Laserfiche WebLink
Appellants the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB or <br /> "the Board ") and the State and Division No. 4 Engineers appeal <br /> the water court's order and decree granting a recreational in- <br /> channel diversion (RICD) conditional water right to Applicant <br /> Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District. We reverse. <br /> Upon review, we hold that both the CWCB and the water court <br /> erred. In Senate Bill 01 -216 (SB 216 or "the bill "), Ch. 305, <br /> 2001 Colo. Sess. Laws 1187 (codified at §§ 37 -92- 102(5), (6), <br /> 37- 92- 103(4), (7), (10.3), 37 =92- 305(13) —(16), C.R.S. (2004)), <br /> the General Assembly established a procedure for the <br /> adjudication of instream diversions by local government entities <br /> for recreational uses. The CWCB was granted initial, limited <br /> fact - finding authority on enumerated factors as applied strictly <br /> to an applicant's claimed stream flow and intended recreation <br /> experience. By considering stream flow amounts and recreation <br /> experiences other than those intended by Applicant, the CWCB <br /> exceeded this authority. <br /> SB 216 charged the water court, in contrast, with <br /> adjudication of a RICD application, requiring it to consider <br /> five statutory factors — compact impairment, stream reach <br /> appropriateness, access availability, instream flow rights <br /> injury, and maximum utilization — and treat the CWCB's factual <br /> findings on these same factors presumptively. Should any party <br /> produce evidence contrary to the CWCB's findings, the <br /> 1 <br />