1993-10-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

overlapping is clearly shown through the agencies' enabling legislation, the agencies' Memorandum of Understanding, and the similarity of their investigations of the Coal Basin episode. Through either agency, Colorado had the opportunity to seek and obtain civil penalty relief for the discharge violation originating from Outfall No. 016. It elected its remedy and chose to proceed through MLRD. Privity exists between MLRD and WQCD to bar Colorado from proceeding against Mid - Continent a second time through WQCD. C. MID - CONTINENT'S SETTLEMENT WITH MLRD WAS A FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS FOR PURPOSES OF RES JUDICATA A final judgment in the first proceeding is also required for the application of res judicata. City & County of Denver v. Block 173, 814 P.2d 824, 8301Colo. 1991). This Court has held that to the extent a consent decree is a judgment, it is given preclusive effect. See City of Boulder v. Sherrelwood, Inc., 604 P.2d 686 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979) (holding that to the extent that a consent decree exempting a planned residential development from the city's floodplain regulations was a judgment, the exemption was res judicata on the floodplain issue in a subsequent proceeding by the city to declare an expiration of the development). Mid- Continent's settlement with the State of Colorado, through MLRD, was a final judgment sufficient to bar the State, through WQCD, from proceeding against Mid - Continent again based on the same claim. The settlement with MLRD was 29 WQCD misleads this Court by asserting that Mid - Continent's settlement with MLRD is not binding on WQCD because WQCD's proceeding addresses events which arose after the time period addressed in that settlement. See WQCD Opening Br. at 25. WQCD's and MLRD's proceedings arose from an identical occurrence, that is, discharge from Outfall No. Mid - Continent Answer Brief - 36 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297