Laserfiche WebLink
water court," but this does not imply that it therefore is <br />presumptive. See, e.g. Pierson 48 P.3d at 1218 -19; see <br />Scoggins 869 P.2d at 205. Straining the statute to conclude <br />otherwise would lead to an unworkable and absurd result. See, <br />e.g. Frazier 90 P.3d at 811; Bd. of County Commis 88 P.3d at <br />1193. Findings of fact certainly can be rebutted, and <br />consequently, such evidence could discredit the CWCB's <br />recommendation. Still, the recommendation itself is just th`"k <br />a recommendation; functionally, it cannot be rebutted as can <br />factual findings. Thus, we hold that only the Board's findings <br />are to be given presumptive effect. <br />We turn next to the meaning of the term "presumptive" in SB <br />216. Statutory terms with a technical meaning, even if acquired <br />by other than legislative definition, are construed accordingly. <br />E.g. Bill Boom 961 P.2d at 470. Since SB 216 does not define <br />"presumptive," we must look elsewhere for a technical meaning. <br />Such is provided in Colorado Rule of Evidence 301: <br />In all civil actions and proceedings not <br />otherwise provided for by statute or by <br />these rules, a presumption imposes upon the <br />party against whom it is directed the burden <br />of going forward with evidence to rebut or <br />meet the presumption, but does not shift to <br />such party the burden of proof in the sense <br />of the risk of non - persuasion, which remains <br />throughout the trial upon the party on whom <br />it was originally cast. <br />25 <br />