Laserfiche WebLink
s <br />Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />location under section 37-92-103(7). ... That the chute and the <br />ladder function as designed means that the water can be controlled <br />such as to be put to recreational and wildlife uses, both beneficial uses <br />under the Act." Id. at 932. <br />By focusing on the intended purposes of boat chutes and fish ladders, as well as on whether <br />they functioned as designed, the Supreme Court analyzed Fort Collins' in-channel water rights claixns <br />under traditional notions of beneficial use - notions which emphasize the appropriator's intent. See, <br />e.g., Santa Fe Ranches Property Owners Assoc. v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 54 n. 9(Colo. 1999) (... <br />what constitutes a beneficialuse traclcs legislative enactments, court decisions, and, principally, the <br />acts of appropriators who control the water to their purpose") (emphasis added). Fort Collins <br />confirn.7ed that it vvas possible to have a recreational in-channel water right and that the appropriator's <br />intended purpose was an integral part of detennining the parameters of the water right. <br />After Fort Collins, an application was filed by the City of Golden to confirm water rights for <br />a recreational whitewater course. Application of Ciry of Golden, Case No. 98CW448, W.D. 1. <br />Concerns were voiced by "traditional water user groups" about impacts that this "new" water right <br />could have on "traditional" water rights and on Colorado's interstate river compact entitlements. By <br />the time of the legislative hearings that led to the passage of SB 216, the most prominent issues <br />concei-ned potential claims to use the entire available amount of stream flow for recreational in- <br />-3-