Laserfiche WebLink
considered again in WQCD's proceeding. It is significant, we believe, that the <br />agencies alternated taking water samples from the discharge of MCR's Outfall No. 016, <br />both had their water samples analyzed by CDH, and MLRD and WQCD cooperated <br />and consulted in their respective actions against MCR. <br />A side -by -side comparison of the two Colorado agencies' allegations, Brief <br />Appendix, Appendix-4, comparatively illustrates that the substance of the two <br />proceedings is identical. Any distinctions which WQCD attempts to draw between the <br />agencies' allegations are not substantive but are, rather, a result only of WQCD's <br />creativity in drafting its charges. Both MLRD's and WQCD's proceedings concern <br />alleged TSS violations from Mid - Continent's Outfall No. 016. Except for the violations <br />alleged by WQCD to have occurred between January 17 and 26, 1989, WQCD's <br />allegations cover the identical days of violation as those addressed by MLRD in its NoV <br />No. C -89 -033 (January 26, 1989 through February 23, 1989). <br />Additional evidence of the identity of the claims is shown by the agencies' <br />extensive cooperation in their investigation of MCR for the alleged discharge violation <br />from MCR's Outfall No. 016. CDH performed the laboratory testing of the samples <br />for MLRD. Two of the samples (January 26, 1989 and February 7, 1989) on which <br />WQCD relies were actually collected and used by MLRD in enforcement of its earlier <br />civil penalty proceeding. <br />19 For example, two of the samples (January 26 and February 7, 1989) on which WQCD <br />relies were collected and used by MLRD in enforcement of its earlier civil penalty proceeding. <br />20 All samples taken by the State of Colorado, either through WQCD or MLRD, were <br />tested by the CDH laboratory, and the results were routinely sent to WQCD (2 Tr. Marek, 63- <br />64). <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- 20 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />