Laserfiche WebLink
• Who chooses the expert?Who pays?) The Rule does not create an opportunity for a draft <br /> staff report (similar to a draft EIS) that is subject to scrutiny and revision before it is <br /> forwarded to the Board. (Gunnison County) <br /> b Modify by adding "submitted to the Staff" after "...other applicable information" and "a" <br /> before "Recommendation" and "the provision of" before "on these Rules". (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> 12.1 ..REQUEST FOR A HEARING <br /> The Applicant, any Party, or any Board member may request that the Board hold a public <br /> hearing regarding a RICD. Such requests must be submitted in writing to and received at the <br /> Board office within forty-five days after the Application Receipt Date. <br /> �► The Staff recommends no changes to this rule. <br /> b Rules 12 and 14 establish an adversarial hearing process as the CWCB's evaluative tool; by <br /> doing so, the CWCB foregoes numerous other evaluative processes. But having chosen this <br /> process, the CWCB must proceed as a quasi-judicial body with carefully established and <br /> identified hearing procedures, rules and policies regarding specific applications, including <br /> notices, filing, response, open records, ex parte communications, relationship between staff <br /> and Board members, conduct of the public hearing, oaths, the record of the hearing and <br /> appeal, if any, of the Board's conduct or findings. (Gunnison County) <br /> • • . <br /> • . . - • • <br /> and Recommendation to the water court for review. Said Findings of Fact and <br /> . . • • <br /> �► The Staff recommends deleting this rule as repetitive of Rule 7. <br /> The process,-logistics and-standards-of how the Board-will evaluate,without a hearing, "all <br /> submissions to the Board by the Applicant,by the Staff, and by any party" is not identified in <br /> this Rule. Without clearly articulated, consistent process,logistics and standards, findings <br /> made by a quasi-judicial body without a public hearing are subject to a host of legal <br /> challenges. (Gunnison County) <br /> g> Modify by deleting "may adopt, adopt with modifications, or reject the Staffs recommended <br /> Findings of Fact and Recommendations" and add after "...or special meeting" (delete also <br /> "of the Board" after special meeting) the following wording: "shall make Findings of Fact <br /> and adopt a final Recommendation as to whether the application should be granted, granted <br /> with conditions, or denied." This language is more in keeping with the governing statutory <br /> provision. It also addresses the concern of those parties who believe the Board should make <br /> an'independent' determination. (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> ---- —� Board's decision should not be whetter to approve or rej c a recommendation. 'lhe <br /> Board's decision, as required by law,is to recommend to the water court whether the <br /> application should be approved, based on its review of the record. Board in practice may <br /> choose to follow Staffs recommendation, but point of its decision is not to determine <br /> 40 whether Staff is correct. Point of the decision is to determine whether the application satisfies <br /> 21 <br />