My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2010 12:39:05 PM
Creation date
7/14/2010 3:45:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
3/14/2005
Author
CWCB, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District
Title
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.