Laserfiche WebLink
Schumacher and Dr. Gibson from Western State Coliege outdoor recreation <br />department, that conciusion needs to be clarified as to timing and context. Stated <br />difFerently, 250 cfs of water at low water times with the design of the course in its <br />present condition will attract expert kayakers. Conversely, that water flow at high water <br />times wilf not. This was testified to primarily by Mark Schumacher and Dr. Gibson. The <br />point was also made by Gary Lacy. To the extent Gunnison County has incurred the <br />expense of construction as Mr. DeVore explained, it was to attract all types of boaters <br />under the various river conditions together with the resulting positive economic impact. <br />The Court is persuaded this objective would not be met at 250 c.f.s. during "high water" <br />boating seasons. <br />As the Court queried counsel during closing arguments, the Court is struggfing <br />with precisely what findings of fact were made by CWCB. CWCB does not find that the <br />amounts applied for either do or do not comport with the 102(6) factors. The Board <br />does not find that 250 cfs is the maximum quantity which coufd comport with the 102(6) <br />factors. The Court discussed the possibility that there is at least an implicit findings as <br />to the latter component. <br />Looking at the statutory language, the Court concfudes that Appficant's <br />interpretation of the statute is the more logical interpretation of the statutory language. <br />That is, findings of fact are entitled to rebuttable presumption. Conclusions and <br />conditions contained in the recommendation are not entitfed to such rebuttabfe <br />presumption. The statute directs the Court to "consider" the recommendation. Here the <br />15