Laserfiche WebLink
evidence presented," the water court concluded "that Applicant <br />ha[d] met its burden of proof to overcome the rebuttable <br />presumption." <br />Upon concluding that Applicant was entitled to more than <br />250 cfs, the water court then faced another issue — whether the <br />CWCB had made any findings regarding stream flow amounts above <br />250 cfs that it should treat as presumptively valid. The water <br />court noted that the "CWCB does not find that the amounts <br />applied for either do or do not comport with the [statutory] <br />factors," and it "does not find that 250 cfs is the maximum <br />quantity which could comport with the (statutory] factors." <br />Although the water court entertained "the possibility that there <br />[are] at least . . implicit findings" regarding 250 cfs being <br />the maximum flow, the water court concluded that the CWCB made <br />no presumptively valid findings concerning stream flows above <br />250 cfs. <br />The water court then attempted to determine the meaning of <br />the phrase "`minimum' stream flow for a reasonable recreational <br />experience as utilized in the statute." The water court <br />concluded that the "language must be read in context with all of <br />the other provisions." Emphasizing that "[u]nder traditional <br />water law principles, maximum utilization and beneficial use are <br />balanced against speculation and waste," the water court <br />explained that "[h]ad the legislature intended to deviate from <br />5 <br />