BOARD02343 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

., . For the Reply, Applicant argues that the Court indeed has the power to determine the question of whether or not the remand to the CWCS should be on the already developed record or not,. that three of the findings are undisputed and should be considered as. the law of the case, and that for the Court to not do so is a violation of the senaration of DOwers. ThA AnnliC'.::mt ~mIJA!; th~t ~nnthAr C'.n!;tlv ...- --.------------ -- r--.---- ----..;r-r-n--..--.~---n.---..--..-. ---.".1 "full-blown" evidentiary hearing would be unnecessarily expensive to the taxpayers, noting that all major parties in this case are govemmental entities, that all necessary information for the required findings is available in the record, and a delay may prejudice Applicant. This Court has previously concluded, as has the CWCS, that access, reach, and in-stream flow rights are not in controversy, more particularly, that Applicant's proposal comports with those three 102(6)(b) factors. Accordingly, there is no need for further findings as to those three 102(6)(b) factors. The Court recognizes that the Supreme Court references ''five factors,' as delineated in the statute, however, these three were undisputed, and even stipulated at trial. The law of the case argument of Applicant, relying on PeoDle v. ROYbal, 672 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1983), is persuasive. The Court's reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in this case references the need for CWCS to make factual findings, not to conduct yet another hearing. The Court, from the oral argument and from the briefing, cannot conclude that any additional evidentiary presentation is necessary, or that the Supreme Court has ordered any such hearing. There has been no showing of new evidence to warrant such a hearing. The fact that Applicant stipulated to