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
the river, he would have been able to accomplish the purpose for which the appropriation was <br />made. Schodde, 224 U.S. at 125 -26. Similarly,,not all of the water in Clear Creek claimed by <br />Golden is necessary for the purpose of recreational boating, which can be accomplished with a <br />much smaller amount of water than the flows claimed by Golden and awarded by the water <br />court, particularly in May through July. The large amount of water claimed by Golden to create <br />whitewater features for intermediate to advanced whitewater kayaking and elite competitions is <br />not the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient <br />practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation may be lawfully <br />made, namely, recreational boating. <br />There is also a similarity between Cascade Town Company's claim and Golden's claim. <br />The Court in Empire found that the amount of Water claimed by the Cascade Town Company <br />was not an amount that was reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to <br />apply water to the vegetation because it took the entire flow of Cascade Creek to create the mist <br />applied to the surrounding vegetation. 205 F.2d at 129. Similarly, the amount of water required <br />for elite kayak competitions is not reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient <br />practices to accomplish the purpose of recreational boating. The fact that the amount of water <br />may be reasonable to accomplish the purpose that Golden intended, i.e., elite whitewater kayak <br />competitions, and that Golden derives substantial economic benefit from the kayak course are <br />not the proper tests of beneficial use under section 37- 92- 103.(4). The flow of the Snake River <br />may have been reasonable to accomplish the purpose that Schodde intended, but the critical issue <br />was whether the amount of water claimed by Schodde was reasonable and appropriate under <br />reasonably efficient practices to accomplish the purpose for which the appropriation was <br />lawfully made. Likewise, the Cascade Town Company derived substantial economic benefit <br />:, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.