Laserfiche WebLink
presumption is rebutted, and the water court must weigh the <br />evidence before it under a preponderance of the evidence <br />standard. <br />In addition, the water court must determine whether a RICD <br />application is limited to the minimum stream flow necessary for <br />an objectively reasonable recreation experience in and on the <br />water because any appropriation in excess of the minimum stream <br />flow for a reasonable recreation experience in and on the water <br />does not put water to beneficial use. Since it did not consider <br />whether Applicant's intended in- channel recreational diversion <br />was in fact a RICD as defined by SB 216, the water court erred <br />when it awarded Applicant a decree in the claimed stream flow <br />amounts. <br />I. Facts and Procedural History <br />This case concerns the first RICD decreed as a conditional <br />water right under SB 216, which the General Assembly enacted in <br />2001. Applicant is constructing a whitewater course along the <br />Gunnison River near the town of Gunnison. The course has been <br />designed to be "conducive to many types of whitewater boating <br />for a variety of different skill levels," as Applicant hopes to <br />draw both locals and tourists, host competitions, enhance <br />Western State College's outdoor recreation program, and <br />strengthen the region's overall economy. Seeking to acquire <br />2 <br />