Laserfiche WebLink
The plain language of both SB 97 and SB 216 shows that the Legislature autharized <br />the CWCB to determine the "minimum" stream flow necessary to preserve the environment <br />to a"reasonable" degree and to determine the "minimum" stream flow necessary for a <br />"reasonable recreation experience." With both SB 97 and SB 216, the Legislature properly <br />imposed physical limitations on instream uses separate and distinct from traditional <br />diversionary water rights and properly gave oversight for such claims to the CWCB. The <br />Legislature specifically gave the CWCB the responsibility to evaluate recreational water <br />rights and to ensure that "the amount of water being requested is reasonable and appropriate. <br />... (Exhibit L, May.3, 2001 Sen. Entz, p. 1). <br />Therefore, this Court should give effect to the clear mandate in SB 216 to authorize <br />the CWCB, not the Appellee, to determine whether the amount claimed is the minimum <br />stream flow necessary for a reasonable recreation experience. <br />CONCLUSION <br />For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should reverse the Water Court's recreational <br />in-channel use decree and remand the case for entry of a judgment consistent with the <br />CWCB Findings and Recommendations. <br />20