Designation of Additional Items Included in Record on Appeal: Case No. 04SA44

Home Browse Search

' 4 matters by the Party's own evidence - therefore, cross-examiuation is not necessary. However, the Hearing Coordinator noted that her decision was only a recommendation to the CWCB, and that the Applicant is free to renew the request to the CWCB at the start of the hearing. (b) As cz corollary to the first request, the Applicant requests that the Colorado Rules of Evidence apply at the hearing. Based on her response to the first request, the Hearing Coordinator said she would also recommend that this request be denied as unnecessary. (c) The Applicant requests an opportunity to denose certain witnesses identi, f'ied by the CWCB staff because to date the Applicant was unable to fully understand the grounds for the CWCB staff's objections. Ms. Covell and the CWCB staff representatives noted that they are scheduled to meet on September 5 for an informal discussion of the application and the CWCB staff s objections to it. The Hearing Coordinator said that the request to take depositions would be deferred, and could be renewed if the Applicant believes after the meeting that the CWCB staff's grounds for obj ection are unclear. Based on a request by Ms. Schneider for the CWCB staff, the Hearing Coordinator agreed that the CWCB staff could also request an opportunity to depose the Applicant's witnesses after the meeting if the CWCB staff is unclear as to the Applicant's position. 2. Undisputed Issues. The Parties participating in the prehearing conference agreed - that the following issues are undisputed: (a) The Applicant District, a water conservancy district, is an entity designated by SB 216 as entitled to appropriate a recreational in.-channel diversion (RICD). (b) The RICD is located approximately 150 miles upstream of the state line. (c) The reach of the RICIJ extends approximately one-quarter mile within the channel of the Gunnison River. (d) There are no existing instream flow water rights in the proposed RICD reach, or any affected downstream reach of the Gunnison River. While there are other issues that the Applicant believes axe undisputed, nevertheless the other Parties present and the CWCB staff wanted to have the Applicant establish those issues at the hearing and therefore didn't agree to list them as "undisputed." 3. Participation at the Hearing. Because the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association (LTVWUA) d.id not submit a prehearing statement or participate in the prehearing conference, the WWUA will not be assigned a specific opportunity to present evidence at the hearing, but may make a presentation during the "Public comments" portion of the hearing if it wishes to do so. The City of Gunnison and Spanns rnay also make a presentation during the "Public comments" portion of the hearing if they wish. Gerald Bullock expressed his intention not to make any presentation at the heari.ng (and presumably this statement also included the other pro se Parties who have joined with the Bullocks). However, Mr. Bullock said he would be present during at least a portion of the hearing and would be available at that time for questions from the CWCB