Laserfiche WebLink
upstream consumptive uses of compact- entitled water, or that the <br />RICD would not conserve or efficiently use the claimed water, <br />thereby promoting maximum utilization of Colorado's available <br />water, then the Board could recommend to the water court that <br />the application be denied. An applicant does not have an <br />entitlement to a "grant" recommendation from the CWCB merely <br />upon a showing of water availability. Rather, the Board has the <br />authority to recommend denial where an application strictly as <br />submitted by the applicant does not comport with the five <br />statutory factors in section 37- 92- 102(6)(b). <br />In the case before us, the CWCB has not made findings on <br />whether beneficial consumptive water use opportunities upstream <br />from the claimed RICD would further develop Colorado's compact <br />entitlements and would be impaired by Applicant's sought for <br />stream flow amounts. Moreover no findings Were made on.whethe_r <br />Applicant's claimed stream flows would conserve and efficiently <br />use the available Gunnison River flow, thereby promoting maximum <br />utilization of Colorado's waters. Since the CWCB has not made <br />all of the findings required by these and the other statutory <br />factors codified at section 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(I) —(V), the water <br />court lacks information that the General Assembly considered <br />material to the water court's ultimate determination regarding <br />the amounts of water to which the RICD decree must be <br />restricted. <br />22 <br />