Laserfiche WebLink
891 P.2d at 972 (changes in long- standing law are best made by the legislature, not the <br />judiciary). If the General Assembly had desired the changes in law urged by the State and <br />Northern, it would have done so under SB 216. <br />Finally, for the reasons set forth in the Breckenridge Brief § V.E.2., even if SB 216 were <br />applicable retroactively to the District's application, it would not result in a different conclusion. <br />In the first instance, the factors in SB 216 were also considered in this case. Moreover, even the <br />SB 216 definition of RICD is much like that for beneficial use. The "reasonable recreation <br />experience" required for a RICD as noted at section 37- 92- 103(10.3) necessarily depends upon <br />the intended recreational use. The CWCB's own rules recognize this fact by defining <br />"reasonable recreation experience" in the context of the "specific recreational activity for which <br />the water right is being sought." (v.VI, pp.1253- 1258).6 Here, Vail's objective was to maximize <br />the use and value of the Park and to host international competitions such as the Teva Whitewater <br />Festival that was covered by FOX Net Sports. The minimum flow to accomplish that objective <br />is 400 c.f.s. In this regard, the Assistant State Engineer conceded on cross examination that <br />a reasonable amount of water is the minimum amount necessary to maximize the use. <br />(v.XI, p.134). <br />F. The District Has the Express and Implied Authority to Appropriate Recreational <br />Water Rights, Whether In- Channel or Out of Channel, Directly or by greement <br />Pursuant to the MOU between the Town of Vail and the District, Vail assumed the liability <br />and responsibility for the Park's construction, maintenance, and operation. See App'x E, <br />Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Town of Vail Whitewater Park at 1 (November <br />° Not surprisingly, in the RICD applications considered under SB 216 (which allows the CWCB <br />to make recommendations to the Water Court that are rebuttable by the applicant), the CWCB <br />has recommended the maximum amounts that were sought. (See v.IX, pp.1869- 1872). <br />Sb 1549 -24- <br />