Laserfiche WebLink
The district court concluded that the administrative record <br /> contained substantial, competent evidence to support the Bearing <br /> officer's finding that the Water Quality Control Division permit <br /> had been violated. The district court also concluded, however, <br /> that the settlement of the Mined Land Reclamation Division permit <br /> violation barred prosecution of the Water Quality Control <br /> Division permit violation under the doctrine of res Judicata. <br /> In concluding that the doctrine should be applied, the court <br /> found identity of parties based upon the fact that both the Mined <br /> Land Reclamation Division and the Water Quality Control Division <br /> represent the state of Colorado. The court reasoned that the <br /> subject matter of each violation notice was the same, namely, <br /> improper discharge of sediments into the stream during the same <br /> general time frame. <br /> In this regard, the court noted that each agency shared the <br /> benefit of the water samples taken by the other as well as the <br /> investigative function. Finally, the court concluded that the <br /> policy objective of the doctrine was served because the <br /> prosecution of essentially the same violations by each agency <br /> exposed Mid-Continent and the state to the unjustifiable cost of <br /> dual litigation for the same activity. <br /> The court rejected the Department' s contention that the <br /> doctrine was inapplicable because two separate agencies with <br /> separate functions and authority were prosecuting permit <br /> violations. The court concluded that, insofar as mining <br /> 3 <br />