Trial Brief Case No. 02CW38 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

General Assembly specifically stated that such determinations are entitled to a presumption of validity. § 37-92-305(13). In other contexts, the exercise of an agency's statutory duties and powers aze presumed to be valid (even if not specifically stated in the d authorizing statutes, as here). See e. . Moore v. District Court In and For City an County of Denver, 518 P.2d 948, 951 (Colo. 1974). Here, the General Assembly granted the CWCB authority to make "recommendations [that] would only be overturned if they were found arbitrary and capricious." (Co-Sponsor Senator Entz, Transcript of SB 216, Second Reading, May 3,2001, p. 1, attached hereto as Exhibit B, emphasis added). During the hearings on SB 216 wherein the Board's role was discussed, Senator Perlmutter explained that a"rebuttable presumption is stronger than an advisory suggestion" by the CWCB. (Senator Perlmutter, p. 3, Exhibit B). The CWCB determinations would be "taken by the courts as true and accurate and appropriate, somebody then comes in, has the burden, the burden then is on anybody else to try to overturn what the CWCB has said." Id. "So you made it hazder, so it is not advisory, you made it harder for the objectors to complain about the CWCB suggestions or decisions." Id. "This is not an advisory kind of report given by the CWCB, but it is, it has a lot of evidentiary weight that the court will take as true and accurate unless even greater evidence comes by the other folks." Id. While there is no other legislative scheme similaz to SB 216, the issue of "presumptive validity" arises frequently in the law. The efFect of the "presumptively valid" determination means that the determiriations must be upheld unless the Applicant provides clear and convincing evidence showing that those determinations were in error beyond a reasonable doubt. Bird v. City of Colorado Springs, 489 P.2d 324, 325-26 6