Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Consei-vancy District <br />02CW038 <br />To limit recreational in-channel water rights to the "minimum flow for a reasonable recreation <br />experience" a;; the CWCB has done is too narrow, and, as previously discussed, flies in the face of <br />traditional Co::orado water rights law.18 In accordance with the definition of"beneficial. use", the flow <br />rates decreed should be reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish <br />the intended purpose of the appropriation, which in tYus case is broader than simply "aittracting many <br />experienced boaters." As the evidence showed, the County authorized the design oj"a course that <br />would be a recreational amenity for the community, that would attract tourists, that would be suitable <br />for competiticns, and that would provide a recreationalboating classroomfor Western State College. <br />Such a course was designed and there is a specific plan, intent, and ability to fully construct it. The <br />District deterrcuned a reasonable and appropriate amount of water: by considering the- range of flow <br />rates at which the course was designed to function (the design parameters), by analyzing the amount <br />of flow availa.ble for appropriation, by examining the impacts that different flows inight have on <br />upstream wab;r users, and by considering input from the boating commuxuty. The varying flow rates <br />claimed in the application are all less than the maximum amount of 2000 cfs at which i;he course was <br />18 It flies generally in the face of the prior appropriation doctrine, whetrLer in <br />Colorado or other westem states. "So far as I am aware, it has never been held or contended that <br />in making an appropriation of water from a natural stream the appropriator is limited in the right <br />he can acquiri; to his minimum needs". Caldwell v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land <4c Water Co., <br />225 F. 584, 596 (D. Idaho 1915). <br />-18-