Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />a copy of its water rights application to the CWCB and obtain from tlie CWCB, follo-wing a public <br />hearing, a fin-al recommendation as to whether the application should be granted, granted with <br />conditions, or denied.10 The water court was required to base its decision on the CWCB's final <br />recommendati.on, which was subject to review on the administrative record using the standards set <br />forth in C.R. S§ 24-4-106(6) and (7) (requiring affirmance ofthe agency action unless, upon a review <br />of the record, the court finds the agency action was arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise unlawful) <br />and on the water court's own de novo review of the question of injury to vested water rights or <br />decreed condi.tional water rights of others." <br />This uritial version did not carry the day, presumably because of concern about the suitability <br />of the CWCB to act in a quasi judicial capacity in these cases.1z The bill was amended to place the <br />decision-making role with the water court (as with traditional water rights) while authorizing the <br />10 See Pre-Amended Senate Bill 01-216 version dated April 24, 2001, attached hereto as <br />Exhibit B. <br />" Id. <br />'Z Coinpare Simpson v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 69 P3d 50, 61 (Colo. 2003) (where the <br />court noted tliat a"proposed but unenacted version of the 1969 Act would have grzulted the State <br />Engineer, instead of the water courts, the authority to approve augmentation plans.... The bill <br />was defeated, however, in large part because of fierce opposition to the considerable amount of <br />power the proposed bill would have vested in the State Engineer"). <br />-8-