Recreation Water Rights - "The Inside Story"

Home Browse Search

Recreational In- Channel Diversions (RICDs) Glenn E. Porzark, Esq. recreation is an acknowledged beneficial use of water under Colorado water law, and that there was no basis for treating this beneficial use any differently than any other type of water right appropriation. It urged the Court to explicitly acknowledge that recreation is a use of water co -equal with any other beneficial use. Golden argued its water right met the same requirements as any other water right: diversion pursuant to statute, beneficial use at amounts claimed, and amounts claimed are reasonable. It repeated again the weight of supporting evidence for each of these elements at trial and affirmed by the water court in its decision. It urged the Court to reject the State's attempt to assert authority not found in law to reduce appropriations for the benefit of undetermined future appropriations. Golden pointed to the demonstrated economic benefits generated by the use, by the wide range of users who enjoy the whitewater course, by the use of the course for elite competitions, by the widespread recognition of the course as one of the best in the country, and by the Water Court's finding that there was no waste associated with the use. Golden emphasized the importance of considering the appropriator's intent when evaluating reasonableness, and pointed to the City's well - documented desire to have a world -class facility. Golden then turned to the matter of diversion and control and pointed out previous Supreme Court decisions rejecting the State's theory that water must be diverted out of the channel. Golden noted the abundant evidence at trial establishing the highly engineered nature of the structures, their design to work best at 1,000 cfs, and their effectiveness at creating features that produced the desired recreation experience. The best evidence of all, Golden argued, was the thousands of documented users who had been coming to the course with their boats and the many others who had been watching and enjoying these uses. Crowds of people don't come to a river to watch it flow in its normal channel. To counter the State's claim that Golden should be limited to the minimum amount to float a boat, Golden pointed out that people do not come to Colorado to ski our minimum slopes, to climb our minimum sized mountains, or to experience the State's minimum beauty. Cities are not limited to irrigating minimum size parks or lawns, and farmers are not restricted to growing the least consuming crops. Likewise, Golden did not build a minimum whitewater course, nor was it required to. Colorado water law encourages users to be efficient, but efficiency is framed by the context of the desired beneficial use. Colorado leaves the matter of that use to the appropriator to determine, not state agencies. On March 14, 2003, the Clerk of the Supreme Court notified the parties that the Justices had determined not to reach a decision until after they heard oral arguments in the State's appeal of water right decrees issued by the District Court for Water Division No. 5 for the boating parks in Vail and Breckenridge. V. Extending the Recreation Water Right: Vail and Breckenridge. CLE INTERNATIONAL ■ PAGE K -16 0 COLORADO WATER LAW