Laserfiche WebLink
When an appellant challenges an agency's findings of fact, the Court must determine <br />whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency's decision. <br />Lawley, 36 P.3d at 1247. The Court may not set aside an agency's decision unless there is no <br />substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support that decision. Rigmaiden v. Colo. Dept. <br />of Health Care Policy & Fin., 155 P.3d 498 (Colo. App. 2006). "Substantial evidence" is the <br />quantum of probative evidence sufficient to support the agency's conclusion, without regard to <br />the existence of contradictory evidence. Id. In reviewing administrative action, "substantial <br />evidence is the same as competent evidence." United Fin. Credit v. Colo. Collection Agency <br />Bd., 892 P.2d 446, 448 (Colo. App. 1995). "No competent evidence" means that the agency <br />decision "is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and <br />capricious exercise of authority." Widder v. Durango Sch. Dist. No. 9 -R, 85 P.3d 518, 527 <br />(Colo. 2004). <br />The findings of an administrative Board as to the facts shall be conclusive if supported by <br />substantial evidence. § 32 -33- 128(2); Bodaghi, 995 P.2d at 303. <br />B. The Board Considered all Factors Required by the Act and Substantial Evidence <br />Supports the Approving PR -6 <br />The decision of the Board and Division to approve PR -6 is supported by substantial <br />evidence on the record when considered as a whole and, as an agency with considerable <br />expertise in the areas of soil conservation, water resources, farming techniques, and mining <br />operations, its conclusions should be given great deference. Colo. Envtl. Coal., 875 F. Supp. 2d <br />at 1244. After review of written evidence and consideration of testimony presented at the <br />November 17, 2010 hearing, the Board found that PR -6 complies with, and in some instances <br />12 <br />