1993-10-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

Both the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act and CSCMRA grant MLRD the "full power and authority to carry out and administer" the provisions of those Acts. See 14 COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 34 -32 -104 and 34 -33 -104 (1984 Repl. Vol.). Pertinent to the instant case, MLRD exercised its delegated "full power and authority" in an adjudicative capacity. CSCMRA expressly provides that MLRD's conference officer is authorized to resolve issues, make findings of fact and determine the penalty to assess against an identified mine operator for permit violations. See id. § 34 -33- 123(8). Such functions are judicial under Colorado law. See Comm'rs Douglas County, 829 P.2d at 1307; Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel, 816 P.2d at 284; Cherry Hills Resort Dev. Co., 757 P.2d at 626 -27. That Mid - Continent could have requested a formal hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board does not change the adjudicative nature of MLRD's proceeding. Second, MLRD's settlement with Mid - Continent resolved disputed issues of fact. See Justification of Settlement Agreement for NOV C -80 -003 [sic], MCR. Ex. 13- I, Record 00638- 00642, Brief Appendix, Appendix -6 -I. The MLRD conference officer reviewed the evidence presented by MLRD and Mid - Continent (including, inter alia, the water samples taken on January 17, January 26, February 2, February 7, and February 23; the conditions of the Outfall No. 016 ponds; and the extreme weather conditions during those months) to resolve the disputed factual issues, determine an appropriate penalty and prepare a settlement agreement. As the district court found, "[t]here is a final judgment from MLRD. Its decision of April 11, 1990 [sic, 1989] finally determined all the issues before it concerning unlawful discharges into the stream from Outfall No. 16." District Court Decision 6 -7. The facts determined by Mid - Continent Answer Brief - 39 - Appeal No. 93 CA 297