and tie up our water resources in this state to the detriment of our true appropriators. Hearing on S.B. 481 Before the House Agriculture Committee, 52d Gen. Assembly, 1st Reg.Sess. (hearing tape MIT-79 38A, May 7, 1979, at 10:15 a.m.). 9 . In Florence, we held that an applicant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the "can and will" statute has been satisfied. Florence, 688 P.2d at 718, 718 n. 7; accord In re Gibbs, 856 P.2d 798, 802-03 (Colo. 1993); FWS, 795 P.2d at 840-41; see Public Serv. Co. v. Board of Water Works, 831 P.2d 470,- 478 (Colo.1992); City of Thornton, v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 915, 926 (Colo. 1992); Fox v. Division Eng'r, 810 P.2d 644, 646 (Colo.1991). We have applied this requirement in several contexts. See FWS, 795 P.2d at 840 (<HOLDING>); Fox, 810 P.2d at 646 (holding that an
holding that unsuccessful job applicant for governmental employment had due process right to meaningful administrative appeal of rejection when regulations established right to such appeal recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings holding that an applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal holding that a plaintiff has no absolute unconditional right of access to the courts and no constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions holding that the applicant failed to satisfy the statute because the applicant did not have an ownership right or access right to the reservoir site