My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-05-26_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-05-26_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:33:50 PM
Creation date
8/10/2011 2:35:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
5/26/2011
Doc Name
Reply Brief of Plaintiff Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.)
From
Cotter Corporation
To
District Court
Email Name
DB2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Board "for a hearing to consider" a cease - and - desist order does not mean that the Board issued <br />such order. See Order at 1, AR:00845. Similarly, the Order's "Conclusions of Law" that the <br />Board has jurisdiction pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34 -32 -124 does not establish that the Board <br />complied with the requirements of that section for ordering corrective action. See Order 1134, <br />AR:00851. Moreover, the Order's "remedy" is not in the "nature of a cease and desist order." <br />See Answer Brief at 57. The corrective actions specified in the Order require that Cotter conduct <br />Mine Dewatering and Treatment, but fail to order that Cotter cease, desist, or terminate any <br />discharge or other "act" or "practice." <br />The Division's letter to Cotter, dated September 16, 2010, undermines Defendants' <br />assertion that the Order constitutes a cease - and - desist order. See AR:00842 -43. In that letter, the <br />Division asserts that Cotter has failed to comply with portions of the Order and, as a result, will <br />hold an enforcement hearing and "may issue a Cease and Desist Order." Id. Not once does this <br />letter refer to the Order as a cease - and - desist order. Further, if the Division believed that the <br />Order constituted a cease - and - desist order, it would not have asserted that it may issue a cease <br />and desist order in the future for the same activity. <br />VIII. CONCLUSION <br />For the reasons stated above and as set forth in Cotter's Opening Brief, the Order is not <br />supported by substantial evidence, is contrary to law, is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of <br />discretion, and violates Cotter's rights of due process and rights under the Colorado APA. As a <br />result, the Court should vacate the portions of the Order that direct Cotter to perform Corrective <br />Action No. 2, and the associated activities, restrain enforcement of those provisions, vacate the <br />portion of the Order levying civil penalties, and remand the matter to the Board for further <br />proceedings consistent with directions from this Court. <br />43 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.