Response to Applicant's Position Concerning Scope and Timing of Remand Proceedings

• File Number: 8230.2B2
• Description: Discovery
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 4
• Date: 5/31/2005
• Author: J. Steven Patrick
• Title: Response to Applicant's Position Concerning Scope and Timing of Remand Proceedings
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Court Documents

DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 4
MONTROSE COUNTY, COLORADO
1200 N. Grand Ave., Bin A
Montrose, CO 81401-3146
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER
RIGHTS OF UPPER GUNNISON WATER
CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
1N GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO
? COURT USE ONLY ?
Attorneys for the State of Colorado:
Case No. 02CW38
JOHN W. SUTHERS, Attorney General
SUSAN J. SCHNEIDER, Assistant Attorney General Div. /Crtrm.
Attorney Reg. No. 19961 *
JENNIFER MELE, Assistant Attorney General
Attorney Reg. No. 30720*
1525 Sherman Street, Sth Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: [phone] & [phone] ..
*Counsel of Record
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S POSITION STATEMENT CONCERNING SCOPE
AND TIMING OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CWCB
The Colorado Water Conservation Board (the "CWCB" or "the Board") through
its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Response to Applicant's Position Statement
Concerning Scope and Timing of Remand Proceedings Before the CWCB.
On May 17, 2005, the Applicant submitted a Position Statement Concerning
Scope and Timing of Remand Proceedings Before the CWCB. In the document, the
Applicant asked the Court to remand the case to the CWCB with directions that: (1) the
CWCB only consider two of five statutory factors; (2) the CWCB only consider the
existing record; (3) that the CWCB could not hold a new evidentiary hearing but rather
consider only briefs with cites to the old hearing record; and (3) the CWCB issue its
Findings and Recommendations on July 18, 2005 (the date another RICD hearing is
being held).
The State argued against this request orally on May 17, 2005, and respectfully
submits this written argument against this Court ordering the CWCB to enact certain
procedures for its hearings. While a court may tell an agency what legal issues it may
substantively consider, Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River
Water Conservancv District, 109 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2005) ("Gunnison"), a court should not
dictate what procedures an agency should use during such hearing. See e•g• Chonoski v.
State, Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Div., 699 P.2d 416 (Colo. App. 1985)
(inappropriate for court to prohibit an agency from conducting further proceedings)e
-77',