Laserfiche WebLink
proposition are distinguishable from the instant case, largely because under the <br />unique circumstances surrounding the Coal Basin episode, MLRD was authorized to <br />act and to bind the State of Colorado. <br />LEGISLATIVE SCHEMES <br />Both MLRD's and WQCD's authority is derived from state legislation enacted <br />in response to federal environmental mandates. The scheme of both federal statutes <br />is to force states to issue and enforce permits according to criteria set, reviewed and <br />approved by the United States. Pertinent to the instant case, both MLRD and WQCD <br />were authorized to cite discharge violations to promote an identical policy objective, <br />that is, preventing the degradation of water quality caused by coal mining operations. <br />" On page 31 of its opening brief, WQCD cites several cases for the proposition that <br />res judicator does not apply if the decision making agency lacks authority to rule on the claim <br />sought to be barred. The first cited case, Montoya v. City of Colo. Springs, 770 P.2d 1358 <br />(Colo. Ct. App. 1989), does not stand for this proposition. In that case, this Court refused to <br />apply res judicator in a subsequent judicial proceeding to consider plaintiffs racial <br />discrimination claim when the prior proceeding on the same claim was merely an informal <br />investigation conducted by the director of the Civil Rights Division. The director's decision <br />was not an "adjudication" of the "merits" sufficient for application of the doctrine. <br />The other cases cited as the basis for WQCD's argument are also distinguishable <br />because MLRD had statutory authority to determine the facts and grant appropriate relief <br />regarding the Coal Basin episode. Mid- Continent's proceeding before MLRD considered the <br />identical claim brought in the subsequent WQCD proceeding, and MLRD had statutory <br />authority to determine the facts and grant appropriate relief regarding the State's discharge <br />claim. See discussion comparing the agencies' overlapping authority in this regard, pages 24- <br />32, 33, 41-42, infra. Mid - Continent's case is analogous to Umberfield v. School District No. <br />11. 185 Colo. 165, 522 P.2d 730 (1974). Umberfield held that a teacher's new proceeding <br />before the Civil Rights Commission was barred when he had an opportunity to raise his <br />religious discrimination claims in the earlier hearing before the teacher tenure panel. <br />Similarly, WQCD's subsequent proceeding against Mid - Continent should be barred when the <br />State of Colorado, through MLRD, previously had the opportunity to bring the State's claim <br />regarding unlawful discharge from Outfall No. 016, to have the facts surrounding the discharge <br />episode determined, and to be granted appropriate relief. MLRD had statutory authority to <br />consider all discharge civil penalty claims <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief 25 Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />