Laserfiche WebLink
that do not exist for pre-SB 216 water rights, such as the limit to the minimum stream flow <br />for a reasonable recreation experience. <br />IV. THE WATER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT <br />PROPER DEFERENCE TO THE CWCB'S FINDINGS. <br />A. The Findings and Recommendations are presumptively valid. <br />The CWCB's Findings and Recommendations are presumptively valid. Under <br />section 37-92-305(13), C.R.S. (2004), "[a]11 findings of fact contained in the <br />recommendation of the Colorado water conservation board shall be presumptive as to such <br />facts, subject to rebuttal by any party." Based upon this, the Appellee argues that "it <br />approaches the frivolous" to argue that the CWCB Findings and Recommendations "together <br />are to be given presumptive weight by the trial court." (Brief, p. 23). However, section 37- <br />92-305(16) clarifies that the Water Court must consider the CWCB's recommendation as <br />presumptively valid, subject to rebuttal by any party. Specifically, section 37-92-305(16) <br />states that "[t]he board's recommendation shall become a part of the record to be considered <br />by the water court as provided in subsection (13) of this section." (Emphasis added). <br />Further, section 37-92-305(16) also states that the applicant must submit it application to the <br />CWCB "for review and recommendation." Similarly, under section 37-92-102(6)(b), C.R.S. <br />(2004), the CWCB is required to "recommend that the water court grant, grant with <br />conditions, or deny such application." <br />The Appellee agrees that the CWCB was given a role "in reviewing each RICD <br />application and making a recommendation thereon to the water court." (Brief, p. 12). The <br />CWCB's role of "reviewing each RICD application and making a recommendation thereon <br />12