Laserfiche WebLink
tributaries are already over appropriated and therefore are already <br />internaliy controlled. <br />CWCB's expert testified that his analysis was based on the question of whether <br />there will be any impact. The Court concludes that such an analysis is inappropriate. <br />Utilization of that analysis would presumptively preclude any RiCD or any other water <br />right for that matter since presumptively any water right will impact others. The Court <br />concludes impairment, as used in the statute, connotes materiality rather than merely <br />any impact. <br />(b) Access is not disputed and i's appropriate. <br />(c) The reach is not disputed and is appropriate. <br />(d) The RICD will not cause material injury to any CWCE3 instream flow <br />rights, which, again, is not disputed. <br />(P) The question of maximum utilizatior is perhaps the most <br />problematic issue to be addressed, as noted earlier in this Order. <br />First, a RICD is a non-consumptive use. Secondly, as evident by <br />this case, the issue becomes one of what amount of water is <br />reasonably necessary for the RiCD. Should the minimum for <br />"experts" be the limit - effectively what CWCB advocates - or <br />should an Applicant have the ability to obtain an Olympic quafity <br />water course (50% more than the highest amount sought by the <br />Applicant here) should they so decide. The Court concludes that <br />the scope of the project, subject to waste, speculation and the <br />21