Laserfiche WebLink
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by statute or <br />by these rules, a presumption imposes upon the party against whom it is <br />directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the <br />presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the <br />sense of the risk of non-persuasion, which remains throughout the trial <br />upon the party on whom it was originally cast. <br />Accordingly, once CWCB concluded that 250 cfs for the entire rafting season <br />was appropriate, Applicant had the burden of going forward to demonstrate why any <br />greater amount is appropriate. To p{ace any greater burden on Applicant, would move <br />toward the quasi-judicial role for CWCB with an arbitrary and capricious standard of <br />review, which the legislature considered and rejected. The Court concfudes, based on <br />the totality of the evidence presented, that Applicant has met its burden of proof to <br />overcome the rebuttable presumption. <br />2. The second issue is precisely what is entitled to the rebuttable <br />presumption. <br />Here counsel for CWCB acknowledged that there is no specific finding by CWCB <br />that any more than 250 cfs of water would preclude the findings and recommendation it <br />made. Indeed, counsel acknowledged that the same conclusions it reached would be <br />true at 500 cfs. The Court would note that 500 cfs is more water than Applicant <br />requests for 4 of the 10 semi-monthly periods. Rather, it appears that CWCB accepted <br />and pfaced great emphasis and refiance on the course designer's statement that "expert <br />kayakers would be attracted at 250 cfs." <br />From the evidence, it is clear that Lacy, the designer of the course, made a <br />statement that the course, as designed would attract expert kayakers at 250 cfs. As <br />was clear from the balance of his testimony and more so from the testimony of Mark <br />14