Laserfiche WebLink
Unit upstream of the RICD, of which approximately 32,000 AF would otherwise be available for <br />use upstream of the RICD. (v. IV, pp. 60-61; v. V, pp. 49-51). There is currently development <br />scheduled above the RICD, and future likely development would be affected by the proposed <br />RICD. (v. IV, pp. 65-66, 121-123). <br />There was ample evidence that at the requested amounts, there is adverse impact to <br />compact entitlements. The CWCB's finding that 250 c.f.s. does not impair compact entitlements <br />is supported by the evidence, and should be upheld. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The Court should uphold the constitutionality of SB 216, which allows, but limits, <br />recreational instream uses to a minimum stream flow necessary for a reasonable recreation <br />experience. Unless there is evidence showing that the CWCB Findings and Recommendations <br />were in error beyond a reasonable doubt, those findings must be upheld. For all the foregoing <br />reasons, this Court should reverse the Water Court's RICD decree and remand the case for entry <br />of a judgment consistent with the CWCB Findings and Recommendations. <br />KEN SALAZAR <br />Attorney General <br />.'.??`? <br />.,- ? <br />. SUSAN SCHNEIDER, 19961 * <br />LORI COULTER, 17766* <br />Assistant Attorneys General <br />Natural Resources and Environment Section <br />Attorneys for <br />*Counsel of Record <br />AG ALPHA: <br />AG File: Q:\NR\NRSCHNSJ\RETAIMCWCB\GLINNISON\FIJNNISONOPENINGBRIEFI.DOC <br />27