Laserfiche WebLink
>[2] An administrative regulation must further the will of the General Assembly <br />and may not modify or contravene an existing statute. > Miller International, Inc. v. <br />State, 646 P.2d 341 (Colo.1982). Hence, if the statute unambiguously expresses the <br />legislative intent upon the issue under consideration, that intent is controlling and is not <br />subject to modification by the agency. > Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources <br />Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). <br />>[3] However, if the legislative intent with respect to the subject of the <br />agency rule is not clear and the statute may reasonably bear the interpretation adopted by <br />the agency, its regulation will be upheld, unless it can be said to be arbitrary, capricious, <br />or clearly inconsistent with the statute. > Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources <br />Defense Council, Inc., supra; > Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Colorado, Inc. v. <br />Colorado Department of Revenue, 919 P.2d 894 (Colo.App.1996). <br />961 P.2d 1158, Colorado Div. of Ins. v. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co., (Colo.App. 1998) <br />------------ Excerpt from page 961 P.2d 1160 <br />INTENT <br />WHEREFORE, the CWCB and the Engineers, hereby respectfully request that <br />this Court order the Applicant to file its response to this Motion, and to grant this Motion <br />for Continuance of Trial and vacate the trial date of the week of September 15, 2003. <br />The Legisalture expressed a clear intent to limit instream uses to the careful oversight of <br />the CWCB, instead of the whims of the appropriator. The Applicant argues that "the <br />amount of water for a recreational in-channel diversion is necessarily determined with <br />20