(1) Any final rule, order, or determination by the division or the commission, including but not limited to classification of state waters, approval of areawide waste treatment management plans, water quality standards, site approvals, permits, control regulations, enforcement orders, cease-and-desist orders, and clean-up orders, shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with the provisions of this article and article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. All regulations, orders, and determinations of the commission or division shall be adopted, promulgated, or issued in accordance with the provisions of said article 4 of title 24.
(2) Any proceeding for judicial review of any final order or determination of the commission or division shall be filed in the district court for the district in which the pollution source affected is located.
(3) Any proceeding for judicial review of any final rule, order, or determination of the commission or division shall be filed within thirty days after said rule, order, or determination has become final. Rule-making determinations shall become final in accordance with the "State Administrative Procedure Act". Quasi-judicial determinations shall become final upon issuance of such determinations to those parties to the proceedings. The period for filing the action for judicial review shall be stayed while any application for a hearing, rehearing, or reconsideration is pending pursuant to section 25-8-403, and the period during which any such application is pending shall extend the time for filing a proceeding for judicial review an equal length of time.
(4) (a) Except with respect to emergency orders issued pursuant to section 25-8-307, any person to whom a cease-and-desist order, clean-up order, or other order has been issued by the division or commission, or against whom an adverse determination has been made, may petition the district court for a stay of the effectiveness of such order or determination. Such petition shall be filed in the district court in which the pollution source affected is located.
(b) Such petitions may be filed prior to any such order or determination becoming final or during any period in which such order or determination is under judicial review.
(c) Such stay shall be granted by the court if there is probable cause to believe that refusal to grant a stay will cause serious harm to the affected person or any other person, and:
(I) That the alleged violation or activity to which the order or determination pertains will not continue, or if it does continue, any harmful effects on state waters will be alleviated promptly after the cessation of the violation or activity; or
(II) That the refusal to grant a stay would be without sufficient corresponding public benefit.
(5) Any party may move the court to remand the case to the division or the commission in the interests of justice, for the purpose of adducing additional specified and material evidence, and findings thereon; but such party shall show reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence previously before the division or the commission.
(6) If the court does not stay the effectiveness of an order of the commission or division, the court shall enforce compliance with that order by issuing a temporary restraining order or injunction at the request of the commission or division.
Source: L. 81: Entire article R&RE, p. 1325, § 1, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Sage v. Colo Dept of Pub Health, 2020 COA 127 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 12× “) It conceded that venue was governed by section 25-8-404. ¶7 The water division responded with a C.”
State, Dep't of Revenue, Motor Veh. Div. v. Borquez, 751 P.2d 639 (Colo. 1988).
· cites it 6× “However, we reversed the decision of the court of appeals on other grounds and expressly declined to reach the question whether the specification of the court in which a judicial review proceeding is to be commenced under section 25-8-404 limits jurisdiction to that court or…”
Roosevelt Tunnel, LLC v. Norton, 89 P.3d 427 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Roosevelt argues that the CWQCA judicial review provision, § 25-8-404(1), C.R.S.2002, applies to “any final rule, order, or determination by the division or the commission,” but does not refer to the agency’s failure to act.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Cotter Corp., 665 P.2d 598 (Colo. 1983).
· cites it 5× “Cotter does not seriously dispute petitioners’ contention concerning the radioactive-materials license, but argues that the 30-day limitation period of section 25-8-404(3), C.R.S.1973, is applicable to the subsurface-disposal permit (505 permit) because it is the specific…”
Mile High United Way, Inc. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 801 P.2d 3 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “pursuant to § 24-4-106_” *5 The quoted provision was one of several additions and amendments adopted by the General Assembly to specify the manner by which administrative tax determinations are to be judicially reviewed.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8-404(1) — 4 cases
Roosevelt Tunnel, LLC v. Norton, 89 P.3d 427 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
“Roosevelt argues that the CWQCA judicial review provision, § 25-8-404(1), C.R.S.2002, applies to “any final rule, order, or determination by the division or the commission,” but does not refer to the agency’s failure to act.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8-404(2) — 5 cases
State, Dep't of Revenue, Motor Veh. Div. v. Borquez, 751 P.2d 639 (Colo. 1988).
“However, we reversed the decision of the court of appeals on other grounds and expressly declined to reach the question whether the specification of the court in which a judicial review proceeding is to be commenced under section 25-8-404 limits jurisdiction to that court or…”
Sage v. Colo Dept of Pub Health, 2020 COA 127 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“) It conceded that venue was governed by section 25-8-404. ¶7 The water division responded with a C.”
Mile High United Way, Inc. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 801 P.2d 3 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
“pursuant to § 24-4-106_” *5 The quoted provision was one of several additions and amendments adopted by the General Assembly to specify the manner by which administrative tax determinations are to be judicially reviewed.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-8-404(3) — 4 cases
Sage v. Colo Dept of Pub Health, 2020 COA 127 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“) It conceded that venue was governed by section 25-8-404. ¶7 The water division responded with a C.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Cotter Corp., 665 P.2d 598 (Colo. 1983).
“Cotter does not seriously dispute petitioners’ contention concerning the radioactive-materials license, but argues that the 30-day limitation period of section 25-8-404(3), C.R.S.1973, is applicable to the subsurface-disposal permit (505 permit) because it is the specific…”
Roosevelt Tunnel, LLC v. Norton, 89 P.3d 427 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
“Roosevelt argues that the CWQCA judicial review provision, § 25-8-404(1), C.R.S.2002, applies to “any final rule, order, or determination by the division or the commission,” but does not refer to the agency’s failure to act.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.