Laserfiche WebLink
divert water into a canal for irrigation. The dam reduced the current of the river at Schodde's water <br />wheels so as to make the wheels ineffective. Schodde brought suit. The Supreme Court upheld the <br />lower courts' determination that the means of diversion by a water wheel was not reasonable because <br />it required the appropriation of the entire flow of the river in order to effect Schodde's taking of the <br />portion used for irrigation. Id. at 119. In other words, such use was not an efficient means of <br />diversion, and thus was not reasonable. Id. <br />In the instant case, the Water Court made no objective determination of the efficiency of <br />Golden's means of diversion and application of the claimed flow rates for the intended purpose. <br />Rather, the Water Court found that the claimed flow rates of 1,000 cfs were reasonable because <br />Golden "intended" to design a whitewater course to utilize flows of 1,000 cfs. Water Court decree <br />at pages 5, 6 and 7. Other surface diverters are not allowed to appropriate river flows based merely <br />on their intent. For example, the farmer who would like to divert an excessive amount of water for . <br />irrigation will nevertheless be limited to an objective determination of the amount of water that is <br />reasonable and appropriate based on reasonably efficient irrigation practices. Golden should be held <br />to the same standard and be made to demonstrate that the whitewater course, as designed, is a <br />reasonably efficient means of accomplishing the intended recreational use, as required by § 37 -92- <br />103(3), 10 C.R.S. (2001). <br />C:\DATA\Pifher \Golden Appeal\FuR Brief 2 -7 -02 ghnwpd 16 <br />February 7, 2002 (1:30pm) <br />