Laserfiche WebLink
RICD application. See, e.g. Pierson 48 P.3d at 1218 -19; see <br />Scoggins 869 P.2d at 205. <br />Even the CWCB's own rules, expressly adopted pursuant to <br />section 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(VI) establish that the Board must <br />evaluate an application only as proposed by an applicant. <br />Specifically, the CWCB's rules define the phrase "reasonable <br />recreation experience" as "[a]n experience in and on the water <br />that would allow individuals with suitable skills and abilities <br />relating to the specific recreation activity for which the water <br />right is being sought to partake in that activity. 2 Colo. Code <br />Regs. § 408 -3 (2001) (emphasis added). Therefore, by its own <br />rules, the CWCB may not look beyond an applicant's sought <br />recreation experience; nothing in the Board's definition <br />authorizes it to consider the reasonableness of an applicant's <br />intended recreation experience or the efficacy of other, <br />unintended recreation experiences. . <br />. In addition, no other interpretation of the statute makes <br />sense when the statute is read as a whole. See, e.g. Frazier <br />90 P.3d at 811; Bd. of County Commis 88 P.3d at 1193. This is <br />because the CWCB is required to make factual findings, and the <br />water court is to treat these findings as presumptively valid: <br />"[t]he water court shall apply the factors set forth in section <br />37 -92- 102(6). All findings of fact contained in the <br />recommendation of the Colorado Mater [C] onservation [B] oard <br />17 <br />