Applicant's Closing Reply Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Upper Gunnison River Water Conser^vancy District 02CW038 the entire flow of the Gunnison River, thereby retaining flexibility needed to address future water needs generally, and the varied needs of the District's constituents. 2. The CWCB has not and cannot, create a new definition of "maximum utilization" in malting a fmdin?regarding a recreational in-channel diversion. The State again mischaracterizes SB 216 by arguing that it "authorized t:he CWCB to determine whether a proposed RICD uses "the minimum stream flow" for "a reasonable recreation experience" tliat promotes "maximum utilization." (Answer at 9.) In fact, the CWC13 is authorized to make a fin(iing "whether adjudication and administration of the recreational in-channel diversion would promote maximumutilization ofwater of the state as referenced in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section...." C.R.S. § 37-92-106(b)(V).19 The State also contends the CWCB was authorized to make rules whereby it will detexxnine on a case-by-case basis "whether an application would constitute maximum utilization." (Answer at 14.)20 Even :.f this is correct, neither the "definition" section of the rules nor any rule enacted by the 19 The: State asserts that the reference to "maximum utilization of the water of the state as referenced in parag,raph (a) of subsection (1) of this section..." cannot be ignored. H:owever, the State does nct explain how this language, which refers to conjunctive use of surface and groundwater; is relevant to this case. 20 The State also asserts that the District is not disputing the propriety of the CWCB's rulemalcing er the appropriateness of the factors under "maximum utilization" in those rules. Answer at n.18. The fact that these closing arguments do not address these issues cioes not mean that the Distiict does not dispute either the propriety of the CWCB's rulemaking or the -20-