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 />E <br />