Laserfiche WebLink
amount of water below that required to create whitewater features was wasted because that <br />amount does not meet the intended use.13 In contrast, the Division 1 water court in Golden <br />did not hold that the water below that amount necessary to create whitewater features was <br />wasted. These inconsistent rulings concern the legal definition of waste and are not mere <br />"factual differences" as the Appellee asserts. (AB, p. 20). Because there are two definitions <br />of "waste;" one of these holdings is in error. Thus, this Court must determine.what <br />constitutes "waste" for purposes of recreational instream flows. <br />The water courts also had no legal guidance on whether to place limits on the time of <br />day or the months that the Applicant may call for water. Thus, the Division 1 water court in <br />Golden and the Division 5 water court differ in the interpretation of reasonableness with <br />regard to times. Here, the court allowed a call on virtually all of the stream's water -24 hours <br />a day, while the Division 1 water court held that there is a substantial difference in <br />recreational uses before and after dark, and limited that appropriation to the actual diurnal <br />and monthly use "at given points of time." (v. )U, pp. 79, 95 -96); Golden Decree, Exhibit F <br />attached to Opening Brief, p. 4). Further, the decree from the Division 5 water court in the <br />Breckenridge case limited the months of use based upon waste, while the Division 1 water <br />court imposed no limits on the months of use. (Id.). <br />Even if the Court reverses the water court and disapproves of Appellee's decree, as <br />the State requests, this Court should still provide guidance on the definitions of <br />"similarly, in the Gunnison case, the water right was limited to times when the flows are <br />above 250 c.f.s. (Exhibit 3). <br />13 <br />