ISFAPP00648 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f ! I I I Tho Court, in considering the statute~ establishing the Vater Conservation Bo~.rd, C.R.S. 1973, 37-60-]")], at SC'j" the Division of Wildlife, C.R.S. 1973, 33-1-101; et. se'!., and th" Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, C.R.S. 1973, 33-5-101, 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 an~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- corne the statutory presumption:] contained in C.R.S. 1973, 2-4-201, and. further that the terms "reasonablell, "necessaryll and "minimum" have been found 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. GiordanCl, 173 Colo. 567, (1971). VII. The Court concludes that the agency'!> determinations as set forth in the stipu1atiol', of facts, raragra"h 3, are reasonable, within its scope of authority and expertise and appropriate as an administrative inter~retation of the 10gi5- lative standards providea. The Court also concludes that thu members and staff of the Board acted within the scope of their authority and that they have properl)' discharged t'.eir duties, there being no shO\dng to the contrary by objectors to over- come that presumption. ColoraJo Springs v. District Court; lC,t, Colo. 177 (1974) and PUC v. District Court, 163 Colt., .~G2 (19f7). VIII. The Water Conservation Boardls request for reconmienda- tions from the Division of Wildlife and the Division of Parks and Recreation satisfies the requirements of C.R.S.1973,37-92-102(3