My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Answer to Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW38
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Answer to Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW38
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:46 PM
Creation date
7/30/2009 12:09:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2B3
Description
Pleadings
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
1/1/3000
Author
District Court, Water Division 4
Title
Answer to Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW38
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
each word and phrase used. Colarado Motor Vehicle Dealer Bd. v. Brinker, 39 P.3d <br />1269, 1271 (Colo.App. 2001). <br />The Legislature intended that the CWCB have the authority to make the <br />determination of what would constitute maximum utilization by determining its <br />applicability on a case-by-case basis and by enacting rules. "It is anticipated that under <br />the bill the CWCB will establish further criteria governing such diversion, such as <br />additional guidance upon the appropriate time of day, season of use, length of reach and <br />minimum utilization demands, in order that additional objective benchmarks for judging <br />the propriety of such appropriations are established." (SB2161eg. Stmt DAWN). The <br />CWCB conducted appropriate rulemaking that further defined "maximum utilization". 2 <br />CCR 408-3, Rule 7(e)(vii). The CWCB's rules state that a factor in considering <br />"maximum utilization" is the "flow rate of the proposed RICD", la <br />The interpretation of a statute by the agency charged with enforcement of that <br />statute is entitled to deference. Urbish v. Lamm, 761 P.2d 756 (Colo.1988). Courts <br />faced with interpreting a statute which establishes an agency-administered program must <br />give "significant weight" to the contemporaneous construction of the statute adopted by <br />the administrative officials charged with its enforcement. Adams v. Colorado Dept. of <br />Social Services, 824 P.2d 83, 88 (Colo.App. 1991).; Environmental Defense <br />Fund, Inc. v. Colarado Dept. of Health, 731 P.2d 773, 776 (Colo.App. 1986). Courts <br />must give considerable weight to an agency's interpretation of its own enabling statute. <br />CF & I Steel, L.P. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 949 P.2d 577, 585 (Colo.1997). <br />balanced with the maximum utilization factor: any impacts deternuned under the compact impairment <br />factor can be mitigated as encouraged under the maximum utilization factor." (CB, pp. 25, 27). <br />13
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.