Laserfiche WebLink
recreational experience for an average user was in the range of 250-350, and that many <br />courses, including world-class, paid-admission and Olympic courses, operate at much lower <br />flows. (v. IV, pp. 230-234, Exhibit O, p. 5). <br />As noted earlier, co-sponsor Representative Spradley explained, "for legislative <br />history purposes," that under SB 216, the "minimum" flow "would mean that the applicant <br />could potentially obtain a right to the minimum amount of water necessary to float a kayalc.. <br />.."(Exhibit J, p. 1). Under this reasoning, because the evidence showed that 250 c.£s will <br />attract expert kayakers and the Legislature only, intended an "amount of water necessary to <br />float a kayak," the Water Court erred in rejecting the presumptively valid CWCB Findings <br />and Recommendations that 250 c.f.s. would provide a reasonable recreation experience. <br />Similarly, the CWCB findings that 250 c.f.s. would promote maximum utilization and <br />not impair compact entitlements are entitled to the presumption of correctness. In fact, the <br />Appellee agreed that at 250 c.f.s., maximum utilization is promoted and compact <br />entitlements not impaired. (Exhibit M, p. 28). Therefore, this Court should hold that, <br />because the CWCB Findings and Recommendations were supported by the evidence, they <br />should be upheld. <br />D. The Legislature granted the CWCB a role in <br />reviewing applications because the CWCB is an objective <br />body with experience with instream/in-channel uses. <br />The Legislature can limit and has limited in-channel recreational uses to a"minimum <br />stream flow" for a"reasonable recreation experience" in the same way that the Legislature <br />can limit and has limited instream flows to the minimum stream necessary to preserve the <br />18