Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6)(a) states: <br />Following a public hearing ... the [Colorado Water Conservation] <br />Board shall make findings of fact and a final recommendation as to <br />whether the application should be granted, granted with conditions, or <br />denied. (Emphasis added.) <br />C.R.S. § 37-92-305(13),dealing with the standards to be applied by the water court, provides <br />All findings of fact contained in the recommendation of the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board shall be presumptive as to such facts, <br />subject to rebuttal by any party. (Emphasis added.) <br />The lf;gislature twice stated the CWCB's findings of fact were to be presunnptive, not the <br />recommendation. It is sixnply incorrect to contend, as the State does, that the findixigs of fact and <br />recommendation are to be considered as a whole, and that both are to be given presumptive effect <br />by the court. <br />Nor cioes the legislative history support this contention. Were both the; fmdings and <br />recommenda:ion to be adopted by the water court, the CWCB would necessarily acquire exactly the <br />adjudicatory 3.uthority the legislature denied. While the pre-amended version of SB :216 did require <br />the water coLrt to accept the CWCB's fmalrecommendation, subject to review on the: admi.nistrative <br />record by the water judge, using Administrative Procedures Act criteria (See Exhibit _), this was <br />expressly ch?inged in the final version of SB 216. Clearly, only the findings of fa.ct, and not the <br />recommendation, were to be "presumptive" on the water court. See Haines v. Colorado State <br />-30-