PUB00150 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\, The nature of the ohligations incurred. :)'eL' Finne\', ~{\(J P.2d at 11 :-\2. Of specilic interest is whether the agrecmcnt crcates any new agencies or l'ngralts new or separate functions onto existing agencies and \\'hether ncw rules and regulations would be necessary to implemcnt the agrecmcnt. See it!. at II R3-1184, .., Thc cxtcntto \vhich the actions of the (Iovernor have prcvcnted the General Asscmbly fwm accomplishing its constitutionally assigned function. ,')'L'l' Johnson. 904 P,2d at n. 3. Whether thc (iovernor's actions would directly contravene the will of the General Asscmbly regarding the subject matter addressed by the agreement. .':J'ee id at 24. 4. The state's historic practiee in entering into interstate agreements. See id. Hcre, if the Seven f3asin States Agreement is not seen as simply administrative, then it is morc likely that the Agrcement imposes new legislative obligations upon the State of Colorado. If that were the case, then pursuant to these factors the Agreement may invade the authority of the legislative branch. With respect to the lirst l~lctor, if the Agrecment imposes new non-administrative obligations upon thc Statc, the terms of thc Agreement could indicate that legislative obligations may bc inculTcd by entcring into the Agreement. Existing state agcncies may need to take responsibility for augmentation and systcm efticiency projects. With respect to the second factor, if the Agreement imposes new non-administrative obligations upon the Statc, the Agreement arguably prevents the General Assembly from making poliey which arguably belongs to the legislature-policy regarding Colorado River Intcrim Operations and the State's ability to sue other Basin States. The third bctor cannot be analyzed at this time because the will of the General Assembly has not yet becn expressed. With respect to the fourth t~lctor, to the extent thc Agrecment is viewed as administrative, the Agreement seems consistent with Colorado's historical practice of entering into interstatc agreements without legislative ratification. See, e.g., Pot Creck Memorandum of Understanding (interstatc agrcement between Colorado and Utah, signed by each state's state cngineer, II,))" administcring waters of the Pot Creek Basin). To the extent the Agreement is viewed as non-administrative, however, Colorado has historically required legislative approval of non- administrative agreements, including the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado River ( 'ompact. h. Section 37-60-109, C.R.S. is inapplicahle and, in any event, requir'es legislative approval. If the Governor's actions in negotiating the Seven l3asin States Agreement is not viewed as an "administrative" action within the meaning ofC.R,S. ~ 24-1-109, it also could be argued that the Governor has the authority to negotiate and execute the Agreement under C.R.S. ~ 37-60-109. Scction 37-60-109 provides the Governor with the authority to appoint a commissioner to represent the state fix the purpose of ncgotiating 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-(JO-I09, C.R.S.') ') Section 37-60-109(1). CR.S. (2005). provides: The governor, from time to time, with approval of the [Colorado Water Conservation Board], shall appoint a cOlllmissir)//er. who shall represent the state of Colorado upon joint commissions to be composed of commissioners representing the state of Colorado and another state or other states for the purpose of negotiating alld elltering illto compacts or agreemellts between said states, with the consent of the congress when necessary, ascertaining and declaring the authority, interest, or right of the se\'eml siglllltorl' states, or any o/thelll. over. ill, alld to interstate waters, all to the 8