In GID v. Wyoming State Board of Control, 926 P.2d 943, 951 (Wyo. 1996), the Court was confronted with the question of whether the Board's decision ordering the abandonment of Goshen Irrigation District's supplemental water right to 34 c.f.s. rather than 25 c.f.s. was supported by substantial evidence. 926 P.2d at 951. In support of its decision, the Board relied on the fact that GID had tested a new pump and the capacity of the pump was 34 c.f.s. The Court concluded that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the record disclosed that the hydrographer who testified about the pump test stated: he did not consider himself an expert on pumps; his original estimate of the flow through the pump exceeded the pump's designed capacity; and, he admitted his estimate of the flow rate was "speculation." Id. The Court reversed the Board's decision and remanded with instructions for the Board to reduce GID's supplemental water right to 25 c.f.s. Id. at 951-52. In GID, the Court did not disturb the Board's basic factual findings - that the pump had been tested and it had a capacity of 34 c.f.s. - however, after a review of the entire record, we concluded that the evidence produced at the contested case hearing did not support the Board's ultimate conclusion.