Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />0 <br />further restrictions with the Colorado River District, for, the reasons more fully <br />explained in the River District's brief, do not compel a new hearing. See <br />generally Colorado Board of State Examiners v. McCroskev, 940 1:1.2d. 1094 <br />(Colo. Appi. 1996) <br />The? Court is persuaded, however, that it is inappropriate for the Court to <br />tell the C'WCB when it shall issue its findings and recommendatiions. See <br />Envirotest Svstems Corp. v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 109 P,2d 142, <br />(Colo.200!5), relying on Colorado Health Facilities Review Council v. District <br />Court, 689, P.2d 617 (Colo. 1984). Stated differently, the Court is persuaded that <br />a briefing schedule (based on legal argument and references to the record novv <br />. <br />available) on the two disputed issues should be established by the CVUCB. From <br />that recorci the CWCB, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling, should make <br />determinations as to the two disputed 102(6)(b) factors. <br />ThE: Court is persuaded that this is consistent with the posit:ions of the <br />parties through trial on this matter, the law of the case, judiciall economy, <br />minimizincI the cost and burden to all of the tax-paying entities involved in this <br />litigation, and is consistent with the separation of powers with respect to the <br />functions of the CWCB under the statutory construct of Senate Bill 216, and the <br />remand order from the Colorado Supreme Court. <br />Thi: Court orders as follows: <br />1. This matter is remanded to CWCB for factual findings on the two <br />contested 102(6)(b) factors, consistent with the stipulations of the pEirties in this <br />case.