Laserfiche WebLink
d. Delineates a procedure (submission to CWCB) for a RICD (§ 37-92-102(6)); <br />and <br />e. Requires CWCB to develop rules and make findings of fact as to delineated <br />factors as well as a recommendation to the Water Court. These fact specific <br />factors are compact impairment, stream reach, access, injury to instream flow <br />rights, maximum utilization and a"catchall" other factors set forth by CWCB in <br />its rules. (§ 37-92-102(6)(b)(I-VI). <br />f. Further, the Water Court is to treat the findings of fact by CWCB as a <br />rebuttable presumption and shall consider the Board's recommendation (§37- <br />92-305)(B). 2. The primary issue before this Court is whefher Applicant has overcome <br />the rebuttabfe presumptian that 250 cfs for ths entire rafting season is the appropriate <br />quantiky of water for its proposed whitewater park recreaticnal use. The Court <br />concludes as follows: . <br />a. The rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of going fonward to the <br />Applicant to demonstrate why the findings of the CWCB shoufd not be <br />followed by the Court. See East Twin Lakes Ditches and Water Works. Inc. v. <br />BOCC of Lake Countv, 76 P.3d 918 (Colo. 2003). (In the context of statutory <br />language of a rebuttable presumption with respect to abandonment of water <br />rights.) See also In re Estate of Schlaqel, 2003 WL 1089612 (Colo.App. <br />March 13, 2003). Finally, Rule 301 of the Colorado Rules of Evidence reads <br />as follows: <br />13