ISFAPP00048 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. i The Court, in considering the statutes establishing the Pater Conservation Bo~.rd, C.R.S. 1l}73, 37-60-11'1J, et SG'-j., the Division of Wilulife, C.R.S. 1973, 33-1-101, et. Ser!., and the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, C.R.S. 1973, 33-5-10l, et. seq., and the provisions of Senate Bill 97, con- cludes that the legislature knew well what it intended, pro- perly delegated the various functions necessary to carry out its intendments and that the delegation and standards are well within the requirements of Fry Roofing, supra, and therefore both proper and constitutional. VI. The Court concludes that the objectors failed to over- come the statutory presumption~ contained in C.R.S. 1973, 2-4-201, and further that the terms ~'reasonable" I "necessary" and "minimurnl' have been fo~nd to be adequate as standards although they are incapable of precise definition. Fry Roofing, supra: Asphalt Paving Co. v, Jefferson County, 162 Colo. 254 (1967): People v. Gioruana, 173 Colo. 567, (1971). VII. The Court concludes that the agency's determinations as set forth in the stipulatiof', of facts, Paragraph 3, are reasonable, ~ithin its scope of authority and expertise anJ appropriate as an administrative inter~retation of the le9i5- lative standards provided. The Court also concludes that th~ members and staff of the Board acted within the scope of their au~hori tl' and that they have properly dischal:yed t'.eir duties, there being no sho~'iny to the contrary by objectors to over- come ~hat presumption* Colorado SpringS v. District Court; 1~4 Colo. 177 (1974) anJ PUC v. District Court, 163 ColG_ 462 (1~r7). VIII. The Water Conservation Board's request for recomn~nda- tions from the Division of Wildlife and the Di'Jision of parks and Recreation satisfies the requirements of C.R.S.1973,37-92-lo2(3 - 7 - ~ .