Laserfiche WebLink
the CWCB" noting that the "CWCB does not find that the amounts <br />applied for either do or do not comport with the [statutory] <br />factors." Thus, even if we could disregard the plain language <br />establishing the CWCB's constrained review role as Appellant's <br />ask, we would in effect render the water court's subsequent <br />analysis unworkable and the statutory scheme as a whole <br />inconsistent, disharmonious, and insensible. See, e.g. Bd. of <br />County Commis, 88 P.3d at 1193; see Mountain City Meat, 919 <br />P.2d at 253. <br />Furthermore, although the statutory language is clear, we <br />note that SB 216's legislative history comports with our plain <br />language analysis. As originally introduced, the bill would <br />have given the CWCB in cases involving more than fifty cfs the <br />authority it is presently asserting, that is the authority to <br />determine what amount of water is appropriate for the RICD in <br />question, irrespective of the applicant's planned use of the <br />water right. S.. 216, 63rd Gen. Ass., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. <br />5, 2001); see also Transcript of Audio Tape: Hearing on SBOI -216 <br />Before the Senate Comm. on Pub. Policy and Planning, 63rd Gen. <br />Ass., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. Apr. 12, 2001) (on file with <br />Colorado State Archives) [hereinafter Apr. 12 Senate Hearings]; <br />Transcript of Audio Tape: Hearing on SBO1 -216 Before the Senate <br />Comm. on Pub. Policy and Planning, 63rd Gen. Ass., 1st Reg. <br />Sess. (Colo. Apr. 18, 2001) (on file with Colorado State <br />19 <br />