Laserfiche WebLink
Although that approach would be wasteful in terms of land use and finances, and would <br />unnecessarily degrade the environment, it would clearly address the State's "theory" on what it <br />takes to exercise control. Rather than go to such unnecessary extremes, Breckenridge followed <br />the express language of Section 103(7) and built the structures in the channel. In turn, the <br />structures control the water, generate income for the local community, do not pollute, and work <br />in tandem with other water rights, all without de- watering the stream. <br />iv. Control is Measured in the Context of the Intended Beneficial Use <br />Whether there is the requisite degree of in- channel control should be based on whether the <br />structures were constructed and operate to accomplish the intended beneficial use. That is the <br />essential under - pinning of Fort Collins. Do the structures function as designed? The State's <br />effort to narrowly construe Fort Collins as allowing only "safe passage" flows for boating is an <br />effort to re- characterize Breckenridge's intended beneficial use from recreation to safe passage. <br />Breckenridge constructed the Park to create a world class whitewater course and the structures <br />control the water to create such a course where one did not previously exist. <br />V. Water Does Not Continue to Flow as it Did Prior to the Park's Construction <br />The State attempts to undermine the Water Court's finding of control by arguing that the <br />water continues to flow through the Park "as it did prior to the placement of rocks in the stream. <br />State's Br. at 11 -12. The State's own witness stated that was not true. During cross- <br />examination, Alan Martellaro testified that the Park structures change the hydraulics of the <br />stream, deflect the flow in different directions, move water back and forth across the stream, <br />raise the water surface profile, and change the water's velocity. (v.IX, p.18,1.10 - p.19,1.1). He <br />conceded that this amounted to a diversion "from a physical standpoint." (v.IX, p.21,1.23 - p.22, <br />1.4). <br />Sb1546 -18- <br />