2011-06-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

C. Similarly, the Act Does Not Give the Board Authority to Enter a Cease -and- Desist Order Based on an Alleged Violation of a Prior Board Order. Citing Section 34- 32- 124(2)(a) of the Act and Rule 3.3.2, the Board also issued a "cease and desist order to the Operator" based on the Board's determination that Cotter violated the August 2010 Order. See December 2010 Order at 4 -5; AR:0169, 0170. The Board's cease - and - desist order suffers from the same legal deficiencies as its imposition of civil penalties. Section 124(2)(a) of the Act limits the Board's issuance of a cease - and- desist order to the "violation of any provisions of this article or of any notice, permit, or regulation." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 124(2)(a). As in the case of civil penalties, the legislature conspicuously omitted "violation of an order" in Section 124(2)(a) in contrast with the broader scope of Section 124(1). Again, the Court must interpret this omission as a conscious decision by the legislature to limit the Board's authority to issue a cease - and - desist order in this context. See In re Water Rights, 221 P.3d at 419; Specialty Rests., 231 P.3d at 397. Nor can the Division and Board circumvent the legislature's intent by recharacterizing the claim from an alleged violation of an order to a violation of Cotter's permit or the Act. As explained above, the Division's own September 2010 Notice and Hearing presentation make it clear that the only basis for seeking a cease - and - desist order was Cotter's alleged violation of the August 2010 Order. The Division stated categorically, "the only issue before the Board is whether Cotter has failed to comply with the August 11th Board Order." AR:0124. The Board subsequently removed any doubt on this issue; at the conclusion of the Hearing, the Board "moved and seconded to issue a cease - and - desist order because our order of August 11, 2010, has been violated." AR:0293:18 -20. 17