Laserfiche WebLink
v. Cascade Town Co., 205 F. 123, 129 (8th Cir. 1913); City of Colorado Springs v. Bender, 148 <br />Colo. 458, 462, 366 P.2d 552, 555 (1961). We first review these cases, then discuss Golden's <br />claim. <br />In Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co., Schodde diverted water from the Snake <br />River to his fields by means of a water wheel. 224 U.S. at 114. Subsequent to Schodde's <br />diversion, a downstream user constructed a dam across the stream in order to divert water into an <br />irrigation ditch system servicing numerous users. The dam reduced the velocity of the flow of <br />water at Schodde's diversion point, preventing Schodde's water wheel from moving. Id. at 115- <br />16. While the court recognized that Schodde was applying water to a beneficial use, it reasoned <br />that there was no right to the current of the water that would render the unappropriated waters of <br />the Snake River unavailable to other potential beneficial uses. Id. at 117. Sufficient flow was a <br />riparian right, not a reasonable attribute of an appropriation; thus there is no place in an <br />appropriation system for appropriating current of a river. Id. at 118. <br />In Empire Water & Power Co. v. Cascade Town Co., the Cascade Town Company built a <br />resort area at the base of a series of waterfalls on Cascade Creek. 205 F.2d at 124 -25. The mist <br />off the falls created extraordinary vegetation, wildlife habitat, and other natural features, <br />supporting a thriving tourist resort. Id at 125. The Empire Water & Power Co. ( "Empire <br />Power ") planned to build a dam above the falls with a return flow point below the falls Id. The <br />Cascade Town Company claimed that Empire Power's dam would diminish river flows and end <br />the mist that created the vegetation and other natural features that were a critical component of <br />the resort as an attraction and amenity. Id. at 125. While the court recognized that the Cascade <br />Town Company had demonstrated intent to appropriate through its improvements to the resort <br />area, the court found that the Cascade Town Company's claim involved much waste. Water that <br />16 <br />