Laserfiche WebLink
Rule 2.9. Therefore, the Board issued a written order on September 24, 2010 denying Cotter's <br />petition. R:0054. <br />Although Cotter disagreed with the August Order, it never sought a stay. In the absence <br />of a stay, the Division proceeded to address the ongoing violations evidenced by Cotter's failure <br />to comply with the August Order. On September 16, 2010, the Division sent Cotter a letter <br />( "Notice ") providing that it had reason to believe that Cotter's failure to comply with the August <br />Order represented a violation of C.R.S. § 34 -32 -124 ( "Failure to comply with conditions of <br />order, permit, or regulation ") and Rule 3.3.2 ( "Operating with a permit or exploring with a notice <br />of intent — failure to comply "). R:0050 -51. As of that date, Cotter had missed compliance <br />deadlines for Corrective Actions 2 and 3 by sixteen days, and missed the compliance deadline for <br />payment of civil penalties by five days. The Notice informed Cotter that the Division would <br />bring the matter before the Board for an enforcement hearing at the Board's November 17 -18, <br />2010 meeting, and that, if the Board were to find a violation, it may issue a cease and desist order <br />and/or assess civil penalties. R:0051. <br />Cotter filed a complaint for judicial review of the August Order on September 24, 2010 <br />(Case Number 2010CV7609, "Cotter I "). <br />November Hearing and December Order. Both Cotter and the Division filed extensive <br />administrative pleadings in advance of the November 17 -18 hearing ( "November Hearing "). In <br />extensive administrative pleadings and two days of oral testimony, Cotter never argued that it <br />had attempted to reinitiate mine dewatering in accordance with Corrective Action 2 or had <br />attempted to post the financial warranty required by Corrective Action 3. R:0210, 11. 5 -9. Cotter <br />4 The Division inspected the site on September 9, 2010 and found evidence of ongoing violations but <br />elected not to proceed against Cotter until the petition for reconsideration had been resolved. See R:0128 <br />0 <br />