Laserfiche WebLink
concentrating the claimed amounts through boat chutes designed into the structures. On <br />reasonableness of the claimed flows, the evidence was uncontested that the higher the flows, the <br />greater the beneficial use, and the greater the economic benefit. Moreover, given the Park's <br />location, virtually all of the water is already being called for and diverted downstream by senior <br />water rights. The District simply added a new, non-consumptive beneficial use on to that water, <br />while protecting its investment from upstream exchanges that could de -water the Park. <br />The underlying premise of the opposition is that the District was decreed too much water <br />for recreation and such rights should be limited to preserve water for speculative consumptive <br />uses that may arise in the future. Contrary to these arguments, there is no legal precedent for <br />treating recreational use as a second class water right. No other water right is limited in quantity, <br />when such a limit will restrict its beneficial use and economic value. Colorado has never <br />embraced the theory that the beneficial use of a present water right should be denied or limited to <br />leave water for future use, a concept particularly inapplicable given the use is non - consumptive. <br />Appellants' policy concerns are not applicable to the facts of this case and, in any event, <br />were already addressed by the General Assembly in adopting Senate Bill 01 -216 ( "SB 216 ") <br />The General Assembly rejected the Bill as proposed by the CWCB. Instead, the modified SB <br />216 acknowledges and reconfirms such water rights while structuring the Water Court's <br />considerations and creating a procedure for CWCB comment. SB 216 is applicable to all future <br />water right applications for so- called recreational in- channel diversions ( "RICDs "), but the <br />Legislature refused to impose the new law upon applications already pending, including the <br />District's application. <br />With respect to Northern's argument that the District lacks the legal authority to obtain the <br />subject water rights, the Water Court found that the Special District Act provides that authority. <br />Sb 1549 -7- <br />