Laserfiche WebLink
be granted (and as such fails many of Gunnison County's 'tests'). As written, Rule 16 wouldl <br /> permit the Board or the Hearing Coordinator to make an ad hoc decision, without notice or <br /> hearing, to waive an "procedural" requirement. Since the draft as written includes significant <br /> substantive requirements and standards in its rubric of"procedural" requirements, this section <br /> also is an extraordinarily broad authorization for wholesale waiver of substantive <br /> requirements. The Rule invites arbitrary and capricious decision making. (Gunnison County) <br /> 17NES <br /> 1+ The Staff recommends removal of this Rule for the reasons suggested below. <br /> b Modify by adding "prior to the hearing or oral request at the hearing" after "Upon written <br /> petition". An applicant or a party may want a variance "at the time of the hearing" and hence <br /> a written petition may not be a workable solution. (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> Needs clarification. Not clear who may file for a variance or how the Hearing Coordinator <br /> will decide to grant a variance. Will notice be required?As written, it invites arbitrary and <br /> capricious decision-making, nor is it clear if the CWCB has authority to grant a variance. <br /> (NWCCOG-QQ) <br /> b It remains unclear what an applicant has to provide to avoid the denial determination in Rule <br /> 17. It is respectfully suggested that the rules provide clarification regarding what the <br /> definition of"adequate information" is. It would also be helpful if the rules required that the <br /> CWCB provide notice to applicants regarding the specific information they are seeking to <br /> comply with Rule 17. (UGRWCD) <br /> L$:13.SUBMISSION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE WATER COURT <br /> Pursuant to section 37-92-102(6)(c), C.R.S. (2001), the Board shall submit its Findings of <br /> Fact and recommendation to the water court within 90 days after the final closing date for <br /> filing statements of opposition. However, the Board,for good cause shown on the record, may <br /> request that the--water-court grant-additional time-to--the-Board-for making-and reporting its' <br /> Findings of Fact and its recommendations. <br /> 1► The Staff recommends keeping this rule as it stands. The suggestions that there is no legal <br /> authority for the Board to seek an extension of this deadline from the court is not grounded <br /> in law. On the contrary, courts have the discretion to postpone statutorily mandated <br /> deadlines, and they routinely do so. <br /> => Modify by adding "and based upon the evidence in the record" after "C.R.S. (2001)". The <br /> Northern District and CSU previously suggested that the Attorney General's office may want <br /> to investigate the legal propriety of this provision (last sentence of the Rule) in view of the <br /> fact that the same statute establishes a deadline. (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> => Unclear how the Board will participate in the Water Court's proceedings. It would be <br /> appropriate for Board to participate solely through the process established by these Rules. <br /> ---- - However,, if the Board-W-es file a statement of opposition and-the Board's�1c erermination <br /> under these Rules is different,the determination must supercede any statement of opposition. <br /> (NWCCOG-QQ) <br /> a There is no authority to allow the CWCB to seek or obtain an extension of the 90 day <br /> deadline for its recommendation. The statute specifically states that the CWCB "shall report <br /> 25 <br />