My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 10:27:38 AM
Creation date
7/12/2012 4:20:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
State
CO
Date
2/7/2002
Author
Robbins, David W.; Montfomery, Dennis M.; Wells, Patricia L.; Lawrence, Kim R.; Maynes, Frank E.; Dingess, John M.; Miller, Lee E.
Title
Case No. 01SA252 Brief of Amici Curiae February 2002
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
In addition, the amounts claimed by Golden and awarded by the water court are not <br />beneficial under section 37- 92- 103(4), 10 C.R.S. (2001). "Beneficial use" is defined in section <br />37 -92- 103(4) as the use of that amount of water that is (a) reasonable and appropriate (b) under <br />reasonably efficient practices (c) to accomplish the purpose for which the appropriation is <br />lawfully made (d) without waste. The purpose for which Golden lawfully made the <br />appropriation is recreational boating, which can be accomplished under reasonably efficient <br />practices and without waste at much smaller flows than claimed by Golden and awarded by the <br />water court. Golden is not entitled to command the entire flow of Clear Creek or a substantial <br />portion thereof for elite whitewater competitions simply because it derives substantial economic <br />benefit from such competitions. <br />In considering whether the amounts claimed by Golden and awarded by the water court <br />are beneficial, the Court should consider whether Golden's claim is for an amount of water that <br />is reasonable and appropriate under the prior appropriation doctrine, which was intended to make <br />water available for beneficial uses. Recognizing a claim for recreational boating that is <br />unreasonable and inappropriate will deprive the people of the state of Colorado of their right, <br />guaranteed by the Colorado Constitution, to divert the unappropriated waters of natural streams <br />to beneficial uses and to make changes in water rights and exchanges to maximize the beneficial <br />use of wafers of the slate. <br />N. Argument ment - <br />A. Limitations in the Definitions of "Diversion" and "Beneficial Use" Must Be <br />Carefully Observed Since Instream Flows for Recreational Boating Could <br />Deprive the People of the State of Colorado of the Beneficial Use of Waters to <br />Which the State of Colorado is Equitably Entitled. <br />In granting a water right to Golden for recreational boating in the channel of Clear Creek, <br />the Water Court for Water Division No. 1 ignored important and carefully crafted limitations in <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.