Laserfiche WebLink
H. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT OVERTURN THE PRESUMPTIVEi,Y <br />VALID FINDING THAT 250 C.F.S. IS THE MINIMUM STREAM FLOW <br />NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE RECREATION <br />EXPERIENCE IN AND ON THE WATER. <br />This Court should not overturn the presumptively valid fmding that 250 c.f.s. is <br />the "minimum stream flow" necessary to provide a"reasonable recreation experience in <br />and on the water" under section 37-92-103(10.3). This finding is supported by sufficient <br />evidence and, thus, is clearly not "in error beyond a reasonable doubt." Because any <br />questions as to the correctness of that finding must be resolved in favor of the CWCB, <br />this Court must uphold the CWCB's finding as valid. <br />The CWCB's finding that 250 c.f.s. is the minimum stream flow necessary to <br />provide a reasonable recreation experience supports the purposes of SB 216 and is <br />supported by the Applicant's own evidence. First, SB 216 supports a fmding that 250 <br />c.f.s. is the minimum stream flow necessary to provide a reasonable recreation experience <br />because SB 216 was intended to prevent large-scale appropriations of the stream by <br />allowing appropriations of the "minimum stream flow" only. § 37-92-103(10.3). Co- <br />Sponsor Representative Spradley explained that: "A need for this legislation has come as <br />a result of certain local districts filing very large water claims for in channel water <br />diversion for recreational purposes." (May 8, 2001 hearing, p. 3, attached hereto as <br />Exhibit C). Co-Sponsor Senator Entz explained that the CWCB would be "responsible <br />for making recommendations to the water court that are presumed to be accurate" to <br />ensure that "the amount of water being requested is reasonable and appropriate...." <br />(Exhibit B, p. 1). Representative Spradley also stated ("for legislative history purposes") <br />that under SB 216, the right could be "the minimum amount of water necessary to float a