Laserfiche WebLink
} . <br /> ? <br />is to the findings to -be made by the CWCB as set forth in C.R.S. 37-92- <br />102(6)(b)(I)-(V).) <br />In further proceedings after issuance of the mandate, Applicant has <br />advocatecl that this Court find that three of the five statutory factors have been <br />resolved, both by the CWCB and the trial court in this matter, ancJ therefore, <br />according to the law of the case doctrine, need not be further considiared. As to <br />the remaining two issues, compact impairment and maximum utilization, they <br />urge this Cwourt to direct the CWCB that no new evidentiary hearing is required, <br />that the C:WCB need only to consider the evidence in the existing record, and <br />apply the Supreme Court's directions. They further request that this order of <br />remand d(afine the scope and timing of further proceedings before the CWCB. <br />The Colorado River Water Conservation District supports thE: position of <br />the Applic.ant, and further noting specifically that the CWCB should c;onsider the <br />claim presented by the Applicant, and not suggest that a new hearinci is required <br />because of stipulations reached, as in this instance, between the Applicant and <br />the River District, following the hearing before CWCB but before trial. <br />The CWCB argues that the position taken by the Applicant is; contrary to <br />the remand order from the Colorado Supreme Court, wherein remiand was to <br />consider all five statutory factors, not just two, that telling the C\PJCB how to <br />proceed would be violative of the constitutional provisions for sE:paration of <br />powers, and it would be inappropriate for this Court to require findings and <br />recommendations on or before July 18, 2005.