Laserfiche WebLink
that balance in Senate Bill 216, they would have said so." For <br />these reasons, the water court was "reluctant to intervene to <br />usurp Applicant's determination of the size and scope of a.RICD, <br />subject to the traditional criteria of speculation and waste." <br />Examining Applicant's requested stream flows, the water court <br />found "that the amount sought in this instance does not reach <br />the level of speculation or waste." <br />The water court finally analyzed Applicant's requested <br />stream flows under the statutory factors — compact impairment, <br />stream reach appropriateness, access availability, instream flow <br />rights injury, and maximum utilization — having concluded that <br />the CWCB did not make any presumptively valid findings regarding <br />these factors as applied to flow amounts above 250 cfs. <br />Concluding that Applicant's requested stream flows were <br />appropriate under the statutory factors, the water court granted <br />Applicant conditional water rights in a decree awarding the <br />claimed amounts in full and setting the date of priority as <br />October 20, 1998. <br />Appellants exercised their right to appeal and now ask this <br />Court to reverse on multiple grounds. First, Appellants argue <br />that all presumptively valid CWCB findings must be upheld by the <br />water court unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. <br />As a part of this argument, Appellants argue that SB 216 grants <br />the CWCB the authority to determine whether the claimed amount <br />