Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW038

Home Browse Search

Upper Gunizison River• Water Conservancy District 02CW038 Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 10' Edition (1996). The defmition of "recreational in-channel diversion" explicitly ties the amount, the diversion and control structures, and the reasonable recreation experience to that amount, those structures, and that reasonable recreation experience that would "carry out" or be "in conformity with" or be "according to" the application that was filed by the authorized entity. Indeed, the "recreational in-channel diversion" definitionparallels the post-SB 216 defmition of "beneficial use." Reading these two definitions together shows that it is nonsensical to take the word "min;mum" out of context from the defmition of "recreational in-channel diversion" and to extract from that word alone some kind of objective limit on the amount of water that a proper applicant for a recreational in-channel water right can appropriate.' In addition to its plain lanb age, the legislative history of SB 216 shows that no new limits on "amount" were intended and that traditional notions of "beneficial use" and "reasonably efficient diversion practices" would still be applicable. First, the expressed concerns were claims to the entire ' Interestingly, as reflected in excerpts from a publication entitled "Instream Flows for Recreation: A Handboolc on Concepts and Research Methods" (read during the testimony of Ted Kowalslci), Bo Shelby, one of the authorities relied on by Mr. Kowalski and the CWCB's expert Rick McLaughlin, recognizes that in the recreation context, the term "minimum flow" refers to "barely acceptable flows for a given type of experience." He notes that, when "out-of-stream" water users use the term "minimum flow," they typically mean "all that you need" - for example to produce an "optimum" crop. Shelby discourages use of the term "nununum flow" in the context of determining the appropriate amount of recreational instream flows. -15-