2010-07-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 (2)

Home Browse Search

is not defined but should be understood, according to Cotter, to cover only damage associated with slides, and since no slides have occurred, Cotter argues there is no violation. Cotter ignores the requirement that each word of statutory language be given meaning. City of Florence v. Board of Waterworks of Pueblo, 793 P.2d 148, 151 (Colo. 1990) ("In interpreting a statute, whenever possible, each word should be given effect..."). Section 116(7)(h) states that "areas outside of the affected land shall be protected from slides or damage occurring during the mining operation and reclamation." If the term "damage" meant only damage resulting from slides, the Colorado General Assembly would have stated so. Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority v. Jor enson, 992 P.22d 1156, 1163 (Colo. 2000) ("Interpretations that render statutory language redundant and superfluous should be avoided."). However, the General Assembly did not just state "slides"; it stated "slides or damage." The Board is required to give meaning to the words the Legislature enacts. City of Florence, 793 P.2d at 151. Cotter's argument would not give meaning to the word "damage" and therefore must be rejected. In addition, the statute uses the disjunctive term "or" to distinguish the requirement to protect areas outside the affected land from slides or other types of "damage" thus showing that damage is not the same as slides as Cotter argues. In citing the Board's regulations, Cotter fails to emphasize the relevant language to this violation: Rule 3.1.5(3) states "All grading shall be done in a manner to control erosion and siltation of the affected lands, to protect areas outside the affected land from slides and other damage.... " Emphasis added. The language of "and other damage" shows that this rule is not limited to slides as Cotter argues. Cotter does not contest that contamination from its mining operation has caused damage to areas outside of the affected land by impacting water quality, e.g., damage to Ralston Creek. See Technical Memo at p. 2; Whetsone Report at p. 11-54 and 55, 15-2. Accordingly, Cotter has violated section I I6(7)(h) of the Act. N. Violation of Rule 3.1.6. Cotter asserts that the Division has failed to provide support for violations of Rules 3.1.6. The citation to that Rule in the RTB is identical to the citation contained in the Technical Memo Cotter submitted. In the Technical Memo Cotter responds to the Division's request concerning the "protections required under Rules 3.1.6 and 3.1.7" by, in part, recognizing that the alluvium and fill are impacting water quality and arguing that mitigating impacts from the alluvium provides the best approach for protecting Ralston Creek. Technical Memo at p. 1-5. Rule 3.1.6 requires that operators minimize impacts to the prevailing hydrologic balance and to water quality in surface and groundwater systems by measures including, but not limited to compliance with Colorado and federal water quality laws and regulations and 8