Laserfiche WebLink
amount of water below that required to create whitewater features was wasted because that <br />amount does not meet or is beyond the intended use. (v. VI, p. 1171). Thus, the water court <br />rejected the Applicant's claim for months the months of April, September and October because <br />the amounts requested were below 100 c.f.s., the point at which whitewater, features are formed. <br />In contrast, the water court in Division 1 in Golden did not hold that the water below that <br />amount necessary to create whitewater features was wasted. One of these holdings is in error <br />and, thus, this Court must decide where waste occurs. <br />D. This Court must provide a uniform definition of the <br />reasonableness of the times and months of use for <br />recreational instream uses. <br />Again, because recreational instream flow water rights never existed before SB 216, the <br />water court had no guidance on whether to place limits on the time of day or months that the <br />Applicant may call the water. A water appropriator must take a reasonable and appropriate <br />amount of water, must use "reasonably efficient practices" to accomplish its purpose, and must <br />not waste water. Arapahoe, 891 P.2d at 962. Thus, this Court must determine whether it was <br />reasonable for the water court to grant a water right for virtually all the water in the stream for <br />recreational uses during all 24 hours and during off - season months when the Course is not used. <br />Further, because the decree from the Division 1 water court ( Golden ) is in conflict with <br />the decrees from the Division 5 water court (in this case and the Vail case) on this issue, this <br />Court must determine whether continually calling a water right 24 hours a day is a reasonable <br />use. The Division 1 water court held that there is a substantial difference in recreational uses <br />before and after dark, and limited that appropriation to the actual diurnal and monthly use "at <br />d1 <br />