Laserfiche WebLink
F". <br />Appellants the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB or <br />"the Board ") and the State and Division No. 4 Engineers appeal <br />the water court's order and decree granting a recreational in- <br />channel diversion (RICD) conditional water right to Applicant <br />Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District. We reverse. <br />Upon review, we hold that both the CWCB and the water court <br />erred. In Senate Bill 01 -216 (SB 216 or "the bill "), Ch. 305, <br />2001 Colo. Sess. Laws 1187 (codified at H 37 -92- 102(5), (6), <br />37- 92- 103(4),.(7), (10.3), 37 =92- 305(13) —(16), C.R.S. (2004)), <br />the General Assembly established a procedure for the <br />adjudication of instream diversions by local government entities <br />for recreational uses. The CWCB was granted initial, limited <br />fact - finding authority on enumerated factors as applied strictly <br />to an applicant's claimed stream flow and intended recreation <br />experience. By considering stream flow amounts and recreation <br />experiences other than those intended by Applicant, the CWCB <br />exceeded this authority. <br />SB 216 charged the water court, in contrast, with <br />adjudication of a RICD application, requiring it to consider <br />five statutory factors — compact impairment, stream reach <br />appropriateness, access availability, instream flow rights <br />injury, and maximum utilization — and treat the CWCB's factual <br />findings on these same factors presumptively. Should any party <br />produce evidence contrary to the CWCB's findings, the <br />1 <br />