Laserfiche WebLink
effluent limitations in the CDPS Permit provide a goal for the <br /> treatment required in the DMG Permit , whereas the DMG Permit pro- <br /> vides the means by which that goal must be accomplished. They <br /> are not , however , identical . They impose upon MCR distinct water <br /> quality protection obligations which MCR agreed to meet when it <br /> obtained the two permits. <br /> 2 . The DMG Permit and the CDPS Permit are <br /> Independently Enforceable. <br /> Finally, as discussed in CDH' s Opening Brief, the permits <br /> issued by DMG and by the WQCD are independently enforceable. <br /> MCR' s theory of alternative enforceability is wholly unsupported <br /> and, in fact, negated by the language of the CSCMRA and the <br /> CWQCA. **8 Through two separate acts, the legislature has dele- <br /> gated to the DMG and the WQCD, respectively, the duty to issue <br /> and enforce two different permits. Nothing in the language of <br /> the CSCMRA or the CWQCA indicates that the permit system and <br /> requirements they mandate are to be implemented in the alterna- <br /> tive. On the contrary, through S 25-8-202 ( 7 ) of the CWQCA, the <br /> 8** The theory MCR actually seems to assert is a form of <br /> "primacy-by-defeat" theory, whereby the first of the two agencies <br /> to win the race for enforcement wins the civil penalty price. <br /> See Answer Brief at 32. Giving MCR the benefit of a doubt , CDH <br /> assumes that the theory it embraces is the more plausible theory <br /> of alternative permit enforcement . <br /> -17- <br />