Upper Gunnison's Response to Staff Memorandum Regarding Briefing Schedule and Deadlines

Home Browse Search

Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District 02CW038 The staff memorandum fails to mention that CWCB attorney Susan Schneider has filed a motion for reconsideration or clarification of Judge Patrick's remand order. She has asked the judge to allow the very procedure staff requests, presumably because she agrees that procedure is contrary to the remand order. The motion has not yet been ruled on. Unless that motion is granted, the water court's remand order is controlling, and this Board will violate the court order if it adopts the staff recommendation and allows another evidentiary proceeding. To avoid violating the court order, this Board should not adopt the staff's recommendation concerning additional evidentiary proceedings. Rather, it should establish a briefing schedule and time frame for issuing revised findings and recommendation that is consistent with the remand order. If the water court grants the pending motion for ' reconsideration and allows presentation of additional evidence at a hearing, the Board may then consider whether it wishes to receive such additional evidence as well. In either case, this Board must still proceed in a timely manner within the spirit of Senate Bill 216 ( "SB 216 "). Although the remand order says that "it is inappropriate for the Court to tell the CWCB when it shall issue its findings and recommendations," the Board is not thereby given license to exceed reasonable time limits that are inconsistent with SB 216. Upper Gunnison suggested in its initial request that the parties submit simultaneous briefs in time for the CWCB Board to issue its findings and recommendation by September 14, 2005, a -2-