Laserfiche WebLink
Archives) [hereinafter Apr. 18 Senate Hearings]. That version <br />did not pass, however, and the General Assembly, after <br />substantial debate, substantially modified the legislation. See <br />generally Apr. 12 Senate Hearings; Apr. 18 Senate Hearings; <br />Transcript of Audio Tape: Senate Deb. on SB01 -216, 63rd Gen. <br />Ass., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. May 3, 2001) (on file with Colorado <br />State Archives). As discussed above, SB 216, in its final form, <br />limits the entities that can claim RICD water rights, and <br />specifically delineates the role of the CWCB, only authorizing <br />it to conduct fact- finding with respect to specific factors and <br />to make a recommendation. Yet, the final version does not give <br />the CWCB the extensive oversight and adjudicatory authority it <br />sought, nor does it give the CWCB any authority to dictate a <br />flow rate or recreation experience for RICD water rights. <br />While constrained, the CWCB's role under SB 216 is not <br />unimportant. Reviewing a RICD application under the five <br />statutory factors no doubt requires the Board to undertake a <br />careful, probing analysis. For example, section 37-92 - <br />102(6)(b)(I) directs the CWCB to find whether the adjudication <br />and administration of the sought RICD "would impair the ability <br />4 For example, the proposed legislation provided that: "[t]he <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board's final recommendation <br />shall be subject to review on the administrative record." <br />20 <br />