Laserfiche WebLink
In recomml,-nding to the water court whether an application should be granted, granted <br />with conditions, oi- denied, the CWCB is directed to consider the 102(6)(b) factors, and only <br />those factors, and :make written findings thereon. C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6)(b). Nf;vertheless, the <br />CWCB did not mfilce any findings on these factors with respect to the applicatian actually <br />submitted by the applicant in this case. Instead, it made findings as if the application had been <br />for a 250 c.f.s. RICD. By so-doing, the CWCB acted outside the scope of its aizthority and left it <br />to the water court to apply the 102(6)(b) factors to the application, without any guidance from <br />the CWCB. The water court recognized this dilemma prior to making its own pa.instaking <br />findings on each one of the factors. Concerning the AMlication for Water RiQhts of U_pper <br />Gunnison River `Vater Conservancy District in Gunnison Countv, Findings of Fact. Conclusions <br />of Law and Orde:r, p. 15 (December 26, 2003). <br />As no sta: tutory authority exists to consider any other factors when evalua.ting the amount <br />of an RICD, the water court must approve the amount of the RICD requested by the applicant, if <br />each of the I02(6)(b) factors has been satisfied, subject to the longstanding prohibition against <br />waste and specul.ation that apply to any water right. In this case, the water court found, after <br />considering a11 of the evidence on the record, that the factors were satisfied a1. the amount of <br />water requested by the applicant, the appropriation of that amount would not result in waste, and <br />there was no evidence of speculation. <br />Applyin;; the S.B. 216 definition of an RICD in this case, the water aourt found that <br />"[t]he counterMance under traditional water law would be that there can be no speculative use. <br />or waste. The court concludes that this is still the standard which tlus Court must apply. Based <br />on the discussic?n above, the Court is persuaded and fmds that the amount sought in this instance <br />18