2011-08-11_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

Division investigate, prosecute, and enforce violations of the Act, Rules, and permit. By reference to the August order, the Notice also alleges violations of C.R.S. § 34- 32- 116(7)(g), C.R.S. § 34- 32- 116(7)(c), C.R.S. § 34- 32- 116(7)(h). R:0045. The Notice informed Cotter that the Division would bring the matter before the Board for an enforcement hearing at the Board's November 17 -18, 2010 meeting, and that, if the Board were to find a violation, it may issue a cease and desist order and/or assess civil penalties. R:0051. Cotter was afforded the opportunity to make factual and legal arguments regarding each of these allegations during the course of the two -day November Hearing. III. The Board's Assessment of Civil Penalties has a Reasonable Basis in Law and is Warranted by the Record. A) The Board reasonably interpreted the Act. The Act provides that "Any person who violates any provision of any permit issued under this article shall be subject to a civil penalty ...." C.R.S. § 34- 32- 124(7) (2010). The Board's authority to assess civil penalties therefore turns on the meaning of the phrase "any provision of any permit." The Board relied on the language of the Act, Rules, and its long- standing administrative interpretation, to reasonably conclude that Cotter violated a provision of its permit when it failed to correct ongoing violations of the Act. Accordingly, the Board imposed $39,000 in civil penalties for violations occurring from the date of the August Order to the November Hearing. R:0170. The Court's task is again to effectuate the intent of the General Assembly. See Henisse 247 P.3d at 579 (Colo. 2011). The first step in the Court's analysis is an examination of the plain language of the statute. Healthsouth, 246 P.3d at 951 (Colo. 2011). Courts have long held that plain meaning cannot be ascertained without examining the context in which particular terms are 15