Laserfiche WebLink
used. See, e.g., United States v. Boisdores Heirs, 49 U.S. 113, 122 (1850) (Chief Justice Taney <br />explaining that, "in expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member <br />of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy. "); Lucero, <br />732 P.2d at 648 (statutory context dictated that the phrase "change in condition' meant "change <br />in mental or physical condition but not economic condition'). Courts should adopt <br />interpretations that give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all parts of a statute. <br />Jefferson County Bd. of Equalization v. Gerganoff, 241 P.3d 932, 935 (Colo. 2010); People v. <br />Dist. Ct., 713 P.2d 918, 921 -22 (Colo. 1986). <br />In the context of the Act, the phrase "any provision of any permit" includes the <br />provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act provides that permits are effective only so long as <br />an operator remains in compliance with the "provisions of this article and rules promulgated <br />pursuant to this article ...." C.R.S. § 34- 32- 109(5)(a) (2010). Since an operator must remain in <br />compliance with the Act and Rules to maintain a valid permit, compliance with the Act and <br />Rules is one of the most fundamental provisions in every permit. Section 109(5)(a) requires that <br />the Board must have the ability to render a permit ineffective for violations of the Act or Rules. <br />The revocation process outlined in section 124(6)(a) provides the only process by which the <br />Board may accomplish this task. That section provides that the Board may revoke permits upon <br />finding a violation of a "permit provision." C.R.S. § 34- 32- 124(6)(a) (2010). Thus, it is <br />apparent that the General Assembly intended that the Act and the Rules amount to "permit <br />provisions." If compliance with the Act is not in fact a permit provision, then sections 109(5)(a) <br />and 124(6)(a) are placed in irreconcilable conflict. The Court should reject a statutory <br />interpretation that creates conflict among the provisions within the Act, in favor of a reasonable <br />10i <br />