Laserfiche WebLink
prepared to present testimony and evidence that it would have taken over a year to even begin <br />dewatering the Mine and treating the Mine pool water. AR:0261:17 -22. <br />On December 8, 2010, the Board issued the December 2010 Order. AR:0166 -72. It <br />found Cotter "in violation of § 34 -32 -124, C.R.S., for failure to comply with the conditions of an <br />order, permit, or regulation; and of Rule 3.3.2, operating with a permit or exploring with a notice <br />of intent, failure to comply." AR:0170. It also "issue[d] a cease and desist order to" Cotter, but <br />did not identify the actions Cotter was supposed to cease and desist. Id. It "reactivate[d] the <br />suspended portion of the civil penalty previously assessed and ma[de] due the total civil penalty <br />of $55,000." Id. It also "assesse[d] a civil penalty for 78 days of violation at $500 per day for a <br />civil penalty of $39,000," and stated the "civil penalties must be submitted within 60 days of <br />November 18, 2010." Id. <br />SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT <br />In its December 2010 Order, the Board essentially held Cotter in contempt — and imposed <br />significant civil penalties — for violating the August 2010 Order (from which Cotter has <br />separately appealed). By arrogating this purely judicial power, the Board acted contrary to law <br />and without statutory authority. The December 2010 Order must be set aside for several <br />independent reasons. <br />First, the December 2010 Order should be set aside because it enforces the August 2010 <br />Order which, in turn, is invalid for the reasons stated in Cotter's appeal in Case No. <br />2010CV7609. To the extent the Court sets aside the August 2010 Order, it must also set aside <br />the December 2010 Order. <br />6 <br />