Laserfiche WebLink
. . <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. For these reasons, the Supreme Court reverses the order <br />and decree of the water court and remands this case to the water <br />court with directions to remand to the CWCB for further <br />proceedings consistent with its opinion. <br />3 <br />A <br />