Laserfiche WebLink
Because the finding that 250 c.f.s. is the "minimum stream flow" necessary to <br />provide a"reasonable recreation experience in and on the water" is supported by the <br />satisfactory evidence and supports the purposes of SB 216, this Court must uphold the <br />presumptive validity of that CWCB determination. <br />III. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT OVERTURN THE PRESi7MPTIVELY <br />VALID FINDING THAT LIMITING THE RICD TO 250 C.F.S. WOULD <br />PROMOTE MAXIMUM UTILIZATION OF COLORADO'S WATERS. <br />This Court should not overturn the presumptively valid finding that limiting the <br />RICD to 250 c.f.s. promotes maximum utiliza.tion of Colorado's waters under section 37- <br />92-102(6)(a)(V) because this fmding is supported by satisfactory evidence and, thus, is <br />clearly not "in error beyond a reasonable doubt." Because any questions as to the <br />correctness of that finding must be resolved in favor of the CWCB, this Court must <br />uphold the CWCB's fmding as valid. <br />The CWCB's finding that a RICD of 250 c.f.s. promotes maximum utilization of <br />Colorado's waters supports the purposes of SB 216 and is supported by the case law and <br />the Applicant's own evidence. First, SB 216 supports a finding that the RICD promotes <br />maximum utilization at 250 c.f.s. because the intent of SB 216 was to ensure maximum <br />utilization by allowing only minimal and reasonable appropriations of water to ensure <br />that the state could develop and use its water in the future. § 37-92-103(10.3). Co- <br />Sponsor Spradley stated that: "It makes sense that attention be given to the impact of <br />these recreational uses have on our state's future abilities to develop and use water <br />resources." ( Exhibit C, p. 3). Additionally, the Senate heard testimony that because the <br />diversion requirement created inherent physical and monetary limitations on the amount <br />of water that could be claimed and there were no such limita.tions here for instream uses, <br />10