My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:39 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 1:45:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Peter C. Fleming, Kristin M. Gillespie
Title
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Supreme Court, State of Colorado (Appeal from District Court, Water Division No. 4, Case No. 02CW38) <br />Case No. 04SA44: Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservation District <br />TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />Page <br />D. SB 216 contemplates that the Findings of Fact issued by the CWCB <br />are rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence and that the <br />CWCB's Recommendations are not entitled to any presumptive <br />validity .......................................................17 <br />1. SB 216 provides the CWCB with the authority to make <br />presumptively valid findings only on certain limited <br />factualissues ................................................17 <br />2. A preponderance of the evidence is the correct burden to <br />rebut the CWCB's Findings of Fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 <br />3. Sufficient evidence was presented at trial to overcome any <br />presumption of validity on the matters delegated to the <br />CWCB ....................................................18 <br />V. CONCLUSION .......................................................20 <br />-ii-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.