ISFAPP00648 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

...... ,~.;:... ~.'" ,'. \''' i~:.::~ ,': . tf,;:' , .., {t. . ~,~' . ~;~.' : I. ~ " .'~ . ....{. :-';-'1, ";':. .?"' \'r', :'." <.. '.JI,. ....",~., " it \;, , ,,,,'~'''. ;:' ,.; ,.,. " l....... ::J. " J,i..i,. j:',' ...i\:' '...:.". " ~:' ::v~:..:: --.~ ;!:'\ ... \~:.; ~ 'i( . ...... ., ,', , , ~. . .. ..... ' " ," II. The Court concludes that the objectors'hav~ failed to establish that the statute in question and the acts taken in furtherance thereof are unconstitutional beyond a reason- able doubt, thereby failing to overcome the statutes' pre- 8umptive constitutionality. People v. Gym of America, 177 Colo. 97 (1972), and Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. State of Colorado Department of Health, 179 Colo. 223 (1972). --oJ III. The case Lloyd A. Fry Roofing v. State of Colorado, supra, is the most recent exposition on the question of legis- lative delegation and the issue of adequate standards to guide an administrative agency. The Court is of the opinion that a delegation of functions involving the State's water resources to the Colorado Water Conservation Board is both logical and proper. The Water Conservation Board has expertise in water matters and was given proper guidance by the legislature. The operative words and phrases utilized in Senate BiU 97 have a clear technical meaning and in accordance with C.R.S. 1973, 2-4-101, cannot be found to be either vague or inadequate as standards for the Board's guidance. IV. The legislature intended that the Water Conserva- tion Board seek expert assistance from the Division of w,; Id- life and the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, both agencies having expertise and responsibilities in the area of environment protection and preservation. See Title 33. v. Statutes must be read in pari materia in c~der to determine whether adequate standards ~xist so that e:fect may be given to the legislative intent. I,histler v. Kuckler, 36 Colo. App. 200 (1975) and C.R.S. 1973; 2-4-201.