Laserfiche WebLink
rate of the proposed RICD" becaine a factor in determining whether maximum utilization is <br />promoted. 2 CCR 408-3, Rule 7(e)(vii). The CWCB rules and determinations on <br />"maximum utilization" are entitled to deference. Urbish v. Lamm, 761 P.2d 756 <br />(Colo.1988). <br />This Court should hold that the Legislature authorized the CWCB to make a <br />presumptively valid determination as to the minimum stream flow necessary for a reasonable <br />recreation experience that also promotes maximum utilization and does not impair compact <br />entitlements. <br />C. The CWCB's Findings and Recommendations were <br />supported by the evidence. <br />The Water Court should have upheld the CWCB Findings and Recommendations <br />because they were not proven wrong by a preponderance of the evidence. The Appellee <br />argues that the standard of reviewing the CWCB Findings and Recommendations is a <br />preponderance of the evidence, rather than clear and convincing evidence. (v. VI, p. 87). <br />Under either standard, unless the CWCB Findings and Recommendations are proven wrong <br />by a preponderance of the evidence, they must be upheld. Because the record supports those <br />Findings and Recommendations, the Water Court erred in not upholding them. <br />All reasonable doubts as to the correctness of the CWCB determinations must be <br />resolved in favor of the agency. Bird v. Citv of Colorado Sprin s, 489 P.2d 324, 325-26 <br />(Colo. 1971). A party challenging a presumptively valid finding bears the burden of <br />overcoming that presumption, and courts "indulge every intendment in favor of its validity." <br />16