Laserfiche WebLink
c. Senator K(sic), on the same date states, "This amendment puts it back <br />the way it was, which it is, it has been for a long time, where the Courts are the ones <br />that make these decisions but it leaves the CWCB in this advisory capacity. <br />Senator Perlmutter responds to that by stating: <br />Just speaking to you solely as someone who tries lawsuits, a rebuttable <br />presumption is stronger than an advisory suggestion or whatever by the <br />CWCB. So basically what happens, whatever the CWCB says is taken by <br />the Courts as true and accurate and appropriate, somebody then comes in <br />has the burden, the burden then is on anybody else to try to overturn what <br />the CWCB has said...But I just want everyone to understand that this is <br />not an advisory kind of report given by the CWCB, but it is, it has a lot of <br />evidentiary weight that the Court will take as true and accurate unless <br />even greater evidence comes by the other folks. <br />d. Finally, at the same hearing on May 7, Rod Kuharich, director of the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board states as follows, <br />The recommendations have the rebuttable presumption, which the burden <br />of proof is not a very stringent burden of proof. It's not the way the bill <br />started out originally, which was arbitrary and capricious. So that the <br />burden of proof is more reasonable in this process where both parties <br />actually have the ability to present evidence to the Court. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />1. The Court's analysis must begin with the express language of SB 216. <br />The statute does the following: <br />a. Defines a RICD (§ 37-92-103(10.3) <br />b. Recognizes RICD as a beneficial use of water (§ 37-92-103(4)); <br />c. Specifies who may seek a RICD (§ 37-92-102(5)); <br />12