Rags Over the Arkansas River, Inc. v. Colorado Parks & Wildlife Board, 2015 COA 11M

ROAR challenged the Parks Division's approval of the Christo–Jeanne-Claude Project over the Arkansas River as arbitrary and capricious.
The Project was treated as a
The Parks Board approved the Project through a cooperative agreement with OTR rather than via a Special Activities Permit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board's deviation from the Special Activities Permit regulation render approval arbitrary and capricious?	ROAR argues yes, because regulation was mandatory.	Parks Division says regulation impractical for project size; alternative approval allowed.	Yes for violation of regulation, but harmless error

Coffman v. Colo. Common Cause, 102 P.3d 999 (Colo. 2004) (highly deferential standard and substantial evidence required for agency actions)
Well Augmentation Subdistrict of Cent. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. City of Aurora, 221 P.3d 399 (Colo. 2009) (scope of review for agency actions)
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (agency must follow its own regulations)
Exportale Ltda v. United States, 902 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (rejecting agency action that contradicted its own regulations)
Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) (agency rulemaking limits discretion; due process constraints)
Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 (1959) (regulatory procedures constraining discretion)
Dulles v. Hopkins?, 354 U.S. 363 (1957) (regulations constrain broad statutory discretion)
Chase v. Colo. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 2012 COA 94, 284 P.3d 161 (Colo. App. 2012) (court defers to agency interpretation only if consistent with regulation)
Gessler v. Colo. Common Cause, 2014 CO 44, 327 P.3d 232 (Colo. 2014) (primary look to plain language when interpreting regulations)
Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576 (2000) (no deference to agency interpretations inconsistent with its rules)