Laserfiche WebLink
to allow appropriations of the "minimum stream flow" necessary for a"reasonable recreation <br />experience." <br />With each exception, the Legislature provided both physical limitations and CWCB <br />oversight for the instream uses. The Legislature had to limit the amount of water claimed because, <br />unlike diversionary water rights, instream uses have no inherent physical limitations on the amount <br />of this scarce resource that can be claimed, except what remains in the stream. Similarly, the <br />Legislature provided for oversight from a neutral body in order to provide objectivity to the <br />process and ensure that appropriations would be and reasonable and beneficial to the state as a <br />whole, as well as to the community in which the valuable water right is located. <br />The plain language and legislative history of both SB 97 and SB 216 show that the <br />Legislature clearly and intentionally limited these instream uses to the "minimum stream flow" <br />necessary for "reasonable" environmental and recreational purposes. Further, under both laws, <br />the Legislature granted the CWCB authority over the processes to prevent abuses and to ensure <br />fair and reasonable instream uses. <br />The Water Court erred in holding that the limitations on instream uses infringe on the <br />constitutional right to appropriate and also erred in failing to limit the requested RICD to the <br />minimum amount necessary for a reasonable recreation experience. The Water Court also <br />improperly rejected the CWCB's Findings and Recommendations that the application should be <br />granted, provided that it is limited to 250 c.f.s, because the record shows that 250 c.f.s. is the <br />minimum stream flow necessary for a reasonable recreation experience that would also <br />undisputedly promote maximum utilization and not impair compact entitlements. <br />5