Laserfiche WebLink
For the Reply, Applicant argues that the Court indeed has the power to <br />determine the question of whether or not the remand to the CWCB should be on <br />the already developed record or not, that three of the findings are undisputed and <br />should be considered as the law of the case, and that for the Court to not do so is <br />a violation of the separation of powers. The Applicant argues that another costly <br />"full- blown" evidentiary hearing would be unnecessarily expensive to the <br />taxpayers, noting that all major parties in this case are governmental entities, that <br />all necessary information for the required findings is available in the record, and a <br />delay may prejudice Applicant. <br />This Court has previously concluded, as has the CWCB, that access, <br />reach, and in- stream flow rights are not in controversy, more particularly, that <br />Applicant's proposal comports with those three 102(6)(b) factors. Accordingly, <br />there is no need for further findings as to those three 102(6)(b) factors. The <br />Court recognizes that the Supreme Court references "five factors," as delineated <br />in the statute, however, these three were undisputed, and even stipulated at trial. <br />The law of the case argument of Applicant, relying on People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d <br />1003 (Colo. 1983), is persuasive. <br />The Court's reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in this case <br />references the need for CWCB to make factual findings, not to conduct yet <br />another hearing. The Court, from the oral argument and from the briefing, cannot <br />conclude that any additional evidentiary presentation is necessary, or that the <br />Supreme Court has ordered any such hearing. There has been no showing of <br />new evidence to warrant such a hearing. The fact that Applicant stipulated to <br />