Laserfiche WebLink
In summary, we hold that any party who opposes the findings <br />of the CWCB has the burden of going forward with evidence to <br />rebut that presumption. Absent such evidence, the findings of <br />the CWCB are binding on the water court. Should such evidence <br />be produced, the water court must evaluate the contested factors <br />anew, and using a preponderance of the evidence standard, make <br />findings of fact with respect to the contested factors. <br />2. The Water Court Must Limit a RICD Water Right to the Minimum <br />Stream Flow Necessary for a Reasonable Recreation Experience in <br />and on the Water <br />Appellants also argue that the water court erred when it <br />refused to limit Applicant's claimed RICD to the minimum stream <br />flow for a reasonable recreation experience in and on the water. <br />We agree. The water court should have given effect to the plain <br />language of SB 216 and erred by concluding that the General <br />Assembly intended a claimed RICD to be adjudicated under a pre - <br />SB 216 beneficial use analysis alone. <br />In addition to the rules of statutory construction already <br />recited, when examining a statute's plain language, we give <br />effect to every word and render none superfluous, e.g. Slack 5 <br />P.3d at 284, because "[w]e do not `presume that the legislature <br />used language `idly and with no intent that meaning should be <br />given to its language,'" Carlson v. Ferris 85 P.3d 504, 509 <br />(Colo. 2003) (quoting People v. J.J.H. 17 P.3d 159, 162 (Colo. <br />2001)). Words and phrases are read in context and construed <br />�? <br />