1994-07-01_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Date: 7/1/1994
• Doc Name: Plaintiff/Defendants- Appellants
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Finally, we agree with the district court's conclusion that
the prosecution of similar violations by separate agencies with
the attendant cost, time, and expenditure of adjudicative
resources does not comport with long-standing judicial policy.
However, in our view, under the circumstances here, that issue is
one for the General Assembly.
II
We also reject Mid-Continent's alternative contention that a
memorandum between the Water Quality Control Division and the
Mined Land Reclamation Division in effect amended the language of
the statutes relative to jurisdiction of permit violations. Even
if we assume that the agencies had authority to enter into such
an agreement, we conclude that there is record support for the
hearing officer' s finding that, although there were some common
elements to the violations of the two permits, each was within
the separate purview of the Mined Land Reclamation Division and
the Water Quality Control Division as defined by the memorandum
of understanding between the two agencies.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the
district court to reinstate the Department' s order.
JUDGE METZGER concurs.
JUDGE VAN CISE dissents.
8