Laserfiche WebLink
can find a party in contempt for violating an order, it must conclude that `the words of the court's <br />order have clearly and unambiguously forbidden the precise conduct on which the contempt <br />allegation is based.'' (emphasis omitted)); Bangor & Aroostook R.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce <br />Comm'n, 574 P.2d 1096, 111E (1st Cir. 1978) (a cease and desist order "must set forth the <br />perimeters of prohibited conduct with reasonable specificity "); Lynch v. Uhlenhopp, 78 N.W.2d <br />491, 495 (Iowa 1956) ( "Unless a contempt proceeding is based upon an order which is clear and <br />precise, no finding of contempt may be made. "). <br />Here, the Board imposed civil penalties and a cease - and - desist order based on Cotter's <br />alleged failure to comply with an unclear and ambiguous order. In relevant part, the August <br />2010 Order provided: <br />The Board requires the Operator to perform the following <br />corrective actions: <br />2) Reinitiate mine dewatering and water discharge treatment <br />sufficient to bring the mine water table to a level at least 500 <br />feet below the Steve Level, and sufficient to reestablish a <br />hydraulic gradient way from Ralston Creek. Implementation <br />must occur as soon as possible, but no later than August 31, <br />2010. <br />August 2010 Order at 9; AR:0045. <br />When given the opportunity to comment on a draft of the August 2010 Order, Cotter <br />sought clarification that the Board did not actually intend to require Cotter to complete the <br />dewatering process by August 31, 2010. AR:0256. The Board, however, rejected the <br />clarification requested by Cotter. AR:0256 -57. As a result, upon issuance of the August 2010 <br />Order, the logical conclusion was that it required Cotter to complete the dewatering process by <br />August 31, 2010. <br />21 <br />