Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conser-vancy District <br />02CW038 <br />rebuttably presumptive finding on some objectively determined minimumstream flow for a reasonable <br />recreational experience, the CWCB is taking on a role not given it by the General Assembly. Here <br />again, no presumption should be accorded to the CWCB's gratuitous determination ofthe "minimum <br />stream flow necessary to provide a reasonable recreation experience." <br />Second, as explainedabove, the defuutionof"recreationalin-channeldiversion" does nothave <br />any objective minimum amount standard.14 Rather, it refers to the amount of water, type of diversion <br />and control structures, and recreation experience that comport with the application filed by the <br />appropriate local government entity. The CWCB takes the phrase "minimum stream flow for a <br />reasonable recreation experience" utterly out of context and, again, tries to create for itself a role that <br />it does not have. <br />During oral closing argument, the Court inquired whether there was some implicit finding in <br />the CWCB's "Findings and Recommendations" that there is compact impairment at rates b eater than <br />250 cfs and that maximum utilization was not promoted at such greater rates. Certainly such an <br />implication, if there is one, was refuted by the CWCB's own attorney, who opined during her closing <br />14 CWCB Duector Rod Kuharich told the legislature that "it's not all the water they can <br />physically get a hold of, but it's all the water that they can Yeasonably and eff ciently use. And <br />that really becomes the test of what those water rights can appropriate. And I think by this <br />definition; we have placed this water right in the same light that the other water right <br />classifications are." [Emphasis added]. Transcript of May 7, 2001 Hearing at p. 6. <br />-30-