Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />The CWCB was delegated the duty of making "findings of fact and a final recommendation <br />as to whether the application should be granted, granted with conditions, or denied." C.R.S. § 37- <br />92-102(6)(a). The application here did not request flow rates of 250 cfs. Therefore, in making <br />findings concerning those flow rates, the CWCB exceeded the scope of its delegated duty. No <br />presumption whatsoever should be applied to fmdings that were not supposed to have been made. <br />The CWCB argues that since the compact impairment and maximum utilization factors refer <br />to the "recreational in-channel diversion," the CWCB must first deterxnine the "minimum stream <br />flow" pursuant to the definition of "recreational in-channel diversion" and then malce findings as to <br />compact impaument and maximum utilization with respect to that ininimum amount. The CWCB <br />then aib es that all these fmdings - on theminimum amount under the defuution of recreational in- <br />channel diversion, on compact impaument as to this minimum amount, and on maximum utilization <br />as to this minimum amount - are presumptive on the court, subject to rebuttal by the applicant. <br />This argument is wrong. First, the "recreational in-channel diversion" referenced in C.R.S. <br />§ 37-92-102(6)(b)(I) and (V) is the diversion claimed by the applicant in the application that the <br />CWCB is required to review pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6). The CWCB's job is to review the <br />application filed by the applicant, including the amounts claimed by applicant, and then to malce <br />findings on the application as filed. In arguing that somehow,the reference to "recreational in- <br />channel diversion" in C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6)(b)(I) and (V) allows it to make an independent, and <br />-29-