Laserfiche WebLink
is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the. <br />purpose for which the appropriation is being made. Golden failed to meet these criteria. <br />B. GOLDEN FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE "CONTROL" OF THE WATER. <br />There is very little guidance to be found in the law concerning what constitutes the "control <br />of water in its natural course or location." The Fort Collins decision is, in fact, the only case <br />specifically addressing this concept in the context of the above - referenced statutory provisions. <br />In the present case, the Water Court confirmed absolute water rights for flows up to 840 cfs <br />based on the coincidence of peak instantaneous flows and the use of the subject whitewater course <br />by boaters. Conditional rights were also confirmed for flows up to 1,000 cfs throughout the year. <br />Based on stream gage data from the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, the claimed flow rates constitute <br />all of the available flow in the river. See Water Court Decree at page 5. Nevertheless, relying upon <br />the Fort Collins decision, supra, the water court found that the structures in question "control, <br />concentrate and direct the flow of water" at the claimed amounts and therefore constitute a diversion <br />for purposes of § 37 -92- 103(7), 10 C.R.S.(2001).1 Water Court Decree at page 6. <br />' The Water Court held that minimum control occurs at 20 cfs, while whitewater features <br />begin to develop at 200 cfs. Water Court Decree at page 6. The Water Court further found that <br />structures 2 through 7 would not be overtopped at 1,000 cfs and that "the flow rate, above which <br />the Course's structures are inundated to the point that they no longer create detectable whitewater <br />features, has not been established..." Water Court Decree at page 5. <br />CADATATifheAGolden Appeaffull Biief 2 -7 -02 glmwpd <br />February 7, 2002 (1:30pm) 6 <br />