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