Laserfiche WebLink
corrective actions ordered by the Board, including Mine Dewatering and Treatment, are therefore <br />in excess of the Board's statutory jurisdiction and authority. Accordingly, this Court should <br />vacate the portions of the Order requiring that Cotter perform corrective actions. <br />Relying on Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 34 -32- 124(5) and 24- 4- 105(14)(a), the Defendants <br />suggest that the Board can order corrective actions, including Mine Dewatering and Treatment, <br />without first issuing a cease - and - desist order. Answer Brief at 56 -57. This position is without <br />merit, as neither statutory section authorizes the Board to order a corrective action. <br />Section 34 -32- 124(5) requires the Board to hold any hearing in accordance with the State <br />Administrative Procedure Act ( "State APA "), but says nothing about whether, and under what <br />circumstances, the Board may order an operator to perform corrective actions at a site. See Colo. <br />Rev. Stat. § 34 -32- 124(5). Likewise, section 24- 4- 105(14)(a) fails to authorize the Board to <br />order corrective actions, as it merely specifies, in pertinent part, the content of any agency's <br />written decision that is subject to the State APA. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24- 4- 105(14)(a) ( "Each <br />decision and initial decision shall include a statement of findings and conclusions upon all the <br />material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented by the record and the appropriate order, <br />sanction, relief, or denial thereof. "). Compliance with the procedural provisions of the State <br />APA is not a substitute for the Board's failure to comply with the substantive provisions of the <br />Act. <br />19 The Defendants' contention that administrative agencies are "afforded great discretion <br />in framing orders" does not obviate the Board's obligation to satisfy the Act's requirements if <br />corrective actions are deemed necessary. See Answer Brief at 56. The Defendants' cases do not <br />hold otherwise. In Hoving Corp. v. FTC, 290 F.2d 803, 804 -06 (2d Cir. 1961), a case in which <br />no challenge was raised to the agency's compliance with statutory procedures, the FTC ordered <br />petitioner to "cease and desist" various acts in compliance with the Fur Products Labeling Act. <br />In Speedway Home Improvement Co: v. Gourdine, 462 N.Y.S.2d 349 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 1983), the <br />state agency correctly exercised its power to award monetary damages to redress injury to an <br />individual consumer. Here, the issue is whether the Board has statutory jurisdiction and <br />41 <br />