Laserfiche WebLink
The Appellee next argues that the CWCB does not have the authority to make a <br />factual deterinination that 250 c.£s is the minimum stream flow necessary for a reasonable <br />recreation experience that promotes maximum utilization and does not impair compact <br />entitlements.l7 (See Brief, p. 19). This, too, is mistaken. <br />First, the factual determination that 250 c.f.s is the minimum stream flow necessary <br />for a reasonable recreation experience that promotes maximum utilization and does not <br />----` <br />?----- impair compact entit ements contame m t e CWUB's in ings an ecommen a ion are <br />presumptively valid under section 37-92-305(13) because they are all findings of fact. <br />Second, the Legislature required the CWCB to make a finding as to whether the <br />"minimum stream flow" promotes maximum utilization or impairs compact entitlements <br />because the analysis of whether maximum utilization is promoted or compact entitlements <br />are impaired cannot be made without analysis of the amount claimed. Under both the <br />introduction to section 37-92-103 and established case law, this Court must apply the <br />definition of "recreational in-channel diversion" whenever the term is used in article 37, <br />unless the context requires otherwise. "[T]o ignore a definition section is to refuse to give <br />legal effect to a part of the statutory Iaw of the state." Bill Bloom, Inc., 961 P.2d at; R.E.N. <br />v. City of Colo. Springs, 823 P.2d 1359 (Colo. 1992). Thus, the CWCB must make findings <br />and recommendation concerning whether the amount claimed: (1) is the "minimum stream <br />"Conversely, the Appellee argues that the CWCB does not have the authority to make a <br />factual determination that 1500 c.f.s is not the minimum stream flow necessary for a <br />reasonable recreation experience, does not promote maximum utilization, and does impair <br />compact entitlements. <br />14