My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1993-10-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1993-10-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2021 1:25:29 PM
Creation date
4/30/2012 8:58:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
10/28/1993
Doc Name
Case No. 93 CA 297 Plaintiff-Appellees Anser Brief
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations," <br />C.R.S. § 34 -33 -102. In implementing the Act, MLRD must examine the <br />"probable consequences of the surface coal mining and reclamation <br />operations, both on and off the mine site, with respect to the hydrologic <br />regime and the quantity and quality of water in surface and groundwater <br />systems, including dissolved and suspended solids ... , " C.R.S. § 34 -33- <br />110(1)(1). Therefore. both statutes look closely to the degradation of water <br />quality caused by coal mining operations. and one cannot discern any real <br />difference in their policies in this area. [Emphasis supplied.] <br />WQCD cites United States v. Radio Corp. of America (RCA), 358 U.S. 334, <br />79 S. Ct. 457, 3 L. Ed. 354 (1959) to argue that MLRD did not have authority to bind <br />WQCD. That case is readily distinguishable. In RCA, the Federal Communications <br />Commission (FCC) had approved a television station exchange. Subsequently, the <br />Justice Department brought an antitrust action in which the exchange was at issue. <br />In response to RCA's argument that res judicata barred the Justice Department's <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />claim, the United States Supreme Court considered the extent to which Congress <br />authorized the FCC to pass on antitrust questions. The Court found that the FCC <br />did not have such authority because the enabling statute expressly provided that the <br />granting of a license by the FCC did not estop the United States from proceeding <br />against that person for unfair competition and monopolies. <br />No reservation of exclusive authority over effluent discharge violations by <br />coal mine operators is reserved to WQCD. Yet WQCD seems to believe that because <br />it can issue CDPS permits it is the ultimate authority to enforce an alleged discharge <br />violation. This belief is mistaken. <br />The CWQCA expressly requires the Water Quality Control Commission and <br />WQCD to recognize the water quality responsibilities of other state agencies, <br />including MLRD. See 11A COLO. REV. STAT. § 25 -8- 202(7) (1989 Repl. Vol.). <br />- 34 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.