Laserfiche WebLink
Barnes, 552 P.2d 300, 303 (Colo. 1976) (affirming trial court's finding that regulation was <br />invalid). Here, Rule 3.3.2(2)(b) is inconsistent with, and contrary to, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34 -32- <br />124(7) because it authorizes civil penalties for violations of the Act when the Act provides no <br />such authority. Accordingly, this Court may not defer to Rule 3.3.2(2)(b) and should determine <br />that it is void and unenforceable. <br />C. The Statutory Penalties Ordered by the Board Are Not Supported by <br />Substantial Evidence. <br />In their Answer Brief, the Defendants do not respond to Cotter's appeal that the civil <br />penalties ordered by the Board are not supported by substantial evidence. Compare Cotter's <br />Opening Brief at 38 -39 with Defendants' Answer Brief 60 -64. For those additional reasons set <br />forth in Cotter's Opening Brief, this Court should set aside the civil penalties ordered by the <br />Board. <br />VII. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ORDERED BY THE BOARD ARE IN EXCESS <br />OF STATUTORY JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY. <br />The Board relied on Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34 -32 -124 for its authority to order corrective <br />actions at the Schwartzwalder Mine. Order 1134, AR:00851. Section 34 -32 -124 authorizes <br />corrective actions, provided that the Board determines "there exists any violation" and issues a <br />"cease- and - desist order." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 124(2)(a). The cease - and - desist order "shall <br />set forth the provisions alleged to be violated, the facts alleged to constitute the violation, and the <br />time by which the acts or practices complained of must be terminated and may include the nature <br />of any corrective action proposed to be required." Id. Here, the Order issued by the Board is not <br />a cease - and - desist order, as it fails to order that Cotter "cease and desist" any activity. The <br />18 The Defendants' reliance on Lucero v. Climax Molybdenum Co., 732 P.2d 642, 645 -46 <br />(Colo. 1987) is misplaced, see Answer Brief at 64, as no claim was there raised that the agency's <br />rule and order conflicted with the plain language of the statute and, accordingly, the court made <br />no such finding. <br />40 <br />