Laserfiche WebLink
MID-CONTINENT RESOURCES, INC. V LOOBY, 91 CV 177 <br /> OCTOBER 22, 1992 <br /> PAGE 9 <br /> was doing in pursuing MCR. Their separate courses exposed MCR to <br /> the cost and aggravation of multiple punitive litigation for the <br /> same activity . The duality of prosecution did not conserve <br /> administrative agency resources , but instead spiraled costs to the <br /> State and MCR. <br /> There is nothing in the technical or scientific aspects of the <br /> proceedings which justifies dual prosecutions . There were winter <br /> discharges of liquids bearing suspended solids , oil , grease, and <br /> iron. The point of discharge was evident , the cause A the <br /> discharge was obvious , the cure was apparent , and the responsible <br /> 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 health <br /> and welfare, " C .R. S . § 25-8-102 ( 1) . The Act also contains the <br /> public policy "to conserve state waters and protect . . the quality <br /> thereof . . . for domestic , agricultural , industrial , and <br /> recreational uses , and for other beneficial uses , taking into <br /> consideration the requirements of such uses . . . , " C.R. S . § 25-8- <br />