Laserfiche WebLink
("102(6)(b) factors") (notably no compact impairment and promotion of maximum utilization) <br />would be valid if the flow rates were 500 c.f.s., which is more than the applicant requested for <br />four of the ten semi-monthly periods. In addition, the water court considered evidence that other <br />watercourses ranged from 50 c.f.s. to 2000 c.f.s. and noted that the CWCB's own expert designed <br />a course between 1200 c.f.s. and 1600 c.f.s., and others with flows as low as 50 c.f.s. <br />On the basis of the testixnony, the water court was persuaded that the Upper Gunnison <br />Distxict's intent to attract a variety of skill levels and water craft at differing flow rates (i.e. the <br />specific recreational activity for which the appropriation was sought) would not be met with <br />decreed flows of 250 c.f.s. during the entire boating season. The evidence demonstrated that the <br />kayak course was designed to attract kayakers with a variety of skill levels and water craft at <br />differing flow rates, and the amounts requested by the applicant satisfied statutary requirements. <br />Concerning the Application for Water Ri ts of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancv <br />District in Gunnison County FindingLof Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, p. 15 (December <br />26, 2003). <br />The water court properly refused to second-guess the applicant's decision regazding the <br />flow ra.tes it appropriated. Taking into account the nature of the specific activities for which the <br />appropriation was made, the court found the evidence presented by the applicant to be the most <br />persuasive regarding the minimum flow of water that was necessary to accomplish the purpose <br />of the appropriation. Just because the water court disagreed with the CWCB does not mean that <br />the water court improperly appliea the law. , <br />c. If the staxutory factors are satisfied without waste, then the amount of <br />water sought by the applicant should be granted. <br />17