Laserfiche WebLink
the appropriator is limited to the "minimum stream flow" necessary for a "reasonable <br />recreation experience" with consideration of the "maximum utilization" of the water. §§ 37- <br />92- 103(10.3) &37- 92- 102(6)(b)(V). Similarly, the amount of water granted in Fort Collins <br />was appropriately limited to low flows only (a reasonable amount of 30 c.f.s.). Likewise, <br />this Court must impose some limits on Appellee's water right if the Court upholds the <br />existence of the water right. <br />All water rights are limited to a reasonable and appropriate amount. § 37 -92- <br />103(4). The water user is required to use the water efficiently, and without waste in order to <br />ensure maximum utilization and prevent "unrealistically high" use of this scarce resource. <br />§ 37 -92- 103(4); Consolidated Home-Supply v. Berthoud, 896 P.2d 260, 271 (Colo. 1995). <br />Water courts had never applied these long - standing legal concepts and definitions to <br />recreational instream flows until Golden, Breckenridge and this case. Accordingly, the water <br />courts have applied differing definitions of these concepts, resulting in subjective, <br />inconsistent legal standards that encourage maximum desire instead of maximum utilization <br />and "encourage those with vast monetary resources to monopolize, for personal profit rather <br />than beneficial use, whatever unappropriated water remains." Colorado River Water <br />Conservancy District v. Vidler Tunnel Water Co., 594 P.2d 566 (Colo. 1979). <br />The absence of a diversion means there were no traditional physical limits on the <br />amount of water that could be appropriated for recreational instream flows. Thus, all of the <br />applicants in Golden, Eagle and here requested whatever unappropriated water remained - <br />11 <br />