Laserfiche WebLink
ZZaan Sand & Gravel, 758 P.2d at 182, based principally upon the acts of the appropriator, Santa <br />Fe Trail Ranches, 990 P.2d at 53 n.9, and includes such recreational uses as kayaking through <br />boat chutes. Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 932.9 <br />3. The Water Court's Factual Finding of Reasonableness and Lack of Waste Are <br />Well Supported by the Evidence <br />i. The Water Rights Are Reasonable In Terms of the Beneficial Use Sought <br />There is no dispute that Breckenridge sought to develop a world class whitewater Park to <br />draw people to the Town during the non -ski season by attracting all levels of boaters and elite <br />events. (v.VII, p..57). At the highest water levels, the Park becomes available to the most <br />boaters. (v.VIII, p.38). The Park has had a significant impact on Breckenridge's non -ski season <br />economy, bringing in a conservatively estimated $1.1 million in its first year when only half of <br />the Park was constructed. (v.VII, p.170,1.18 -25). <br />In terms of the definition of "beneficial use," such an elite course is "the purpose for which <br />the appropriation is lawfully made" and the flows being sought are consistent with that use. § <br />37- 92- 103(4). By analogy, a ski resort may seek to become a premiere destination resort by <br />opening more slopes with greater snowmaking potential than a smaller resort, or a hydropower <br />plant may be designed to harness higher flows to maximize electricity. So long as the water is <br />being applied to beneficial use, such decisions are made by the appropriator even if it means a <br />greater water demand than a smaller project that generates less economic value. <br />In this instance, the Water Court's undisputed factual finding was that "the higher the <br />flows, the greater the course usage, and attendant economic benefit." Decree at 5. In other <br />9 Contrary to its current position, the CWCB has stipulated to in- channel boat chutes in the past. <br />(Littleton Decree, Trial Exhibit B -35); see also Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 920 -21 (statements of <br />opposition by the CWCB and the State Engineer were withdrawn). <br />Sb 1 546 -21 <br />