Laserfiche WebLink
yet no where does CES offer any authority or evidence that dis- <br />turbances to the "hydrologic balance" should be read to refer to <br />impacts upon the system of adjudicated water rights. <br />In interpreting the meaning of a statute, the reviewing <br />court should give deference to the meaning given the statute by <br />the administrative officials charged with its enforcement, par- <br />ticularly when the administrative interpretation is <br />long-standing. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 749 P.2d <br />400 (Colo. 1988). The record shows that the meaning urged by CES <br />is contrary to long-standing Board policy (r. v. 3, p. 565). The <br />record also shows that the Board reads the term hydrologic bal- <br />ance to refer to untoward environmental impacts rather than to <br />impacts on privately held water rights. <br />The record clearly demonstrates an exhaustive evaluation by <br />the Board of the likelihood of environmental harm. The applica- <br />tion contains a 56-page discussion of the local hydrology (r. v. <br />6A, pp. 1041-1100). At the hearing, the Board carefully scruti- <br />nized the impact one of the mine pits was likely to have on a <br />nearby acquifer (r. v. 3, pp. 460-466). The record certainly <br />reflects ample evidence to support the Board's determination of <br />minimal disturbance to the hydrologic balance. Accorjingly, the <br />Board's decision must be upheld. <br />-i6- <br />