Laserfiche WebLink
August 31, 20 10 deadline for dewatering the Mine pursuant to Corrective Action No. 2 in the <br />August 2010 Oidex, and also baricc Cotter's attorney irony making an offer of proof for the <br />record on this evidence. This ruling is particularly significant because David Bird, a Division <br />witness, had testified during the hearing that the August 2010 Order mandated that the <br />dewatering and treatment required by Corrective Action No. 2 had to be completed by August <br />31, 2010. Cotter was prepared to present testimony and evidence that it would have taken over a <br />year to even begin dewatering the Mine and treating the Mine pool water. <br />58. The Board also determined that it had the authority to impose both cease and <br />desist orders and civil penalties for violations of its own orders, rejecting Cotter's positions. <br />59. The Board further voted to impose a cease and desist order on Cotter. However, <br />the Board failed to articulate what action Cotter was supposed to "cease and desist." <br />60. On November 29, 2010, the Board issued a draft order indicating the Board <br />would: (a) find Cotter "in violation of § 24-32-124, C.R.S., for failure to comply with the <br />conditions of an order, permit, or regulation; and of Rule 3.3.2, operating with a permit or <br />exploring with a notice of intent, failure to comply"; (b) issue a "cease and desist order" to <br />Cotter; (c) "reactivate" the civil penalty assessed in the August 2010 Order and order Cotter to <br />pay the full $55,000; and (d) assess a civil penalty of $500 per day from August 31, 2010, <br />totaling $39,000, to be paid within 60 days of November 18, 2010. <br />61. On December 2, 2010, Cotter submitted comments on the draft order, pointing out <br />numerous procedural, legal, and factual deficiencies in the draft order. <br />62. On December 8, 2010, the Board issued its order in this case. ("December 2010 <br />Order," attached as Exhibit A). The December 2010 Order contained only minor factual <br />differences from the draft order. The December 2010 Order found Cotter "in violation of § 34- <br />32-124, C.R.S., for failure to comply with the conditions of an order, permit, or regulation; and <br />of Rule 3.3.2, operating with a permit or exploring with a notice of intent, failure to comply." It <br />also "issue[d] a cease and desist order to" Cotter, but did not identify the actions Cotter was <br />supposed to cease and desist. It "reactivate[d] the suspended portion of the civil penalty <br />previously assessed and ma[de] due the total civil penalty of $55,000." It also "assesse[d] a civil <br />penalty for 78 days of violation at $500 per day for a civil penalty of $39,000," and stated the <br />"civil penalties must be submitted within 60 days of November 18, 2010." <br />63. Concluding that a petition for reconsideration would be futile in light of the <br />Board's refusal to correct the numerous manifest errors in the draft order, Cotter filed this <br />Complaint. <br />FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF <br />(Judicial Review Pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-4-106) <br />(Against Board) <br />64. Cotter incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. <br />11