Answer Brief of Amici Curiae - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a claim only if it is for more than required for the "reasonable recreation experience." These rules go on to define "reasonable recreation experience" as "allow[ing] individuals with suitable skills and abilities relatin to the specific recreational activitv for which the water right is bein? sought to partake in that activitv." 2 C.C.R. 408-3(2001) (emphasis added). In other words, the CWCB's own rules acknowledge that the plans and intent of the appropriator in determining the "specific recreational activity for which the water right is being sought" is the basis for determining the appropriate flow rate. The appropriator, not the CWCB, makes that initial decision. IV. THE INTENT OF THE APPROPRIATOR IS AN ESSENTIAL INQUIRY IN DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES A"REASONABLE RECREATION EXPERIENCE" UNDER SB 216. Even if the CWCB had been given the statutory authority to recommend a flow rate, it is clear that it cannot make such a determination without considering the appropriator's intent. Because the CWCB failed to consider this crucial factor, its flow recommendation cannot be supported. As set forth above, the CWCB's own rules recognize that the limitation on the amount of water under the statutory language from SB 216 is the phrase "reasonable recreation experience." The "reasonable recreation experience" in the rules is, in turn, defined not by some objective minimum flow standard as now so strenuously argued by the CWCB, but bv the purposes for which the ap12ropriator intended the diversion. 2 C.C.R. 408-3 (2001). On this point, the Court should also note that the State filed a post-trial "Motion to Clarify the State's Position" in this case wherein it "concede[d] that the Applicant's intent is relevant to what recreational experience is sought `pursuant to an application' filed under section 37-92-103 (10.3)." (Rec. v. 3, p. 1078-79). The State's opening brief in the Court is not as Tm ] 650 9