Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~_./~j1,.)~~..:::.:,,-_~,--.,""",,,,,- C_....._' <br /> <br />C-9 <br /> <br />.,.-.I <br />~ up the possibility of the duty or right of the State Engineer to make <br />i!) <br />y~ rules and regulations which might by-pass at certain times the strict en- <br />,"-, <br />-._, <br /> <br />c;" forcement of the priority system for compact commitments. The rule making <br />power rests exclusively with the State Engineer in its inception, but the <br />jurisdiction to confirm, modify, reverse, or reverse and remand any or all of <br /> <br />the Proposed Rules and Regulations lies with this Court by virtue of <br /> <br />statute. <br /> <br />The Proposed Rules and Regulations with which we are concerned, although <br />set up in separate paragraphs, nevertheless have inextricable co-mingled regu- <br />lations relating to meeting compact obligations with other provisions as to <br />surface rights and underground rights between Colorado users. The attempted <br /> <br />merger is of such a nature that the Court feels and fi nds tha t the on ly <br /> <br />orderly and proper way to determine whether the separate restrictions, <br />limitations and duties of the State Engineer with respect to Sections 37-80-104 <br />and 37-80"102 (1) (a) are properly set forth must be separately promulgated <br /> <br />and adopted. This is not a finding that any regulation as presented herein <br /> <br />as to compact commitments is either approved or disapproved. <br /> <br />On the other hand, C.R.S. 1973, Sections 37-92-501 and 502, require the <br /> <br />State Engineer to adopt rules and regulations for the administration of <br />individual water rights, both underground and surface, with very strict guide- <br />lines and standards established by the legislature for the administration of <br /> <br />,,1: <br /> <br />individual water rights between individual appropriators. The deficiencies <br />. relative to the failure of the Proposed Rules and Regulations relative to <br />conformity with these standards will be discussed later in this opinion. <br />Obviously the Legislature never intended that the rule making authority <br />,under the Compact provisions should be co-mingled in one proposed set of rules, <br />even though some attempt might be made to departmentalize within the set of <br />.rules, the different requirements, but it is clear that each set of rules <br />