Laserfiche WebLink
and desist orders whenever it finds that a violation of the Act, Rules or permit exists. The Board <br />reasonably interpreted the Act, finding that Cotter's failure to implement the corrective actions <br />showed that an ongoing violation of the Act existed. Accordingly, the Board exercised <br />reasonable discretion when it ordered Cotter to cease and desist its non - compliance with the <br />August Order. <br />The Board's decision to assess civil penalties had a reasonable basis in law and was <br />warranted by the record. Having reasonably concluded that Cotter was in ongoing violation of <br />the Act, the Board assessed civil penalties for Cotter's period of violations occurring from the <br />August Order to the November Hearing. The Act expressly directs the Board to assess civil <br />penalties when it finds a violation of any provision of a permit, and impliedly directs the Board <br />to assess civil penalties when it finds a violation of the Act. The Act and the Rules each indicate <br />that compliance with the Act represents a provision in every permit that the Board issues. <br />Accordingly, the Board exercised reasonable discretion when it assessed civil penalties based on <br />Cotter's ongoing violations. <br />Cotter's lawsuit does not divest the Board of its authority to enforce compliance with the <br />Act, Rules, and permit by taking action to compel compliance with its August Order. In the <br />absence of a stay, both the State Administrative Procedure Act and Colorado Supreme Court <br />precedent indicate that an agency has authority to enforce an order pending judicial review. An <br />agency has jurisdiction to enforce an order pending judicial review so long as it does not alter the <br />order's substantive requirements or vacate the order. The Board utilized statutory tools to <br />enforce compliance with the August Order. It did not alter any substantive corrective actions, <br />