Laserfiche WebLink
In summary, the interpretation urged upon us by Appellants <br />is not supported by either the plain language of SB 216 as a <br />whole or the legislative history. Indeed, based on the record <br />below, it is difficult for us to determine whether the CWCB <br />"denied" the application because Applicant sought more than the <br />250 cfs suggested, or "granted" the application, but only upon <br />condition that it be limited to 250 cfs. No matter which way <br />one views the record, the CWCB's limitation of Applicant's <br />claimed RICD to 250 cfs was in clear violation of the plain <br />language of SB 216, which requires the Board to review the <br />application strictly as submitted by the applicant, make the <br />requisite statutory findings of fact, and formulate a <br />recommendation to the water court. <br />B. The Role of the Water Court <br />Appellants also necessarily ask us to interpret the water <br />court's role under SB 216. We start our analysis with the water <br />court's consideration of the CWCB's findings of fact and <br />recommendation. <br />5 Of course, as it did in the present case, the CWCB can <br />recommend granting the application subject to certain conditions <br />arising under the statutory factors upon which it has found <br />facts. For example, here the CWCB recommended to the water <br />court that "[t]he RICD will not be in effect or exercised during <br />any time when the hydrograph would permit the Redlands Power <br />Canal water rights or the Gunnison Tunnel water right to call <br />for their senior water rights." <br />23 <br />