Laserfiche WebLink
The Water Court applied these factors and found each satisfied by the District. Decree at 4, 7. <br />The undisputed evidence supports the Water Court's findings. Specifically, Vail's intent <br />was to maximize visitors and draw events to the Town during the non -ski season and to revitalize <br />the Gore Creek Promenade pedestrian area. (v.X, pp.21 -22, 40 -42; v.XI, pp.6 -7). Building a <br />world -class whitewater park was critical in accomplishing that goal. (Id.). Vail manifested its <br />intent by conducting numerous public meetings and hearings, obtaining all required approvals <br />and permits (including a federal 404 Permit), hiring a course designer, entering into the MOU <br />with the District to obtain the water rights and the filing of the application pursuant thereto, and <br />ultimately constructing the Park. (See supra § III.A). The "can and will" requirements are also <br />clearly satisfied as the Park was constructed and beneficial use has commenced. <br />The District also presented extensive, uncontested evidence on water availability. The <br />District applied for a maximum of 400 c.f.s. to reflect the design capacity of the Park. (v.XI, p.7, <br />1.1 -4; v.X, p.109, 1.21 -24). According to Thomas Williamson, the District's expert water <br />resource engineer, water is available far in excess of the amounts claimed. For example, the <br />maximum flows have exceeded 400 c.f.s. in May in nine of the ten years between 1989 and 1999 <br />and have exceeded 400 c.f.s. in July five of those ten years. See App'x C (Gore Creek <br />hydrograph) (v.X, pp. 108-109). <br />The State argues that the District claims "virtually the entire hydrograph — that is, all the <br />water still available" in Gore Creek. State's Br. at 6. That argument is contrary to the <br />uncontested facts discussed above, but is an admission of water availability nonetheless. <br />Moreover, the law requires only a showing of reasonable availability. See Hines Highland, 929 <br />P.2d at 724. In this regard, the Water Court determined that "sufficient water is available for <br />appropriation" and that factual finding is well supported by the record. Decree at 6. <br />Sb1549 -9- <br />