Laserfiche WebLink
impairment, stream reach appropriateness, access availability, <br /> instream flow rights injury, and maximum utilization — and treat <br /> the CWCB's factual findings on these factors presumptively. <br /> Should any party produce evidence contrary to the CWCB's <br /> findings, the presumption is rebutted, and the water court must <br /> weigh the evidence before it under a preponderance of the <br /> evidence standard. <br /> In addition to the five factors as well as all applicable <br /> pre -SB 216 statutory standards for adjudication of conditional <br /> water rights, the water court must determine whether an . <br /> application is limited to the minimum stream flow necessary for <br /> an objectively reasonable recreation experience in and on the <br /> water. If not, then an applicant has not satisfied the <br /> fundamental elements of a RICD because any appropriation in <br /> excess of the minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreation <br /> experience in and on the water does not put water to a beneficial <br /> use. <br /> The Supreme Court holds that in the present case, both the <br /> CWCB and the water court erred. By considering stream flow <br /> amounts and recreation experiences other than those intended by <br /> Applicant, the CWCB exceeded its review authority under SB 216 <br /> and gave the water court no guidance regarding how Applicant's <br /> plans might affect the five statutory factors under <br /> consideration. Moreover, since the water court did not consider <br /> 2 <br /> IL <br />