Laserfiche WebLink
denied. § 37-92-102(6)(a). The Board must consider, inter alia: whether the "minimum streanl <br />flow" [the "RICD"] would impaix the Colorado's ability to fully develop and use its compact <br />entitlements; whether the RICD would promote maximum utilization of waters; and any other <br />appropriate factors set by CWCB regulations. Id. All findings of fact contained in the <br />recommendation of the CWCB are presumptive as to such facts, subject to rebuttal by any party. <br />§ 37-92-305(13), C.R.S. (2003). <br />After a hearing, the CWCB found, inter alia, that a flow rate of 250 c.f.s. from May to <br />September would provide a reasonable recreation experience, promote maximum utilization and <br />would not impair compact entitlements. These Findings and Recommendation were based in <br />part on the statements of the Applicant's chief expert, Gary Lacy, who designed the Gunnison <br />course. Mr. Lacy stated in the Applicant's pre-hearing and rebuttal statements (and reaffirmed at <br />trial) that "The Whitewater Park will attract many boaters at 250 c.f.s. and above." Based on <br />these statements, the Board concluded that 250 c.f.s. would provide a"reasonable recreation <br />experience" at any time of the boating season, and that its duty was to identify just one minimum <br />flow amount that would provide such experience. <br />The water court issued an order on December 26, 2003, rejecting the CWCB Findings <br />and Recommendation and granting flow amounts up to 1500 c.f.s. In its Order, the court held <br />that it would not "intervene to usurp" or "second guess" the Applicant's "determination of the <br />size and scope of a RICD". (Order, p. 19). The court held that "[t]o preclude an Applicant from <br />determining precisely the size and scope of any recreational in channel diversion would appear to <br />infringe on the Constitutional right to appropriate." (Order, p. 19). The court held that the <br />"minimum stream flow" for "a reasonable recreation experience" is subsumed within the pre- <br />existing standards requiring maximum utilization and prohibiting speculation or waste, and thus, <br />does not provide any further limitations on the amount of water claimed. (Order, pp. 19-20). <br />Under the court's holding, the terms "minimum stream flow" for "a reasonable recreation <br />experience" are not given separate and distinct meaning from pre-SB 216 statutory terms and, <br />thus, do not operate to limit the appropriation in any way beyond the limitations inherent in pre- <br />SB 216 water rights appropriations. Further, the court's holding creates a constitutional right to <br />appropriate and determine "precisely the size and scope of any recreational in channel diversion" <br />subject, of course, to the limits inherent in the prior appropriation system. <br />B. The jud ent appealed and statement of the basis for appellate jurisdiction. <br />The entire Water Court judgment and decree is being appealed. The Supreme Court <br />has jurisdiction pursuant to C.A.R. 1(a)(2), 4(a), and section 13-4-102(1)(d), 5 C.R.S. <br />(2003). <br />C. Whether the judgment or order resolved all issues including attornevs' fees <br />and costs.