Laserfiche WebLink
absence of a legisl.-itively established standard, the "status arbd strength of a rebwttable <br />presumption varies according to the force of the policies which motivate a court or legislature to <br />create it and ... thcre are no Universal rules as to the amount of evidence necessary to overcome <br />a rebuttable presur.aption ..." Denver PublishinQ Co. v. City of Aurora, 896 P.2d 306, 319, <br />uotin Tafova v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 884 F.Zd 1330, 1336 (1e Cir. 1989). <br />The concept of a rebuttable presumption is not foreign to water rights de:terminations. <br />For example, failure for a period of ten (10) yeazs or more to apply water to a beneficial use to <br />water available under a water right creates a rebuttable presumption of abandonment of that <br />water right. See § 37-92-402(11). Because the legislature has not defined wha:t evidence is <br />required to rebut the CWCB facts, the court should presume that the legislature was <br />knowledgeable of the standazds for evaluating rebuttable evidence contained in common law <br />, <br />decisions under tYie Water Rights Administration Act. See People v. the Citv of Thornton et al <br />775 P.2d 11, 18, 1.9 n.7 (Colo. 1989). "[iJ]nless it otherwise provides, the legislature is presumed <br />to adopt the construction that prior judicial decisions have placed on particular language <br />when ... employ-ld in subsequent sta.tutes." Id. at 19. Accordingly, it is apprc?priate for the <br />court to apply the same standard used to rebut the presumption of abandonment to rebut the <br />fmdings of the C'iUCB. In the abandonment cases, the standard applied by the court is <br />"sufficient evideiice" to rebut the presumption. Southeastem Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. <br />Twin Lakes Assc?ciates, Inc., 770 P.2d 1231, 1237 (Co1o. 1989). <br />As part o:Eits contention that the CWCB fmdings must be upheld unle:>s ttae applicant <br />provides "at leas-t cleaz and convincing evidence," the CWCB cites a series of'cases that address <br />the deference that should be afforded to agency findings in a quasi judicial setting. These cases, <br />20