Laserfiche WebLink
development and use water resources." (Exliibit C, p.3). The undisputed testimony was <br />that the CWCB, unlike water courts, was uniquely positioned to look at "Colorado's <br />compact entitlement" and "future uses" because water courts normally do not deal with <br />such speculative issues. (Exhibit G, pp. 37-39). <br />More importantly, the testimony at the hearing supports the finding that 250 c.f.s <br />would allow Colorado to develop its compact entitlements. The Applicant admitted that <br />there will be some impact on development of compact entitlements. (Exhibit F, <br />Transcript, p. 54, Greg Peterson "And so what remains is that there is, and could be, <br />some impact from the RICD on water development under the subordination agreement. <br />But, I think I stated earlier, the Board deliberated about that and what that impact could <br />be. And they were comfortable with having some sort of an impact...." see also p. 58). <br />Additionally, the Applicant's expert Jim Slattery admitted that "[t]he RICD will only <br />affect development in the stretch of the Gunnison River between Almont and the city of <br />Gunnison." (Exhibit H, Expert Jim Slattery, p. 113). He also admitted that the RICD <br />would affect much of the basin above it. (Exhibit H, Expert Jim Slattery, p. 117). <br />CONCLUSION <br />This Court must uphold the CWCB's presumptively valid fmdings that the RICD <br />should be limited to 250 c.f.s. because that amount: (1) is the "minimum stream flow" <br />for a"reasonable recreation experience," (2) promotes "maximum utilization" and (3) <br />does not impair Colorado's ability to develop and use its Compact entitlements, and <br />because these determinations were not in error beyond a reasonable doubt. Based upon <br />the existing evidence, the Applicant cannot overcome its burden to show by clear and <br />14