Laserfiche WebLink
This Court must uphold the CWCB's presumptively valid findings 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 />convincing evidence that those determinations were in error beyond a reasonable doubt. <br />Therefore, the CWCB respectfully requests this Court to uphold those findings. <br />Here, there is no dispute that the CWCB findings that, at 250 c.f.s., this <br />appropriation promoted maximum utilization and did not impair compact entitlements. <br />Those undisputed and validly presumptive findings must be upheld by this Court. <br />The Applicant concedes that the Legislature required the CWCB to recommend to <br />this Court that the application be granted, granted with conditions or denied. (CB, p. 29). <br />However, the Applicant then argues that the CWCB "exceeded the scope of its delegated <br />duty" (CB, p. 29), by recommending that the application be granted with the condition <br />that the amount be limited to 250 c.f.s. because that is the minimum stream flow <br />necessary for a reasonable recreation experience. This argument has no merit because the <br />plain language of the statute allows the CWCB to determine both whether the Applicant <br />chose the minimum stream flow necessary (i.e. to promote maximum utilization) and <br />whether conditions should attach to the application. <br />Thus, "such findings of fact contained in the recommendation" are presumptive as <br />to such facts under section 37-92-305(13). <br />19