Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />date that is 90 days from the date of the remand order. Upper Gunnison recognizes, as the staff <br />memorandum points out, that the 90 -day time frame for filing CWCB's findings and <br />recommendation relates to new applications. Indeed, that is the point. New applications should <br />not be given preferential treatment compared to an application that has been pending for years. <br />Even if the water court changes its mind and allows new evidence and the consideration <br />of all five factors, there is still no reason why this long - pending and thoroughly litigated case <br />should proceed on a slower track than a new application. SB 216 requires this Board to hold any <br />requested hearing and issue findings and a recommendation on a new application within 90 days <br />of the expiration of the water court opposition deadline. Here the opposition period has long <br />passed, and SB 216 requires that this case not be allowed to languish. <br />This case is in the same posture as the Steamboat Springs RICD case, which has also <br />been remanded to this Board. The remand order from Water Division 6 limits the evidence that <br />can be presented, and establishes a deadline of September 23, 2005 (agreed to by CWCB) for <br />CWCB to submit to the court its recommendations on the two factors that are the subject of that <br />remand. Surely CWCB can similarly establish a reasonable briefing schedule and deadline for <br />filing its revised findings and recommendation in this case without extending into 2006 - nearly <br />four years after Upper Gunnison's application was filed. <br />-3- <br />