Laserfiche WebLink
.x <br />Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />? made findings of fact contained in the CWCB's recommendation presumptive as to <br />such facts, subject to rebuttal by any party (see C.R.S. § 37-92-305(13)). <br />A comparison ofthe plain language of SB 216 with the pre-SB 216 requirements for obtaining <br />a conditional water right reveals that the only substantive additions to the pre-SB 216 requirements <br />(as opposed to the procedural addition of the CWCB review and recommendation process) are (1) <br />the limit on the type of applicant who may file for a recreational in-channel water right and (2) the <br />requirement that the CWCB and the Court consider the factors enumerated in C.R.S. §37-92-102(6) <br />(hereinafter the "102(6) factors"). See C.R.S. § 37-92-305(13) and § 37-92-102(6)(a). See also <br />applicant's trial brief at pp. 5-6. Those factors are identified as compact impairment, appropriateness <br />of sheam reach, access, injury to instream flow rights, maximum utilization, and "such other factors <br />as may be deterniined appropriate for evaluation of recreational in-channel diversions and set forth <br />in rules adopted by the [CWCB]..." C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6)(b). <br />Significantly, SB 216 did not do away withthe recreational in-channelwater right as described <br />in Fort Collins. Rather, SB 216 explicitly incorporated the act of "control[ling] water in its natural <br />course or location for recreational in-channel diversions" into the defuutionof"diversion" or "divert". <br />See C.R.S. § 37-92-103(7). This plain language of SB 216 shows that the legislature explicitly <br />recognized and affirmed the lcey Fort Collins holding that "boat chutes and fish ladders, when <br />-8-