Laserfiche WebLink
shall be presumptive as to such facts, subject to rebuttal by <br />any party." § 37 -92- 305(13). Yet, unless the CWCB reviews the <br />application purely as submitted, including an applicant's plans <br />and intent for the use of the water right, the CWCB's findings <br />of fact and recommendation are meaningless once the application <br />moves from the CWCB proceedings to the adjudication in the water <br />court. <br />The facts of this case are illustrative. Here, the CWCB <br />evaluated the five statutory factors, but only "subject to the <br />amounts specified below," — a stream flow of 250 cfs during May <br />through September, and 0 cfs during the rest of the year. No <br />attempt was made to assess the application using the variable <br />stream flows sought by Applicant, or to make a recommendation <br />based on Applicant's intent to provide a kayak course capable of <br />being utili zed. by all skill levels throughout the recreational <br />boating season, even as stream flows decreased. Instead, the <br />findings and recommendation made by the CWCB literally ignored <br />the application before it in favor of opining generally on its <br />perception of the appropriate stream flow and more reasonable <br />recreation experience. <br />As a result, the water court received no guidance from the <br />CWCB about how Applicant's plans might affect the five statutory <br />factors under consideration. Indeed, the water court <br />"struggle[ed] with precisely what findings of fact were made by <br />M <br />