Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />The staff memorandum fails to mention that CWCB attorney Susan Schneider has filed a <br />motion for reconsideration or clarification of Judge Patrick's remand order. She has asked the <br />judge to allow the very procedure staff requests, presumably because she agrees that procedure is <br />contrary to the remand order. The motion has not yet been ruled on. Unless that motion is <br />granted, the water court's remand order is controlling, and this Board will violate the court order <br />if it adopts the staff recommendation and allows another evidentiary proceeding. <br />To avoid violating the court order, this Board should not adopt the staff's <br />recommendation concerning additional evidentiary proceedings. Rather, it should establish a <br />briefing schedule and time frame for issuing revised findings and recommendation that is <br />consistent with the remand order. If the water court grants the pending motion for <br />reconsideration and allows presentation of additional evidence at a hearing, the Board may then <br />consider whether it wishes to receive such additional evidence as well. <br />In either case, this Board must still proceed in a timely manner within the spirit of Senate <br />Bill 216 ( "SB 216 "). Although the remand order says that "it is inappropriate for the Court to tell <br />the CWCB when it shall issue its findings and recommendations," the Board is not thereby given <br />license to exceed reasonable time limits that are inconsistent with SB 216. <br />Upper Gunnison suggested in its initial request that the parties submit simultaneous briefs <br />in time for the CWCB Board to issue its findings and recommendation by September 14, 2005, a <br />-2- <br />