Laserfiche WebLink
further restrictions with the Colorado River District, for the reasons more fully <br />explained in the River District's brief, do not compel a new hearing. See <br />generally Colorado Board of State Examiners v. McCroskey, 940 P.2d. 1094 <br />(Colo. App. 1996) <br />The Court is persuaded, however, that it is inappropriate for the Court to <br />tell the CWCB when it shall issue its findings and recommendations. See <br />Envirotest Systems Corp v Colorado Department of Revenue, 109 P,2d 142, <br />(Colo.2005), relying on Colorado Health Facilities Review Council v. District <br />Court, 689 P.2d 617 (Colo. 1984). Stated differently, the Court is persuaded that <br />a briefing schedule (based on legal argument and references to the record now <br />available) on the two disputed issues should be established by the CWCB. From <br />that record the CWCB, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling, should make <br />determinations as to the two disputed 102(6)(b) factors. <br />The Court is persuaded that this is consistent with the positions of the <br />parties through trial on this matter, the law of the case, judicial economy, <br />minimizing the cost and burden to all of the tax - paying entities involved in this <br />litigation, and is consistent with the separation of powers with respect to the <br />functions of the CWCB under the statutory construct of Senate Bill 216, and the <br />remand order from the Colorado Supreme Court. <br />The Court orders as follows: <br />1. This matter is remanded to CWCB for factual findings on the two <br />contested 102(6)(b) factors, consistent with the stipulations of the parties in this <br />case. <br />