Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> • <br /> less than 1,000 cfs in some months of the year as identified in the monthly chart <br /> in Tables 1 and 2, above. The testimony also demonstrated that the water <br /> diverted and controlled by the Course at these lower flows is also beneficially <br /> used for recreational purposes. Therefore, the Court further finds that all <br /> amounts less than 1,000 cfs are also put to beneficial use and are not wasted. <br /> 9. Reasonableness: The Court concludes that the amount of water claimed by <br /> Golden is reasonable to serve Golden's purposes in making the appropriation. <br /> "Beneficial use" is "the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and <br /> appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the <br /> purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made." C.R.S. § 37 -92- 103(4). <br /> The question, therefore, is not whether the amount of water claimed is <br /> "reasonable" in the abstract, or as compared to other potential future uses of the <br /> water, but whether the amount claimed is reasonable for the purposes for which <br /> Golden made the appropriation. When tested against Golden's purposes <br /> explained in Paragraph 8 above, the Court concludes that the 1,000 cfs claimed <br /> by Golden in May, June and July, and the lesser amounts claimed in the other <br /> months of the year, are reasonable. <br /> Although not required to consider other potential uses of water in <br /> quantifying a water right under the beneficial use statute, the Court notes that the <br /> rights at issue are non - consumptive, and the water claimed is always available for <br /> all downstream uses. In a dry water year, 100% of the water claimed for the <br /> Course is already subject to a downstream senior call. In an average water year, <br /> approximately 84% of the water that passes through the Golden Course is subject <br /> to such a call. Thus, in an average water year, only 16% of the water claimed by <br /> Golden is not already subject to a downstream, senior call. The Court also has on <br /> file settlement stipulations between Golden and upstream water users. These <br /> various agreements subordinate up to 41 cfs of the Golden Course water rights to <br /> future exchanges for the benefit of future upstream uses. This amounts to <br /> approximately two- thirds of the water claimed by Golden in an average year that <br /> is not already subject to a downstream senior call. The Court also notes that <br /> Golden has agreed to provide 125 of of fully consumable dry year augmentation <br /> water that will meet Clear Creek County's projected full build out requirements. <br /> The foregoing further confirms the reasonableness of Golden's appropriation. <br /> . The Court further finds that the testimony of the State's expert witness, <br /> Dr. Shelby, does not assist the Court in rendering the decisions on "beneficial <br /> use" and "reasonableness" that must be made in the context of the Colorado <br /> appropriation doctrine. Water rights in Colorado are quantified according to the <br /> amount of water that is reasonable to serve the appropriator's intended beneficial <br /> use. Dr. Shelby did not take into account the intent of the appropriator, the City <br /> of Golden. On this point, Dr. Shelby did not consider one of the major elements <br /> of his own methodology; namely, the decision environment, which in this <br /> instance is the law in Colorado on the appropriation of water. Instead, his <br /> opinions were based on a survey of a small group of Course users. The survey <br /> Page 7 of 11 <br />