Laserfiche WebLink
is the minimum stream flow required for a reasonable recreation <br />experience and that its determination of that amount is also <br />presumptive. Second, Appellants contend that the water court <br />erred in failing to limit Applicant's requested RICD to the <br />"minimum stream flow" as required under SB 216. <br />In so arguing, Appellants require us to construe SB 216 in <br />a manner that illuminates the dividing line between the CWCB and <br />the water court in RICD adjudications. Thus, we must determine <br />precisely how the General Assembly intended to define the <br />respective roles of the CWCB and the water court — specifically, <br />whether the CWCB has the authority to determine the "minimum <br />stream flow" "for a reasonable recreation experience in and on <br />the water" or whether that consideration is left exclusively to <br />the water court. As a corollary, we also must determine <br />precisely what authority the bill grants the CWCB, and what <br />evidentiary weight the water court must give to the Board's <br />authorized findings. Moreover, we must discern the General <br />Assembly's intent regarding the statutory definition of a RICD. <br />Specifically, is the water court limited in decreeing a RICD for <br />only the minimum stream flow necessary for a reasonable <br />recreation experience in and on the water? <br />II. Legal Background <br />Prior to the case now before us, we have not had occasion <br />to construe SB 216. Before we consider Appellants' arguments, a <br />7 <br />