WSPC02418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,';' '". computing an estimate of the economic benefit derived by the violator through the violation, plus costs of the prosecu- tion. This figure is compared to an amount computed on a "fine table.' The fine table is a list of percentages, tied to the seriousness of the offense, by which the maximum statutory fines are multiplied. The larger number, either the economic benefit plus costs or the fine table amount, is the base fine. The base fine is then adjusted up or down using an analysis of mitigating and aggravating factors. Mitigating factors include: 1) commitment to environmental compliance; 2) cooperation and self- reporting; 3) degree of willfulness; and, 4) remediation efforts. Aggravating fac- tors include: 1) degree of management involvement; 2) danger to the environ- ment; 3) danger to human life and safety; 4) poor prior compliance history; 5) absence of a permit, and others, Using the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court adjusts the base fine up or down, ThE! fine cannot be increased over the statutory maximum and cannot be reduced to less than fifty percent of the base fine. In addition to or in place of the calculated fine, the court can place an entity on probation in much the same fashion as an individual is placed on pro- bation. Probation is required if any of the following factors are present: 1) it is necessary to ensure payment of any monetary fine; 2) it is necessary to compel remediation orders; 3) there was similar misconduct in the past five years; 4) no fine was imposed, and other factors. The scope of probation require- ments could permeate all aspects of company operations, if warranted by the nature of the violations. The proposed guidelines may become effective as soon as November 1, 1994, After that time, courts' discretion in sentencing criminal environmental viola- tions will be substantially limited. When the guidelines become effective, it is also likely that the use of similar analysis at \1;1,1')-8 LHJ..i"'~ \.,' ,', . "" ..,,' .' , , the administrative level will increase. Both of these factors underscore the need for thorough efforts to maintain environmental compliance. The only certain way to eliminate the possibility of criminal environmental penalties is for companies to carefully monitor ongoing environmental compliance. Preventing violations in the first instance is far easier than trying to limit the severity of penalties, David E. Bellack 'f COLORADO RIVER DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM C"CRDSS") The State of Colorado, through the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Division of Water Resoul'Ces, have begun work on the development of an integrated system of computer program models (including consumptive use and flow simulation models) to simulate the flow of the Colorado River as it is modified by the exercise of water rights decreed on the, main stem and its tribu- taries within Colorado. It will also provide a tool for analysis of impacts on interstate compact and river operation issues. A number of proprietary models have previously been developed by individual water users or groups of water users and various engineering consul- tants, but this would be the first time the state has undertaken the development of an integrated system of water resource databases and simulation models. The state's entry into the field has been a matter of some controversy over the past few years for several reasons. Some critics were concerned that the state's effort would only duplicate, at considerable public expense, competent work that has already been done by the private sector. Others questioned the need for such a highly sophisticated data and modeling system for a river that has always been well administered without such a tool, especially in view of the fact that anywhere from 800,000 to 1,000,000 2