Laserfiche WebLink
two proceedings was identical. <br />Identity of parties existed in the prior MLRD proceeding and the subsequent <br />WQCD proceeding. MLRD and WQCD are not separate sovereigns. Both are agencies <br />of the State of Colorado. Privity exists between officials of the same government <br />sufficient for the application of res judicator in the instant case. Each had the capacity <br />to act and bind the State of Colorado. <br />The State's agencies are not separate sovereigns by virtue of their enabling <br />legislation. Both agencies' enabling statutes were developed in response to federal <br />1970s environmental legislation. Both authorized citing Mid - Continent or other coal <br />mine operators, surface or underground, for any improper discharge into watercourses. <br />The State of Colorado had an adequate opportunity to litigate -the adverse <br />discharge from Mid - Continent's Outfall No. 016 and was awarded civil penalty relief <br />when MLRD, after making adjudicatory findings of fact, settled with Mid - Continent <br />(which paid the agreed -upon penalty). This settlement with MLRD was a final <br />judgment for purposes of res judicator. The doctrine bars relitigation by WQCD not <br />only of all the issues settled between MLRD and Mid - Continent but all issues which <br />the State of Colorado may have brought. <br />Finally, the important policy considerations which prompted the development <br />of the res judicator doctrine apply in the instant case as well. Applying res judicator to <br />bar the subsequent WQCD proceeding serves to prevent costly and vexatious multiple <br />lawsuits, conserve judicial and administrative resources, prevent inconsistent decisions, <br />and encourage reliance on a decision. See Salida School District R -32-J v. Morrison, <br />732 P.2d 1160 (Colo. 1987). <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- 16 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />