Laserfiche WebLink
aren't defined. So still open ended exercise for applicant. What they must go through to meet <br />process. <br />RK other factors I looked at as both sides. For applicant their favor. <br />David: statutue says rules will identify other factors. So all should be identified in rules not <br />another door that's open ended that either side doesn't know what it means. <br />Laurie Zaterfeld: policy question. Why cwcb want to chart course that conflicts with court. Sep <br />adjuication process. On applicant and objectors. Prepare one case for cwcb see what happens <br />there, then water court. Can be enhanced by water court. See something similar to what engineer <br />does and summarizes efficiently. Why can't cwcb do that when not part of case. Cwcb can come <br />into adjuicatory process in court and <br />RK statute gives us the authority to do just what complaining about. Applicants could be better <br />served by coming to us first rathr than facing in court. <br />LZ agree that statute. But how far want to go to set up process outside adjudication. <br />RK not ornerous... envision problems issues from golden vail breck, not nec aspen, has set water <br />community on rear with this. Response legislature crafted to deal with situation. Have to deal <br />with this as best we can. If it is parallel process. Second part go lots faster if just repitive. <br />Personally don't think it'll be as onerous as think. Predisoposition on part of water board to come <br />to mutual agreement. <br />TK point out state engineers. Thought cwcb could play that role first. But way leg crafted throws <br />us into need for hearing which is diff from state engineer. Could be that no hearing is requested <br />and party and objectors might not have to go through. Leg requires us to have hearing if <br />requested. But ways we can make it more user friendly or encourage people not to go to hearing. <br />Happy to tak comment on ideas. <br />Jeff Help: as go through process have to be aware of impact that finding s and rec have on adj <br />process in water court b/c become presumptively correct and burden to applicant to over come <br />that. Second admin level. So water court do simultaneously an appeal of an admin decision. As <br />look at criteria and refine rules concerning what use to make recommendation be careful abt <br />presumption carries over to water court. <br />Rk why important for both parties to work together. More mutual agreement better offf. <br />Jeff. notion of leaving in other criteria is bad idea <br />RK have that starred. Good point. <br />Eric Kuhn: prohibits changing conditional. Rules don't affect applicant filing for conditional <br />water right. Big hole in rules and regs. Missing piece. Diff btwn changing conditional and <br />applying for conditional. <br />