Laserfiche WebLink
As with any other application for a conditional water <br />right, the water court is charged with adjudicating a RICD <br />application. However, SB 216, as codified, imposes additional <br />analytical burdens. First, the findings of fact set forth by <br />the CWCB "shall be presumptive as to such facts, subject to <br />rebuttal by any party." § 37- 92- 305(13). Additionally, the <br />bill requires the water court to "apply the factors set forth in <br />section 37 -92- 102(6)." § 37- 92- 305(13). These statutory <br />provisions raise three questions: is the CWCB's recommendation <br />as well as its factual findings entitled to presumptive effect; <br />what meaning should be given to the term "presumptive;" and <br />assuming the presumption has been rebutted, by what standard <br />should the water court weigh evidence pertaining to the <br />statutory factors? <br />1_ The Presumptive Effect of the CWCB's Findings <br />The plain language of the bill as codified, see, e.g. In <br />re 2000 -2001 Dist. Grand Jury 97 P.3d at 924, imparts <br />presumptive effect only upon the CWCB's findings of fact; <br />contrary to Appellants' contention, the Board's recommendation <br />does not have a presumptive effect before the water court. <br />Section 37 -92- 305(13) states that only the "findings of fact <br />contained within the recommendation . . . shall be presumptive." <br />(emphasis added). The recommendation, according to section 37- <br />92- 305(16) is "a part of the record to be considered by the <br />24 <br />