Laserfiche WebLink
(Colo. 2009); see also Specialty Rests. Corp. v. Nelson, 231 P.3d at 397 ( "We will not construe a <br />statute in a manner that assumes the General Assembly made an omission; rather, the General <br />Assembly's failure to include particular language is a statement of legislative intent. "). <br />Under well - established principles of statutory interpretation, the legislature's failure to <br />include "violation of an order" in Section 124(7) must be regarded as a statement of legislative <br />intent that the Board has not been granted the power to impose civil penalties for violation of a <br />prior order. <br />2. The Board cannot overcome its lack of statutory authority by relying <br />on an inconsistent regulation. <br />In its December 2010 Order, the Board relied on 2 Colo. Code Regs. 407 -1, Rule 3.3.2, <br />which provides: <br />3.3.2 Operating with a Permit or Exploring With a Notice of Intent <br />— Failure to Comply <br />(1) Whenever the Board or Office has a reason to believe that there <br />has occurred a violation of an Order, Permit, Notice of Intent, <br />or regulation issued under the authority of the Act or these <br />Rules, written Notice shall be given to the Operator or <br />Prospector of the possible violation at least thirty (30) days <br />prior to the scheduled Board hearing date. <br />(2) Following a determination, by the Office, of reason to believe a <br />violation exists, the Board shall hold a hearing on whether or <br />not there is a violation. <br />(b) At the hearing, if the Board determines that a violation of the <br />provisions of a permit, the Act, or these Rules has occurred, the <br />Board shall assess a Civil Penalty of not less than one hundred <br />dollars ($100.00) per day nor more than one thousand dollars <br />($1,000.00) per day for each day during which such violation <br />occurs; <br />December 2010 Order, If 15; AR:0169. <br />11 <br />