Laserfiche WebLink
necessary. However, beneficial use is a question of fact and depends upon the circumstances in <br />each case; thus, "courts have not tried to precisely define a reasonable amount." James N. <br />Corbridge & Teresa A. Rice, Vranesh's Colorado Water Law 47 (Rev. ed. 1999). Likewise, a <br />determination of "efficiency of use is made in each adjudication." Id. at 51. By examining the <br />extensive uncontested evidence, the Water Court made clear findings regarding the <br />reasonableness and efficiency of Breckenridge's application and concluded: <br />When tested against the Town of Breckenridge's purposes and the downstream reuses of <br />this non consumptive water right as explained in paragraph 4H above, as well as the <br />efficiency of the diversion detailed in paragraph 4G above, the Court concludes that the 500 <br />c.f.s. claimed by the Town of Breckenridge in June, and the lesser amounts claimed in other <br />months as set forth in paragraph 4F are reasonable and there is not waste. <br />Decree at 6. <br />iv. Denying or Minimizing an Appropriation to Preserve Water for Future Use <br />Based Upon Policy Concerns Is a Concept Long Ago Rejected by This Court <br />The State argues that the doctrine of maximum utilization should limit recreational water <br />rights to a minimum amount of water. There is simply no legal precedent in Colorado to <br />accomplish that objective. Such a limitation would be contrary to the constitutional right to <br />appropriate, see Colo. Const. art. XVI, § 6, and is a policy argument not recognized by Colorado <br />law. The only legal theory that provides for denying an appropriation to preserve water for <br />future uses is the public trust doctrine. This Court has repeatedly rejected the application of that <br />doctrine to Colorado water rights." <br />' 1 "Conceptually, a public interest theory is in conflict with the doctrine of prior appropriation <br />because a water court cannot, in the absence of statutory authority, deny a legitimate <br />appropriation based on public policy." Bd. of County Comm'rs v. United States, 891 P.2d 952, <br />972 (Colo. 1995); see also Aspen Wilderness Workshop v. Colo. Water Conserv. Bd., 901 P.2d <br />1251, 1263 (Colo. 1995) Q. Mullarkey, dissenting) ( "This court has never recognized the public <br />trust doctrine with respect to water "); People v. Emmert, 597 P.2d 1025, 1027 (Colo. 1979). <br />Sb1546 -25- <br />