Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />c. At a pre-hearing conference, the Hearing Coordinator shall set time1ines and <br />deadlines for all written submissions. Written submissions shall include, but not <br />be limited to, the following: I) a list of all disputed factual and legal issues; 2) the <br />position of the Party regarding the disputed factual and legal issues; 3) a list <br />identifYing all of the witnesses that will testifY for the Party and a summary of the <br />testimony that those witnesses wiIl provide; and 4) copies of all exhibits that the <br />party will introduce at the hearing( s). <br />d. The Board shall mail a notice oftl1e hearing(s) to all parties. Such nolice shall be <br />mailed at least 35 days prior to the hearing date(s). <br />e. Board hearings may be recorded by a reporter or by an electronic recording <br />device. Any Party requesting a transcription of the hearing(s) shall be responsible <br />for the cost of the transcription. <br />f. The Hearing Coordinator shall determioe the order of testimony for the <br />hearing(s), and shall decide other procedural matters related to the hearing(s). <br />The Hearing Coordinator does not have authority to rule on substantive issues, <br />which authority rests solely with the Board. <br />g. The Board may take final action at the hearing(s) or at a later date. <br />h. The Board may permit general comments from any person who is not a Party; <br />however, the Board may limit these public comments to five minutes per person. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />12. Required Findings. The Board shall consider the following factors when making its <br />written Findings of Fact and Recommendation to the water court: <br />a. Whether the adjudication and administration of the RICD would impair the ability <br />of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive Beneficial Use its <br />Compact Entitlements. The Board, in making this recommendation, may consider <br />the following factors (and any othef appropriate factors): <br />i. the amount of remaining unappropriated Compact Entitlement <br />waters in the basio in question; <br />ii. the proximity of the RJCD to the state line; <br />Ill. the proximity of the RICD to suitable upstream points of diversion <br />or storage which mllY potentially be utilized by water users who <br />would place the wawr to consumptive beneficial use; <br />iv. the absence of suital1le downstream points of diversion or storage <br />for consumptive beneficial uses located upstream of the state line; <br />v. potential exchange opportunities within the state that may be <br />adversely impacted by the existence of the RICD; and <br />vi. any potential adverse impacts of the appropriation upon Compact <br />Entitlement delivery obligations. <br />b. Whether the RICD appropriation is for an appropriate reach of stream for the <br />intended uses. The Board, in making this recommendation, shall consider the <br />following factors (and any other appropriate factors): <br />i. The nature of the recreational activity sought; <br />ii. The length of the reach necessary to realize a reasonable <br />recreational experience; <br />iii. Whether the Applicant controls the water though the length of the <br />proposed reach; and, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5 <br />