Laserfiche WebLink
The above conclusions are in accordance with the principle known as the "duty of water," <br />a concept long recognized by this Court. As stated in Farmers Highline Canal & Reservoir Compan y <br />v. City of Golden, 129 Colo. 575, 272 P.2d 629, 634 (1954), "[the duty of water] is that measure of <br />water, which by careful management and use, without wastage, is reasonably required" for the <br />identified use. It is "not a hard and fast unit of measurement," but must be adapted to the site <br />specific conditions. Id. The "duty of water" principle is specifically reflected in the definition of <br />beneficial use as discussed above. See § 37 -92- 103(3) and (4), 10 C.R.S. (2001). However, the <br />Water Court failed to define the duty of water for recreational in- channel diversions of this nature. <br />Instead, it simply held that because recreationists had used the course at the design capacity of 1,000 <br />cfs, Golden was entitled to an appropriation in that amount. "Intent," rather than reasonable use <br />without waste, became the test and critical questions regarding the duty of water remained <br />unanswered. By way of example, the decree as entered does not even discuss whether such a <br />recreational boating right is capable of calling when no one is engaged in the recreational use.10 <br />Certainly this would not constitute careful management of the water and would serve to perpetually <br />"tie up" large quantities of flow without any accompanying "beneficial use." This is an intolerable <br />situation that must be rectified. <br />" In fact, is use by only one person during the course of an hour, or a day, or a week all <br />that is necessary to effectuate a call in the full decreed amount, or would this be a wasteful use of <br />the resource? <br />CADATATifher \Golden AppeahFull Brief 2 -7 -02 ghnwpd 1 g <br />Febiaa y 7, 2002 (1:30pm) <br />