Laserfiche WebLink
operations are concerned, both agencies have essentially the same <br /> statutory responsibility for maintaining water quality. <br /> I <br /> The Department contends that the district court erred in <br /> determining that the doctrine of res judicata was applicable <br /> under the circumstances of this case. Specifically, the <br /> Department argues that the settlement agreement with Mined Land <br /> Reclamation Division does not constitute a final adjudication for <br /> purposes of the doctrine. In the alternative, the Department <br /> argues that the agreement does not by its terms resolve any <br /> violation of the Water Quality Control Division permit. Finally, <br /> the Department argues that the Mined Land Reclamation Division <br /> lacks jurisdiction to resolve the violation at issue. We agree <br /> with the last contention and thus do not address the others. <br /> Res judicata is a judicial doctrine which provides that an <br /> existing final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction is <br /> conclusive on the rights of the parties in any subsequent <br /> litigation on the same claim. Pomeroy v. Waitkus, 183 Colo. 344, <br /> 517 P.2d 396 (1973) . As pertinent here, the doctrine applies <br /> when there is identity of subject matter, identity of claim, and <br /> identity of parties to the action. Westminster v. Church, <br /> 167 Colo. 1, 445 P. 2d 52 (1968) . <br /> Although the doctrine of res Judicata was developed in the <br /> context of judicial proceedings, in a proper case, the doctrine <br /> may be applied to administrative proceedings. Umberfield v. <br /> School District No. 11, 185 Colo. 165, 522 P. 2d 730 (1974) . In <br /> 4 <br />