Laserfiche WebLink
for recreational boating, the water court ignored important limitations in the definitions of <br />"diversion" and "beneficial use." <br />B. At Flows In Excess of 30 c.f.s.. Golden's Structures and Devices Do Not Control <br />Water in its Natural Course Or Location Within the Meaning of Section 37 -92- <br />103(7) and Therefore Do Not Constitute a Diversion under Section 37- 92- 103(71. <br />The Colorado Constitution states that "[t]he right to divert the unappropriated waters of <br />any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied." Colo. Const., art XVI, § 6. <br />However, the Court has held that a diversion in the conventional sense is not required to <br />appropriate water. City of Fort Collins v. City of Thornton, 8' )0 P.2d 915, 929 (Colo. 1992). <br />Instead, the Court held that controlling water in its natural course or location by a structure or <br />device can be a "diversion" within the meaning of section 37 -92- 103(4). To determine whether <br />Golden's structures and devices are a "diversion" within the meaning of section 37 -92- 103(4), it <br />is helpful to review the Fort Collins case. <br />In that case, the City of Fort Collins sought approval of a conditional water right for 55 <br />c.f.s. from Poudre River for "municipal purposes, including recreational, piscatorial, fishery, <br />wildlife, and other beneficial uses," along a designated segment of the Cache La Poudre River. <br />Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 919. After a number of objections were filed, Fort Collins amended its <br />application to specify two dams as the diversion structures: the Nature Dam and the Power Dam. <br />M. at 920. The water court found that the Nature Dam was a diversion because it removed water <br />from its channel and completely directed it into another channel. Id. at 921, 922, 931. However, <br />the water court found that the Power Dam was not a diversion, but a minimum stream flow, <br />because there way i�isufEcient evidence 'Lllcii t11 flc �� cf tl: :i', : ut t::c P�'., c: Dam was <br />controlled. Id. at 921, 932. <br />Reversing this last finding, this Court held that water can be appropriated either by <br />diverting water or by otherwise controlling water and that a diversion in the conventional sense <br />11 <br />