1993-11-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)

Home Browse Search

From the inception of MCR' s appeal of the Hearing Officer ' s deci- sion, CDH has argued that the application of the doctrine to void the WQCD' s enforcement of the CDPS Permit is contrary to the legislature ' s intent as reflected by the plain language of the CWQCA. The District Court dismissed CDH' s argument , finding that, since the CSCMRA and the CWQCA are "very similar in goals and approach" only one of them should be enforced at a time. (R. 234-5, Vol . III) . The District Court ' s analysis neither attempts to ascertain the legislature ' s intent nor does it make reference to the § 25-8-202(7 ) of the CWQCA. **9 MCR' s response to CDH' s argument on appeal is that the fact that the two NOVs enforce separate statutes does not militate against the doctrine ' s application. Answer Brief at 23 . **10 9** Contrary to MCR' s contention, CDH repeatedly argued before the District Court that the doctrine ' s application in the instant case is contrary to legislative intent and that, as such, it con- stitutes an improper interference with the delegated functions of an executive agency. See Response Brief (R. 246-252, Vol . III) and Motion for Amendment of Findings and Judgment (R. 309-10, paragraphs 10 and 12; Vol . III ) . 10** MCR cites two cases in support of this proposition, both of which are distinguishable from this case. Davis v. United States Seel Supply, 688 F. 2d 166 ( 3rd Cir . 1982) , is a Title VII dis- crimination case based on the U.S. Supreme Court ' s interpretation of the Congressional intent behind Title VII and the "full faith and credit" clause of 28 U.S.C. §1738 . See Davis at 171 ; see al- so Kramer v. Chemical Construction Corp. , 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct . 1883, 72 L.Ed. 2d 262 ( 1982) . As such, the facts of Davis do not support the doctrine ' s application in this case. The principle on which it is based, however, in fact supports CDH' s position that the legislative intent determines whether the doctrine -19-