Laserfiche WebLink
legislature has expressed its intent that each permit be issued <br /> and enforced independently of the other . The legislature has <br /> done so by reserving the exclusive authority to issue and enforce <br /> CDPS permits to the WQCD, see § 25-8-202 ( 7 ) ( b) ( I ) , C.R.S. <br /> ( 1989 ) ; and, at the same time, stating that such reservation is <br /> not meant to take away the responsibility of other state agencies <br /> with water quality responsibilities, including DMG, see <br /> § 25-8-202( 7 ) (d) , C.R.S. ( 1989 ) . <br /> The two NOVs enforce two different and independently en- <br /> forceable permits to which terms MCR agreed and under which pro- <br /> tection MCR operated for close to eight years. The District <br /> Court ' s decision to void the WQCD' s enforcement of the CDPS <br /> Permit must, therefore, be reversed by this Court . <br /> III . <br /> MCR' S ARGUMENT FAILS TO RECONCILE THE DIS- <br /> TRICT COURT' S DECISION WITH THE LEGISLATIVE <br /> INTENT, EXPRESSED IN THE CWQCA, THAT THE <br /> WQCD ISSUE AND ENFORCE CDPS PERMITS. <br /> In its Opening Brief, CDH aserts that even jurisdictions <br /> that have embraced the broadest application of res judicata have <br /> recognized that, where the action sought to be barred is an ad- <br /> ministrative action grounded in statute, it is the legislative <br /> intent rather than the judicial policies behind the doctrine that <br /> dictates whether the doctrine applies. Opening Brief at 30 . <br /> -18- <br />