Laserfiche WebLink
"In the peculiar facts in this docket, each agency had the <br /> benefit of the samples taken by the other. They were sharing the <br /> investigative function. Each obviously had technical expertise; <br /> the technicalities each placed in their respective permits to MCR <br /> reveal this proficiency. Clearly, each agency knew what the <br /> other was doing in pursuing MCR. Their separate courses exposed <br /> MCR to the cost and aggravation of multiple punitive litigation <br /> for the same activity. The duality of prosecution did not <br /> conserve administrative agency resources, but instead spiraled <br /> costs to the State and MCR. <br /> "There is nothing in the technical or scientific aspects of <br /> the proceedings which justifies dual prosecutions. There were <br /> winter discharges of liquids bearing suspended solids, oil, <br /> grease, and iron. The point of discharge was evident, the cause <br /> of the discharge was obvious, the cure was apparent, and the <br /> responsible party was conspicuous. <br /> "The Defense also argues that the separate enabling statutes <br /> militate against the bar of res judicata. Although the technical <br /> vocabulary of the statutes differs, as applied to a coal mining <br /> operation near sensitive streams, they are remarkably similar in <br /> policy and approach. The Colorado Water Quality Control Act, <br /> C.R. S. §25-8-101, et. seq. , is designed to 'achieve the maximum <br /> practical degree of water quality in the waters of the state <br /> consistent with the welfare of the state, ' recognizing that <br /> 'pollution of state waters may constitute a menace to public <br /> health and welfare, ' C.R. S. §25-8-102 (1) . The Act also contains <br /> 12 <br />