Laserfiche WebLink
from non -mine water sources, then the exemption conditions related to <br />limitations for Total Suspended Solids and Settleable Solids as indicated <br />in Table 4 (See footnotes 2 and g[ following Table 4) may be applicable, <br />subject to burden of proof requirements. <br />Despite the overlapping jurisdiction and permitting authority of both MLRD <br />and WQCD, Mid - Continent submits that MLRD assumed primacy and controlling <br />jurisdiction when it ordered Mid - Continent to undertake and clean -out the Outfall <br />No. 016 ponds in early February, 1989. MLRD's assumption of primary responsibility <br />and direction of the remedial efforts established it as the lead agency. WQCD, on the <br />other hand, was passive while MLRD made the remedial decisions and assumed <br />direct governmental responsibility. Only later did WQCD jump on the civil penalty <br />bandwagon. <br />Thus Mid - Continent submits that when agencies coordinate their activities <br />and bring separate but identical claims based upon the same set of operative facts, <br />duplicity of administrative turf does not create autonomous powers. <br />B. IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND CAPACITY EXISTS <br />BETWEEN MLRD AND WQCD, WHO ARE IN <br />PRIVITY ONE WITH THE OTHER <br />Identity of parties is also required for the application of res judicata. The <br />doctrine treats officials of the same government as being in privity with each other. <br />The district court correctly found that "for purposes of res judicata, the party is the <br />same in both proceedings. It is the State of Colorado; acting through the MLRD in <br />the first action and the WQCD in the second action." District Court Decision 8. <br />The leading case on binding officers of the same government by res judicata <br />is Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 60 S. Ct. 907, 84 L. Ed. <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />- 32 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />