Laserfiche WebLink
sensible effect to all of its parts, Bd. of County Comm is, <br />Costilla County v. Costilla County Conservancy Dist. 88 P.3d <br />1188, 1192 (Colo. 2004) (quoting People v. Luther 58 P.3d 1013, <br />1015 (Colo. 2002)); see also Mountain City Meat Co. v. Oqueda <br />919 P.2d 246, 253 (Colo. 1996) ( "`If separate clauses in the <br />same statutory scheme may be harmonized by one construction, but <br />would be antagonistic under a different construction, we should <br />adopt that construction which results in harmony. ") (quoted in <br />Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Bill Boom Inc. 961 P.2d 465, 470 (Colo. <br />1998)) . <br />Turning first to the plain language of section 37 -92 -102 as <br />codified from SB 216, see, e.g. In re 2000 -2001 Dist. Grand <br />Jury 97 P.3d at 924, it is clear that the CWCB must review a <br />RICD application, including the plans put forth and the proposed <br />use of the water right, strictly as submitted by the applicant. <br />First, section 37- 92- 102'(6)(a) directs the CWCB to make findings <br />of fact and a final recommendation with respect to "the <br />application." Next, section 37- 92- 102(6)(b) requires the CWCB <br />to evaluate the five statutory factors with respect to "such <br />application." Thus, the CWCB is limited to review of an <br />application on its face; nothing in either statutory provision <br />allows the CWCB to look beyond the stream flow claimed or the <br />recreation experience intended by an applicant when reviewing a <br />16 <br />