Laserfiche WebLink
C.R.S. § 37-92-103(10.3). The legislature did not, however, describe or limit what might be a <br />"reasonable recre,3tion experience." What may be reasona.ble is based on the type of recreational <br />activity intended 'by the appropriator. As is the case with any water right, the a;mount of water <br />required for the F:ICD, and how and when it will be used turn on the purpose of the <br />appropriation. Se:e e.g., Santa Fe Ranches, 990 P.2d at 56 (degree of use historically made of <br />manufacturing ri€;hts turns on the requirements of the particular enterprise.) 'T'}ie decision <br />whether to constcuct a world-class kayak course, an inner tube float feature or roddlers' wading <br />pool has been left to the discretion of the governmental entity constructing the RICD structures <br />as it responds to the requirements, values and financial resources of the public. The type and <br />degree of a"reasDnable recreational experience" for a toddler differs enormou;dy from tha.t <br />which would be reasonable for a world-class kayaker. <br />The defir.ation of a reasonable recreation experience adopted in the CVUCB Rules <br />underscores that what may be reasonable depends completely upon the type oiE rerreational <br />experience inten3ed by the appropriator: <br />Reasonable Recreation Experience. Means an experience in and on tYie water that <br />would a11ow individuals with suitable skills and abilities relating to the specific <br />recreatio:nal activity for which the water right is being sought to partake in that <br />activity. 2 CCR 408-3, Rule 4(0). <br />Thus, the concept o£"reasonable" is deternuned by the nature of the specific i-ecreational activity <br />intended by the local government. In the proceedings below, there was amplf; evndence of the <br />intended recreation experience sought, the design parameters of the Upper Gunnison River <br />Water Conservancy District's whitewater pazk, and the water flows required to cr.eate the <br />recreational experience sought. Accordingly, Judge Patrick properly refused to second-guess the <br />Ievel of recreatic)nal experience intended by the applicant. Since Judge Patric;k found that the <br />10