PUB00150 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r improper 1'01' thc judiciary 10 determine the propriety ur tilc (jovernor's delegation or his authority to adminislcr tilc ('o\orado River ('ompact.11 C. Thl' GOVl'rnor arguahly has ilOt propl'rly dl'll'gatl'd his authority to nl'gotiate alld sign the Sl'Vl'1I hasin states agrel'llll'nt. Although the Governor should have the pO\ver to delegate his authority to negotiate and sign the Seven Hasin States !\greement, there appear to be problems with the delegation or the (joH:rnor's authority in this instance. Firsl, the Governor's letter, dated April 12,2006, mirrors the language of a statute (37-()()-1()<), C'.R,S.) that does not grant him the authority to unilaterally bind the state to interstate agreements. Even irthe language of the statute were acceptable, the Governor's counsel should be consulted to ensure that a gubernatorial ktter is a sufticient instrument fllr this delegation, in cOlllparison with an executive order, I(H example. i\ rt:\ated but possibly more problematic issue lies in the language of the Draft i\greement itself. It incorrectly states that CR.S. ~ 37-60-109, in conjunction with an Executive Order issued on April 12,2006, provides Commissioner Balcomb with the authority to negotiate and subsequently execute thc Seven Basin State Agreement on behalfofthe state of Colorado. Draft Ag:reement at 1- 2. The referenced statute does provide the Governor with the authority to appoint a commissioner to represent the State ror the purpose of negotiating and entering into interstate agreements "ascertaining and declaring the authority, interest, or right of the several signatory states, or any of them. over. in, and to interstate waters,"' ~ 37-60-109, C.R.S. However, as discussed in section .IV.A.3., SUPJ'iI, section 37-()()-109 is not applicable in this case, Even ifit were applicable, the statute rcquires "'that any compact or agreement so entered into on behalf of said states shal/nol he hinding OJ' ohligillO/y upon ilnl' oj'said slales OJ' lhe cili::::ens lhereoj'lI/11illhe same has been ralified ilnd afJJ>/'()\'ed In'/he legislil/ures oj'al! oj'said signoloJ')' stoles and by the congress of the United States when necessary,"' ~ 37-()()-109, CR.S. Reliance upon the authority discussed in 9 37-60-109 would be problematic to the i\greement because the legislatures of each state have not "ratified and approved" the Agreement. Heeause constitutional principles are not offended by the delegation of power through section 24-1-109 and because section 37-60-109 is inapplicable, we recommend that the Draft Agreement be amended to delete section 37-60-109. Future separation of powcrs issues will best be avoided by adhering to the language of section 24-1-109 and continuing to maintain that the Agreement furthers administration or the Colorado River Compact. V. CONCLUSION. In conclusion, section 24-1-109 provides the Governor with the authority to negotiate and execute the Agreement as long as his actions are deemed to be "administering" the Compact. As a result, the Agreement should be modilied to reference only this provision as the source of the Governor's authority. This statutory delegation of power is consistent with constitutional principles, 11 We should also note that cases analyzing the delegation of power to an administrative agency have found that "a delegation of power operates to confer all implied powers reasonably necessary to the proper exercise of the expressly delegated power."' Beaver Meadows 1'. Board UrCOl/lltl' COli/'rs orLlIrimC/" Co UII ty, 709 P.2d 928. 932 (Colo. 1985). Because there is case law that is more analogous to the Governor's delegation in this instance. the test of whether the Governor's delegation oLauthority to Commissioner Balcomb is "reasonably necessary" will not be applied. 10