Laserfiche WebLink
exchange potential in Colorado streams, and use consumptive use entitlements under interstate <br />compact agreements. The above - referenced entities have sought to participate in this case as amici <br />curiae to urge that recreational in- channel water rights be carefully limited so as to ensure maximum <br />beneficial use of the waters of Colorado. <br />III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. <br />The Water Court found that the City of Golden's ( "Golden's ") white water course <br />"controlled" water in a manner constituting a diversion under § 37 -92- 103(7), 10 C.R.S. (2001) <br />based on this Court's opinion in City of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1992). <br />In that case, however, the in- channel diversion structure concentrated the flow of water at low river <br />flows in order to allow boats and fish to pass over an existing dam. The Court noted that such uses <br />were beneficial uses under the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969. <br />Golden's structures serve to enable boat passage at minimum flows up to 30 cubic feet per second <br />( "cfs "), yet Golden has claimed the appropriation of flows up to 1,000 cfs, an amount equal to nearly <br />the entire flow of the river. <br />The Water Court's ruling herein is an unjustified expansion of the Fort Collins holding. The <br />structures in question do not control water for a beneficial use at flows above 30 cfs. To uphold the <br />Water Court's ruling would set a dangerous precedent that would have extremely detrimental <br />impacts on the ability of Colorado water users to use Colorado's interstate water compact <br />3 <br />