Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />aCl:( lrdance \\ ith and under the autlwrity uf the Boulder Canyon Project ;\d or 1928." J2raJl <br />l\g.reell1e!1J at -1.. Thus, both the Lung-Rangc Operating Criteria and the ISGs assist in thc <br />managcl11cnt of the Colorado River ILlsin tu ensure that the requirements urthe Compact are being <br />mct. The Seven Basin States Proposal is also in furtherance ofthc administration of the Compact <br />hecause it addresses evcn more detailed contingencies than were considered by either the Operating <br />('ritcria (II' the IS(is and, as such, is also in Illrtherancc of the administration of the Compact. <br /> <br />The plain language delinition uf"administer" and the administrative purpose the Agreement <br />serves within the Law or the Rivcr suggest that the Governor is administering the Compact with his <br />signaturc here. Because the Agreement is administrative in nature, it logically tallows that its <br />negotiation and execution are also administrative as the Agreement itselfis of no value to the State <br />unless it represents the best interests of the State and is entoreeable. Consequently, eR.S, ~24-1-109 <br />likely provides the Governor with the rcquisite authority to bind the State of Colorado to the <br />Agreement. <br /> <br />h. Section 24-1-109 is a permissible delegation of legislative power <br />that does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. <br /> <br />Assuming that the act of signing the Agreement is deemed to be "administering" the <br />Colorado River Compact, it could be argued that C. R.S. * 24-1-109 violates the separation of powers <br />doctrine or the nondelegation doctrine, We conclude that neither is 1~ltal to the Govemor's signing <br />authority. <br /> <br />First, the separation of powers doctrine implicitly set lorth in the Colorado Constitution <br />forbids the delegation of strictly legislative powers, one of which is the power to make laws. Hazlet <br />\'. (;all/lt, 250 P.2d 188, 193 (Colo. 1952). The negotiation and execution of the Seven Basin States <br />Agreement is not the cquivalent of making a law as it operates strictly within the con tines of the <br />existing Law of the River and is intended to till in the details of the Colorado River Compact's <br />administration. especially in times of drought. The Agreement merely expresses a policy of <br />cooperation amongst the Seven 8asin States in realizing each state's apportionment of Colorado <br />River water. <br /> <br />Second, the nondelegation doctrine is implicated when the legislature delegates legislative <br />power. The Colorado River Compact requires the Upper Basin to deliver, on average, 7,5 million <br />acre-feet per year to the Lower Basin; however, the Compact does not specify the manner in which <br />the Colorado River System should be managed to ensure the satisfaction of this delivery obligation. <br />In agreeing upon a plan that they belicve best ensures that these delivery obligations will be met, the <br />Agreemcnt binds each state to a statement of policy intended to lllrther the administration of the <br />Compact. See Ben/lett Bear Creek Far/11 Water and Sanitation Dist. 1'. City and COllnty ojDcn\'er, <br />928 P.2d 1254, 1268 (Colo, 1996) (stating that one of the tlmctionsofa legislative body is policy <br />making). If this statement of policy is deemed legislative in nature, the non delegation doctrine <br />applies. <br /> <br />I fit applies, the doctrine merely prohibits the General Assembly from delegating legislative <br />power to an executive agency without sufficient standards to guide the agency's exercise of that <br />power. See Cottrell v. City & County ojDenver, 636 P.2d 703 (Colo. 1981) (noting that only the <br />most "broad and general standards" are necessary to guide the administrative action); see also People <br /> <br />5 <br />