Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />Upper Gunnisoiz River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />Here, however, the CWCB's "Findings and Recommendations" contain no identified findings <br />of evidentiary fact. Rather, its findings concerning compact impairment, maximum utilization, and <br />"minimum stream flow necessary to provide a reasonable recreation experience" are ultimate <br />conclusions involving mixed questions oflaw and fact. SeeFederico v. Brannan Sand & GYavel Co., <br />788 P.2d at 1272. No presumption should be applied to these findings as they are not fmdings of <br />fact.13 <br />Notably, even if the CWCB's findings on the issues of compact impairxnent and maximum <br />utilization were characterized as findings of fact to which a rebuttable presumption applied, the <br />District does not disagree with the conclusion that there is no compact impairment at the CWCB's <br />conditioned flow rate of 250 cfs or with the conclusion that maximum utilization is promoted at that <br />rate. The problem is that the District's application did not request these flow rates, and, in making <br />fmdings concerning flow rates of 250 cfs, the CWCB went beyond the scope of the duty delegated <br />to it by the plain language of SB 216. <br />13 The CWCB admitted as much with regard to compact impairment and maximum <br />utilization in its motion in lixnine, which sought to exclude the expert opinions of Mr. Lochhead <br />and Mr. Kuhn on these topics because they would be offering impermissible opinions on legal <br />issues, thereby usurping the province of the court. Though the court properly rejected the <br />CWCB's motion in limine, the motion supports the proposition that the CWCB's findings on <br />issues of compact impaixment and maximum utilization are not purely factual. Thus, no <br />presumptive effect should be accorded the CWCB's fmdings on the issues of compact impairment <br />and maximum utilization. <br />-28-