Laserfiche WebLink
flow rates sought for the intended recreational experience were nat speculative or wasteful, he <br />found no basis on which to further lirnit them. See Concerning.the Application for Water Ri ts <br />of Upper Gunnison River Water Canservancy District in Gunnisan County, Findings of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law and Order, p. 20 (December 26, 2003). <br />4. RICDs further the policv af maxi.mum utilization. <br />One of the reasons behind Colorado water law's prolubition against waste is its policy of <br />maximum utilization of its scarce water resources. All beneficial uses, including RICDs and <br />other non-consumptive in-channel uses, further efforts to achieve maxunum utilization. This <br />Court made this point when it affirmed that non-consumptive hydropower is a beneficial use and <br />that neither court precedent nor statute "set forth any different treatment for hydropower rights" <br />because of their nan-consumptive nature. Board of Countv Comm'rs of Ara.nahoe County v. <br />Crvstal Creek Homeowners Ass'n.,14 P.3d 325, 337 (Colo. 2000). Just because a beneficial use <br />is non-consumptive, it should nat be treated differently ar like a step-child within the water rights <br />administration system. <br />The policy of maximum utilizaiion was first articulated in Fellhauer v. Peonle, <br />167 Colo. 320, 336, 447 P. 2d 986, 994 (1968), and later in the 1959 Water Rights <br />Administration Act which facused on "maximizin.g the use of Colorado's limited water supply <br />for as many decreed uses as possible consistent with meeting the state's intersta.te delivery <br />obligatians under... equitable apportionment decrees and ... comgacts." Empire Lodge v_. <br />Meyers, 39 P.3d 1139, 1150 (Colo. 2001). The list of new uses that have evolved over the last <br />one hundred years includes both conswnptive and non-consumptive uses. See e. . Santa Fe <br />Ranches, 990 P.2d at 55 n.13. RICDs are the latest on the list of new uses recagnized by the <br />11