Laserfiche WebLink
Applied to SB 216, this means that if no party presents any <br />evidence to the water court on the statutory factors, then the <br />water court must presume the CWCB's findings on those factors <br />correct. However, should any party present evidence on the <br />statutory factors, the presumptive effect of the CWCB's findings <br />has been rebutted, and the water court must then weigh the <br />evidence before it. Thus, the water court properly determined <br />that any party disagreeing with the CWCB's findings had a burden <br />of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. <br />This burden of production, it should be noted, does not shift <br />the overall burden of proof which remains on the applicant <br />throughout adjudication. <br />Finally, we turn to the question of the applicable burden <br />of proof. After considering the evidence presented at trial, <br />the water court held, based on the totality of the evidence <br />presented, that Applicant had rebutted the erroneous presumption <br />that 250 cfs was the appropriate quantity of water by producing <br />contrary evidence. In so holding, the water court specifically <br />rejected Appellants' request to impose a higher burden of proof <br />- i.e., clear and convincing evidence - or a higher standard of <br />review such as for arbitrary and capricious agency action. We <br />agree that the appropriate standard is the preponderance of the <br />evidence. <br />26 <br />