Laserfiche WebLink
ARGUMENT <br />I. The Board Lacked Authority to Impose Civil Penalties Based on an Alleged <br />Violation of the August 2010 Order. <br />A. The Act clearly and unambiguously limits imposition of civil penalties to the <br />violation of "any provision of any permit." <br />Section 34- 32- 124(7) plainly states the Board may impose civil penalties only for permit <br />violations: "Any person who violates any provision of any permit issued under this article shall <br />be subject to a civil penalty .... " <br />Where, as here, the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, this Court may not look <br />beyond the words of the statute to interpretative rules of statutory construction. People v. <br />Goodale, 78 P.3d 1103, 1107 (Colo. 2003) (rules of statutory construction not applied when <br />statute was neither unclear nor ambiguous); International Truck & Engine Corp. v. Colorado <br />Dept. of Revenue, 155 P.3d 640, 642 -43 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). For that reason, Defendants' <br />reliance on broad statutory construction rules involving "context" and "underlying purpose" <br />(Joint Answer Brief at 14, 18 -19) is misplaced. <br />With respect to the Board's imposition of civil penalties based on Cotter's alleged <br />violation of the August 2010 order, the Court's inquiry begins and ends with the plain language <br />of the statute. As Defendants failed to allege or establish any violation of Cotter's permit, the <br />civil penalties imposed by the Board in its December 2010 Order must be set aside. <br />B. Defendants provide no basis for ignoring the Act's plain language. <br />In their Joint Answer Brief, Defendants make three arguments to circumvent the <br />unambiguous statutory language: (1) a violation of "any provision of any permit" must be <br />construed to include the violation of any provision of the Act; (2) the Board properly adopted <br />3 <br />