Laserfiche WebLink
met. Naturally this is incentive for the applicant to supply additional information under Rule <br />8. Relative to "postponement" of an application, there is a statutory deadline by which the <br />Recommendation is to be forwarded to the water court. (NCWCD, CSU) <br />b CWCB does not have authority to deny application for lack of information. The CWCB <br />should be able to continue the application process until it obtains information necessary to <br />make its findings up to the point the statue requires finding and recommendation be made, <br />which is 90 days. If a completeness determination were made in the beginning of the process <br />before the application was officially accepted, there should not be many situations where <br />information is inadequate by the time the Board makes its findings. (NWCCOG -QQ) <br />b If CWCB does not have adequate information to make the findings required by SB 216, it <br />should note that in its submission to the water court. It should not simply recommend denial <br />or postponement of an application due to lack of information because it will be perceived as a <br />punitive action against an applicant. It is the CWCB's responsibility to comply with the time- <br />line established in the statute, and the applicant should not be punished for CWCB's inability <br />to compile the necessary information within the allotted time. (CRWCD) <br />b Rule 16 does not identify who may submit a petition for a "waiver," when such a petition <br />may be filed, what a petition must contain, upon whom a petition must be served, the review <br />to which a petition will be submitted, or the standards that must be satisfied for a petition to <br />be granted (and as such fails many of Gunnison County's 'tests'). As written, Rule 16 wouldl <br />permit the Board or the Hearing Coordinator to make an ad hoc decision, without notice or <br />hearing, to waive an "procedural" requirement. Since the draft as written includes significant <br />substantive requirements and standards in its rubric of "procedural" requirements, this section <br />also is an extraordinarily broad authorization for wholesale waiver of substantive <br />requirements. The Rule invites arbitrary and capricious decision making. (Gunnison County) <br />17, VARIANCES <br />Upon written petition, the Board or the Hearing Coordinator may grant a variance from any <br />procedural requirements of these Rules if strict application of these Rules, taking into account <br />the interests of all parties and the Applicant, would be unfair. <br />}► The Staff recommends removal of this Rule. <br />b Modify by adding "prior to the hearing or oral request at the hearing" after "Upon written <br />petition ". An applicant or a party may want a variance "at the time of the hearing" and hence <br />a written petition may not be a workable solution. (NCWCD, CSU) <br />Needs clarification. Not clear who may file for a variance or how the Hearing Coordinator <br />will decide to grant a variance. Will notice be required? As written, it invites arbitrary and <br />capricious decision - making, nor is it clear if the CWCB has authority to grant a variance. <br />(NWCCOG -QQ) <br />b It remains unclear what an applicant has to provide to avoid the denial determination in Rule <br />17. It is respectfully suggested that the rules provide clarification regarding what the <br />definition of "adequate information" is. It would also be helpful if the rules required that the <br />CWCB provide notice to applicants regarding the specific information they are seeking to <br />comply with Rule 17. (UGRWCD) <br />23 <br />