) Provide for reimbursement for the actual cost of any remedial action in accordance with the terms of Public Law 95-604;
(d) Repealed.
(e) Participate in the selection and performance of remedial actions in which the state pays a portion of the cost;
(f) Participate in the following activities for which the state may pay any portion or all of the costs:
(I) Land annotation and information gathering, identification, removal, and disposal of tailing deposits associated with mill sites designated for cleanup pursuant to public law 95-604 that remain outside of the disposal cells constructed for remedial purposes pursuant to the federal "Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978"; and
(II) The groundwater restoration phase of the federal "Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978".
Source: L. 79: Entire part added, p. 1069, § 1, effective January 1, 1980. L. 86: (1)(d) R&RE, p. 980, § 1, effective May 16. L. 94: IP(1) amended, p. 2791, § 528, effective July 1. L. 97: (1)(f) added, p. 337, § 3, effective April 16. L. 2013: (1)(d)(IV) repealed, (HB 13-1300), ch. 316, p. 1689, § 79, effective August 7. L. 2015: (1)(d) repealed, (HB 15-1145), ch. 79, p. 228, § 9, effective August 5.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1994 act amending the introductory portion to subsection (1), see section 1 of chapter 345, Session Laws of Colorado 1994.
Notes of Decisions
State, Dep't of Health v. Mill, 887 P.2d 993 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 5× “In this action, the parties stipulated that the market value of the property in its contaminated state was zero, and the trial court entered a judgment vesting title to the property in the state. The Mill appealed the judgment.”
State, Dep't of Health v. the Mill, 809 P.2d 434 (Colo. 1991).
· cites it 4× “We therefore conclude that CSDH was not authorized to acquire property through condemnation until section 25-11-303 was amended in 1986 to expressly confer this condemnation power.”
Mill v. State, Dep't of Health, 868 P.2d 1099 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “We view this as the only conclusion consistent with § 25-11-303, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B) which, in addition to authorizing state participation in UMTRCA, specifically provides that: [D]eeision[s] made pursuant to the provisions of article 1 of title 38, C.”
Mill v. State, Dep't of Health, 787 P.2d 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “In 1979, the General Assembly authorized the Department to “acquire and dispose” of designated processing sites.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-11-303(1) — 2 cases
State, Dep't of Health v. the Mill, 809 P.2d 434 (Colo. 1991).
“We therefore conclude that CSDH was not authorized to acquire property through condemnation until section 25-11-303 was amended in 1986 to expressly confer this condemnation power.”
Mill v. State, Dep't of Health, 787 P.2d 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
“In 1979, the General Assembly authorized the Department to “acquire and dispose” of designated processing sites.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-11-303(1)(d) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Health v. Mill, 887 P.2d 993 (Colo. 1994).
“In this action, the parties stipulated that the market value of the property in its contaminated state was zero, and the trial court entered a judgment vesting title to the property in the state. The Mill appealed the judgment.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-11-303(d)(III) — 1 case
State, Dep't of Health v. Mill, 887 P.2d 993 (Colo. 1994).
“In this action, the parties stipulated that the market value of the property in its contaminated state was zero, and the trial court entered a judgment vesting title to the property in the state. The Mill appealed the judgment.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-11-303(l)(d) — 1 case
Mill v. State, Dep't of Health, 868 P.2d 1099 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“We view this as the only conclusion consistent with § 25-11-303, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B) which, in addition to authorizing state participation in UMTRCA, specifically provides that: [D]eeision[s] made pursuant to the provisions of article 1 of title 38, C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-11-303(l)(d)(III) — 1 case
Mill v. State, Dep't of Health, 868 P.2d 1099 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“We view this as the only conclusion consistent with § 25-11-303, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B) which, in addition to authorizing state participation in UMTRCA, specifically provides that: [D]eeision[s] made pursuant to the provisions of article 1 of title 38, C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.