Laserfiche WebLink
does not reach the level of speculation or waste. The CWCB again notes that there is no finding <br />by the CWCB that would suggest that there is." Concerning the Application for Water Rights of <br />Upuer Gunnison River Water Conservancy District in Gunnison Countv. Findinps of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law and Order, p. 20 (December 26, 2003). <br />3. S B 216 only,Sives the CWCB an advisorv role in water court uroceedings bv <br />g,iving it the opportunity to present findings that are Uresumntive, subiect to <br />rebuttal. <br />The CWCB contends that the CWCB Findings and Recommendations must be upheld by <br />this Court unless the applicant provides "at least clear and convincing evidence that they are in <br />error." This is an incorrect statement of the Iaw for two reasons. First, only the factual findings <br />are to be treated by the water court as presumptively valid and subject to rebuttal. Second, these <br />presumptive facts may be rebutted by a preponderance of evidence rather than the "clear and <br />convincing" standard argued by the CWCB. <br />The statute sets forth six findings that the CWCB must make and requires these findings <br />to be reported to the water court. C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6)(b)(I-VI). The CWCB may defend such <br />findings through participation in the water court proceedings. C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6)(c). "All <br />findings of fact contained in the recommendation of the Coiorado Water Conservation Board <br />shall be presumptive as to such facts, subject to rebuttal by any party." § 37-92-305(13). Thus, <br />the CWCB factual findings (not the recommendation) must be treated by the water court as <br />presumptively valid. In contrast, the water court is directed to "consider" the CWCB's <br />recommendation. C.R.S. § 37-92-305(16). <br />When the Water Rights Administration Act of 1969 was amended by S.B. 216, the <br />legislature did not indicate the standard that must be met to rebut the CWCB findings. In the <br />19