Laserfiche WebLink
Before the Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Conceming the Application for Water Rights of the Upper <br />Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />in the Gunnison River <br />in Gunnison County <br /> Case Number: <br /> 4-02CW038 <br />PREHEARING ORDER <br />A prehearing conference in this proceeding was held on Wednesday, August 28, <br />2002 beginning at 1:30 p.m. at the State Services Building, 1525 Sherman Street, Room <br />610, Denver, Coloxado. Hearing Coordinator Felicity Hannay presided. The purpose of the <br />prehearing conference was to establish an agenda for the hearing and to resolve certain <br />other preli.minary matters for the hearing before the Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />"(CtiVCB") scheduled for Tuesday, September 10, 2002 in Gunnisan, Colorado. <br />In attendance at the prehearing conference were the following: Cynthia Covell <br />and Gilbert Marchand for the Applicant Upper Gunnison River Watez Conservancy <br />District (Applicant or Upper Gunnison); Andrew Peternell for Trout Unlimited; Gerald <br />- Bullock (by telephone) for himself and other pro se Parties; Jill McConaughy (by <br />telephone) for the Colorado River Water Conservation District (River District); Allen D. <br />(Dave) Miller (by telephone) pro se; Susan Schneider for CWCB staff; and CWCB staff <br />members Dan McAuliffe, Ted Kowalski, Dan Merriman, and Randy Seaholm. The <br />Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association did not submit a prehearing statement nor <br />participate in the preheaxing conference. Virgil and Lee Spann Ranches, Inc. and Robert <br />and Geraldine Howard (collectively "Spanns") and the City of Gunnison did not <br />participate in the prehearing canference. Ms. Covell informed the Hearing Coordinator <br />that the Applicant had reached stipulations with the City of Gunnison and with Spanns, <br />thereby limiting those parties' further participation in this proceeding. <br />The Hearing Coordinator and the Parties' representatives addressed the following <br />matters: <br />1. Pending Motions. There were rio pending motions. However, Ms. Covell made <br />three oral requests for preliminary decision from the Hearing Coordinator, suminarized as <br />follows along with the Hearing Coordinator's response: <br />(a) Because the CWCB's fzndings aYe given presumptive effect, the Applicant <br />requests that cross-examination of witnesses be permitted at the hearing. The <br />Hearing Coordinator said she would recommend that cross-eYamination not be <br />permitted at the hearing, on the basis that only factual findings (as opposed to <br />conclusions or opinions) are given presumptive effect by the statute (§ 37-92- <br />305(13), CRS), and that any Party would be able to establish and/or rebut factual <br />Rxhibit B