Laserfiche WebLink
of the state as referenced in paragraph (a) <br />of subsection (1) of this section . . . . <br />§ 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(I) —(V). Considering these factors and its <br />written factual findings, the CWCB then must determine what <br />recommendation it will make to the water court concerning the <br />RICD application. § 37- 92- 102(6)(b). And, "[f]ollowing a <br />public hearing, if requested by any party, the [B]oard shall <br />make . . . a final recommendation as to whether the application <br />should be granted, granted with conditions, or denied." § 37- <br />92 -102 (6) (a) . <br />Once the CWCB has completed its review, the application is <br />returned to the water court, along with the factual findings and <br />final recommendation of the CWCB, for adjudication: "[w]ithin <br />ninety days after the filing of statements of opposition, the <br />[B]oard shall report its findings to the water court for review <br />pursuant to section 37 -92- 305(13). The [B]oard may defend such <br />findings through participation in the water court proceedings." <br />§ 37 -92 -102 (6) (c) . <br />3 The CWCB also must consider "[s]uch other factors as may be <br />determined appropriate for evaluation of recreational in- channel <br />diversions and set forth in rules adopted by the board, after <br />public notice and comment." § 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(VI). No <br />additional factors have been set forth in rules adopted by the <br />CWCB pursuant to this provision. As a result, we refer <br />inclusively to the statutory factors as the "five" factors <br />throughout this opinion. <br />13 <br />