Laserfiche WebLink
173 , 814 P. 2d 824, 830 (Colo. 1991) . Each of these standards is <br /> met here. <br /> "First, there is a final judgment from MLRD. Its decision <br /> . . . finally determined all the issues before it concerning <br /> unlawful discharges into the stream from Outfall No. 016. [Mid- <br /> Continent] [ ( ]MCR[) ] performed by paying a stipulated fine. <br /> "Second, the subject matter of each proceeding was the same. <br /> Each proceeding dealt with unlawful discharges produced by mining <br /> operations from Outfall No. 016 into the stream. Stripped of the <br /> cumbersome technical jargon, the subject matter of each agency' s <br /> focus was the same. Each dealt with the same period of time, <br /> January and February, 1989; the same source of pollution, Outfall <br /> No. 016; the same general kinds of pollutants, TSS, TDS, oil, <br /> iron, and grease; the same damaged streams, Coal Creek and the <br /> Crystal River, ; the same operator, MCR; and the same general <br /> types of acts of omission and commission by MCR. <br /> "The claims for relief originating from each agency were the <br /> same. MLRD sought civil penalties, and abatement and a clean-up. <br /> WQCD also sought civil penalties. Both agencies considered each <br /> day of violation to be a separate offense, subjecting the <br /> operator to additional civil penalties. Therefore, the factual <br /> basis for seeking relief and the relief sought was virtually <br /> identical in each proceeding. <br /> "The parties to each action were the same. For purposes of <br /> res judicata and collateral estoppel, there is privity between <br /> officers of the same government, and acts of one agency of the <br /> 10 <br />