Source: L. 59: p. 166, §6. CRS 53: § 3-16-6. C.R.S. 1963: § 3-16-6. L. 69: p. 91, § 7.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) applies to the review of rules adopted by the ground water commission. Colo. Ground Water Comm'n v. Eagle Peak Farms, 919 P.2d 212 (Colo. 1996); Parrish v. Water Quality Control Div., 934 P.2d 913 (Colo. App. 1997).

Notice requirements for county liquor license suspension proceedings governed by state provisions. Since the general assembly has not adopted legislation requiring that license suspension proceedings by a county be conducted pursuant to the state APA and since a county does not have statewide jurisdiction, the notice requirements for a county proceeding for the suspension of a liquor license are governed by the state liquor code. Chroma Corp. v. County of Adams, 36 Colo. App. 345, 543 P.2d 83 (1975).

When there is a conflict between provisions of the APA and a specific statutory provision relating to a specific agency, the specific statutory provision is deemed controlling in professional disciplinary proceedings before the board of medical examiners. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Reiner, 786 P.2d 499 (Colo. App. 1989).

No conflict is found between §§ 39-21-105 and 24-4-106 (5) where none plainly appears. Dept. of Rev. v. District Court, 193 Colo. 553, 568 P.2d 1157 (1977).

Air pollution (now air quality) control commission is an "agency" under this section and is subject to the provisions of the state APA. CF&I Steel Corp. v. Colo. Air Pollution Control Comm'n, 199 Colo. 270, 610 P.2d 85 (1980).

Fire and police pension association board is not an "agency" for purposes of the state APA. Ross v. Fire and Police Pension Ass'n, 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986).

County cannot challenge rule promulgated by state board of social services. This article is inapplicable in determining whether a county, through its board of commissioners, while not engaged in rule-making, has standing to challenge a rule promulgated by the state board of social services fixing the salaries of county welfare department employees. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Bd. of Soc. Servs., 186 Colo. 435, 528 P.2d 244 (1974) (decided prior to 1979 amendment of § 24-4-106).

Provisions on marketing orders supersede administrative provisions. The specific procedural requirements for the issuance and administration of marketing orders, as set forth in agricultural marketing act, supersede the general procedure of the administrative code as dictated by stated legislative intent. Shoenberg Farms, Inc. v. People ex rel. Swisher, 166 Colo. 199, 444 P.2d 277 (1968).

Provisions concerning property tax administration in §§ 39-2-117 and 39-2-125 supersede administrative provisions. Colo. Rocky Mtn. Sch., Inc., v. Shriver, 689 P.2d 651 (Colo. App. 1984).

Where provisions of public utilities law and state APA conflict, the former governs. Home Builders Ass'n v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 720 P.2d 552 (Colo. 1986).

The provisions of §§ 1-40-101 and 1-40-102, rather than the provisions of the APA, govern the initiative title setting board's action in fixing the title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary of a proposed initiative measure. In re Proposed Initiative Entitled W.A.T.E.R., 831 P.2d 1301 (Colo. App. 1992).

The initiative title setting review board is not acting in an adjudicative or rule-making capacity when it holds a meeting for designating and fixing a title, ballot title and submission clause, and summary. In this context, it is a special statutory body governed by initiative and referendum statutes rather than the APA. Matter of Title, Ballot Title et al., 831 P.2d 1301 (Colo. 1992).

Administrative provisions inapplicable to board of accountancy proceedings. The notice and hearing requirements of § 24-4-104 (3) are of no significance where there is a specific statutory provision concerning the notice and hearing requirements in proceedings before the board of accountancy. People ex rel. Bd. of Accountancy v. McFarland, 37 Colo. App. 93, 543 P.2d 112 (1975).

Former § 12-2-125(2) (now repealed) required that the person charged be served at least 30 days before the hearing with a written notice stating the nature of the charges against the accused and the time and place of the hearing before the board on such charges. This provision was in conflict with the more detailed notice requirements of the state APA. Therefore, the notice requirements of the former provision controlled. Hentges v. Bartsch, 35 Colo. App. 384, 533 P.2d 66 (1975).

And to city's supplying out-of-city customers with water. Denver's action in supplying customers outside the city does not subject the board of water commissioners to the notice and hearing requirements of § 24-4-105. Cottrell v. City & County of Denver, 636 P.2d 703 (Colo. 1981).

Applied in Lontine v. VanCleave, 483 F.2d 966 (10th Cir. 1973); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 628 P.2d 85 (Colo. 1981); Colo. Water Quality Control Comm'n v. Town of Frederick, 641 P.2d 958 (Colo. 1982); Citizens for Free Enter. v. Dept. of Rev., 649 P.2d 1054 (Colo. 1982).