Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />Service Com'n for Fire and Police Dept of City of Aurora v. <br />Leyden, 491 P.2d 1391, 1392 (Colo. App. 1971) (not selected for <br />official publication.) Moreover, "when the statutory language is <br />plain, it should not be subjected to a strained or forced <br />interpretation." Kecn v. Gebhardt, 746 P.2d 1340, 1344 (Colo. <br />1987). <br />The Board and Battle Mountain argue that the Board's <br />interpretation "must be given a great deal of deference." (Board <br />at 9; Battle Mountain at 10.) Such deference, however, is <br />required only where the relevant language is unclear or <br />susceptible of differing interpretations. Shea v. Vial ando, <br />94 S. Ct. 1746, 1754 n. 11, 416 U.S. 251, 263, 40 L. Ed. 2d 120 <br />(1983). None of the Board's or Battle Mountain's fidgeting with <br />the language of the rule or the contents of the application masks <br />the indisputable fact that specific water information is required <br />but not provided. <br />D. The Statutory And Regulatory Schemes Den <br />Significance Of The Rule's Requirements. <br />It is undisputed that the purpose of Rule 2.1.2(8) is to <br />assure compliance with $ 34-32-116(7)(8), C.R.S. (1989 Cum. <br />Supp.), which charges the Board with the responsibility to assure <br />minimum disturbance not only to the hydrologic balance but also <br />to the quality and the quantity of water in surface and ground <br />water systems. Similarly, MLRD Rule 6.2(1), C.C.R. 40"l-1 <br />-7= <br />