Laserfiche WebLink
A. The limits on beneficial use address the amount of water one may appropriate, <br />not the nature of the beneficial use itself. <br />The State and State Amici argue that Golden's non - consumptive use of water for in- <br />stream recreation is not a beneficial use of water under Colorado law. Effectively, they object to <br />Golden's decree because the amount of Golden's appropriation is too large, exceeding the <br />amount of water necessary for safe passage (the State), a reasonable recreational use (the <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD)), or beginner recreational boating (the <br />Rio Grande Water Conservation District, et al.). Opening Brief, p. 25; Amicus Curiae Brief of <br />CRWCD, et al., p. 6; Brief of Amici Curiae for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, et <br />al. (Water Congress Brief), p. 17. But the water court found that Golden's use was beneficial <br />and the quantity reasonable, a holding this Court should uphold. Decree [Concerning the <br />Application for Water Rights of the City of Golden], Case No. 98CW448, Water Div 1 <br />(hereinafter "Golden Decree," attached hereto as Appendix A), ¶¶ E.8 & E.9, pp. 6 -8. <br />At its core, this argument posits that the water court should have limited the use for <br />which Golden actually applied —water for a world - class, elite kayak course that needs relatively <br />high flows —to a lesser recreational use, requiring less water. This Court must reject their <br />argument because it confuses Colorado's various policies limiting the amount of water that an <br />appropriator may divert to beneficial use with a limitation on what constitutes a beneficial use, a <br />general limitation that Colorado does not have. See, Amici Curiae Brief of the Northwest <br />Colorado Council of Governments, et al., part IV.C.2 -4. <br />Colorado prohibits the wasting of water. §37 -92- 103(4), C.R.S. (2001). But, waste has <br />to do with diverting more water than is reasonable and appropriate to achieve the intended <br />beneficial use, and not with the use itself. As this Court has stated, "The holder of a water right <br />