Laserfiche WebLink
(Colo. Ct. App. 2006) ( "In construing a statute and determining legislative intent, we rely on the <br />language of the statute and give the words used their plain and ordinary meaning. "). <br />Third, the Defendants' attempt to manufacture an ambiguity in section 34 -32- 124(7) is <br />unavailing. To create a purported ambiguity, the Defendants assert that Colo. Rev. Stat. <br />§ 34 -32- 124(2) authorizes the Board to issue cease and desist orders if the operator is found in <br />violation of the "Act, notice, permit, or regulation," and that less expansive language is contained <br />in section 34- 32- 124(7). Answer Brief at 62. The Defendants' assertion does not prove an <br />ambiguity in either statute. Fully aware of the difference between permits, the Act, and <br />regulations, as reflected in section 34 -32- 124(2), the legislature limited the scope of <br />section 34- 32- 124(7) to violations of a permit. The legislature took a similar approach in Colo. <br />Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 124(6)(a), which authorizes permit suspension, modification, and revocation <br />only if "violation of a permit provision has occurred." No ambiguity therefore exists in Colo. <br />Rev. Stat. § 34 -32- 124(7). See Tatum v. Basin Resources, Inc., 141 P.3d 863, 870 -71 (Colo. Ct. <br />App. 2005) ( "Courts may not interpolate into a statute words that it does not contain, or extract a <br />meaning which is not expressed by it. "). <br />Fourth, because the language of section 34 -32- 124(7) is not "unclear or ambiguous," this <br />Court may not look beyond the words of the statute to interpretive rules of statutory construction. <br />Goodale, 78 P.3d at 1107 (rules of statutory construction not applied when statute was neither <br />unclear nor ambiguous); International Truck & Engine Corp., 155 P.3d at 642 -43; cf. Charnes v. <br />Boom, 766 P.2d 665, 667 -68 (Colo. 1988) (court applied rules of statutory construction only after <br />it found the statute was susceptible to more than one meaning). The Defendants' discussion of <br />section 34- 32 -124's title and separate subsections should therefore be disregarded. <br />37 <br />