Opening Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

objective of `maximum use' administration is `optimum use. "' Matter of Rules GoverniM Water in Rio Grande and Coneios River Basins, 674 P.2d 914, 935 (Colo. 1983). Third, the evidence at trial showed that 250 c.f.s. promotes maximum utilization here, because that amount of water will provide a"reasonable recreation experience" for many boaters, including experienced kayakers, (Exhibit B; v. VII, pp. 221-222; v. V, pp. 177, 190). A flow amount of 250 c.f.s. would also allow adequate opportunities for future upstream development because, as conceded by several of the Applicant's witnesses, the proposed RICD impairs junior upstream development potential in certain years. (v. IV, pp. 62-62, 65, 117). Finally, even the Applicant agreed that maximum utilization is promoted at 250 c.f:s. (Exhibit M, Applicant's Closing Brief, p. 28). SB 216, applicable case law, and the Applicant's own evidence all support the conclusion that 250 c.f.s. promotes maximum utilization by allowing a reasonable recreation experience and future upstream development. Therefore, this Court should reverse the Water Court's erroneous determination that at flows of 1500 c.f.s., maximum utilization is promoted, and instead uphold the undisputedly valid determination that 250 c.f.s. would promote maximum utilization. D. The Applicant agreed and the evidence showed that at 250 c.f.s, compact entitlements were not impaired. This Court should also uphold the CWCB's presumptively valid finding that at 250 c.f.s., the RICD will allow Colorado to fully develop and put to beneficial use its compact entitlements under section 37-92-102(6)(b)(I). The Applicant did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the CWCB erred in finding that 250 c.f.s. is the appropriate amount of water to allow Colorado to fully develop and put to beneficial use its compact entitlements. In fact, the Applicant agreed that at 250 c.f.s., there is no compact impairment. (Exhibit M, p. 28). 25