Laserfiche WebLink
experience and future upstream development, this Court must uphold the presumptive <br />validity of that CWCB determination. <br />IV. THIS COURT SHOULD N4T OVERTURN THE PRESUMPTIVELY <br />VALiD FINDING THAT, AT 250 C.F.S., THE RICD WILL NOT IMPAIR <br />COLORADO'S ABILITY TO FULLY DEVELOP AND PUT TO <br />BENEFICIAL USE ITS COMPACT ENTITLEMENTS. <br />This Court should not overturn the presumptively valid fmding that at 250 c.f.s., <br />the RICD will allow Colorado to fully develop and put to beneficial use.its compact <br />entitlements under section 37-92-102(6)(a)(I) because this finding is supported by <br />sufficient evidence and, thus, is clearly not "in error beyond a reasonable doubt." The <br />Applicant cannot show clearly and convincingly that this fmding was in error beyond a <br />reasonable doubt, and any questions as to the correctness of that fmding must be resolved <br />in favor of the CWCB. Thus, this Cour± must rule in favor of this CWCB fmding. <br />The CWCB's finding that 250 c.f.s. is the appropriate amount of water to allow <br />Colorado to fully develop and put to beneficial use its compact entitlements supports the <br />purposes of SB 216 and is supported by the evidence. First, SB 216 supports a fmding <br />that 250 c.f.s is the appropriate amount of water to allow Colorado to develop its compact <br />entitlements. The intent of SB 216 was to ensure that RICDs "are integrated into the <br />state's prior appropriation system in a manner which appropriately balances the need for <br />water-based recreational opportunities with the ability of Colorado citizens to divert and <br />store water under compact entitlements for more traditional consumptive use purposes <br />such as municipal, industrial and agricultural uses." (May 7, 2001 hearing, p.l, attached <br />hereto as Exhibit I). Co-Sponsor Spradley stated that: "It makes sense that attention be <br />given to the impact of these recreational uses have on our state's future abilities to <br />13