Laserfiche WebLink
and by not providing for multiple agencies' enforcement of cumulative civil penalties <br />against a single entity respecting the same water quality violation, the general <br />assembly has indicated an intent that res judicata should apply when the elements <br />of the doctrine have been met. Thus, the district court's finding that res judicata <br />barred WQCD's subsequent proceeding against Mid - Continent respecting the same <br />cause of action determined in the MLRD proceeding is proper and does not interfere <br />with WQCD's function. <br />Finally, WQCD's argument that the district court improperly interfered with <br />its function is contrary to the CWQCA's provision for judicial review of a final order <br />by WQCD. Section 25 -8 -404 of CWQCA (11A COLO. REV. STAT. (1989 Repl. Vol.)) <br />states: _ <br />(1) Any final rule, order, or determination by the division [WQCD] <br />or the commission, including but not limited to ... permits, control <br />regulations, enforcement orders, cease and desist orders, and clean <br />up orders, shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with the <br />provisions of this article and article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. <br />In exercising its review of WQCD's order, the district court properly <br />considered and applied the res judicata doctrine. Colorado law provides that the <br />doctrine should be applied to bar an agency's action in a "proper case." See e.g., <br />Umberfield v. School Dist. No. 11, 185 Colo. 165, 522 P.2d 730 (1974). WQCD cites <br />no authority suggesting that courts are prevented from applying res judicata to bar <br />an agency's final order when the elements of the doctrine have been met. <br />32 Incidentally, WQCD asserts that the district court's finding of res judicata <br />improperly interferes with the State's ability to retain its delegation of the NPDES permit <br />program. We submit that this argument is very telling of the federal presence behind <br />WQCD's pursuing Mid- Continent in the instant case. However, federal pressure is not an <br />element to be considered in a determination that a state agency is bound by res judicata. <br />Mid - Continent Answer Brief <br />44 Appeal No. 93 CA 297 <br />